Allahabad High Court
PRAMOD KUMARversusU.P. JAL NIGAM THEOUGH MANAGING DIRECTOR U.P. JAL NIGAM AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court did not adjudicate the merits but allowed the petitioner to file fresh representation and directed Respondent No. 4 to decide it within six weeks.
Summary
Petitioner Pramod Kumar filed a writ petition against U.P. Jal Nigam and others seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to release a balance amount, including an amount withheld as security, with interest. The petitioner also requested permission to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 4 and sought a court order that the representation be decided within a stipulated period. Respondents contended that any representation filed would be considered and decided at the earliest. The Court, after hearing counsel, granted the petitioner liberty to move fresh representation within two weeks and directed Respondent No. 4 to decide the representation within six weeks, emphasizing that the merits of the underlying claim were not adjudicated. The order thus disposes of the writ petition without deciding the substantive issue of the balance amount.
Issues considered
- Whether the Court can issue a mandamus directing the release of the balance amount and security with interest.
- Whether the petitioner may be permitted to file a fresh representation before Respondent No. 4.
- Whether the Court can impose a time‑limit on Respondent No. 4 to decide the representation.
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- representation
- administrative law
- U.P. Jal Nigam
- time limit
- balance amount
- security
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17338 of 2026
Pramod Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
U.P. Jal Nigam Theough Managing Director U.P.
Jal Nigam And 4 Others .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Pradeep Kumar Srivastav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Pranav Mishra
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranav Mishra, learned
counsel for respondents.
2. Present petition has been filed seeking following relief:-
"a). Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and
directing to respondent nos. 2 to 4 to release the balance amount including the amount
withheld under the head of security with interest."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner may be
permitted to move fresh representation before respondent No. 4. Lastly, it is
submitted that a direction may be issued to respondent No. 4 to decide the
representation within a stipulated time.
4. Sri Pranav Mishra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that in case
any such representation is filed, the same shall be considered and decided at
the earliest.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the writ petition is
disposed of with liberty to petitioner to move fresh representation along
with certified copy of this order before respondent No. 4 within two weeks
from today. In case any such representation is filed, respondent No. 4 is
directed to decide the same in accordance with law maximum within a
period of six weeks thereafter.
WRIC No. 17338 of 2026
2
6. It is made clear that this Court has not adjudicated the case on merits. It is
upon respondent No. 4 to pass order after considering the relevant Rules as
well as facts of the case.
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
May 5, 2026
Sartaj
Digitally signed by :-
SARTAJ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…