Allahabad High Court
RAKESH DAS AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed as not pressed due to inordinate delay and vague pleadings.
Summary
Petitioners Rakesh Das and another filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the State respondents to act on a representation dated 18 January 2026 and to pay compensation. The State respondents objected, arguing that the petition was based on vague pleadings, was stale, and suffered inordinate delay, invoking principles of laches. They relied on the Supreme Court decision in Syed Maqbool Ali v. State of U.P. (2011) 4 SCR 238 and a prior Allahabad High Court judgment (Writ‑C No. 12698 of 2025). The Court examined the maintainability of the petition and found it to be unpressed due to the delay and inadequacy of the pleadings. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as not pressed.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite alleged vague pleadings and delay
- Whether the doctrine of laches bars the Court's jurisdiction to entertain the petition
- Whether the petitioner's representation dated 18‑01‑2026 can be acted upon through a writ of mandamus
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- mandamus
- delay
- laches
- maintainability
- representation
- compensation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17517 of 2026
Rakesh Das And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anup Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Shri Anup Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents.
2. This writ petition has been filed praying inter alia for the following
relief:
"i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to take prompt action on the representation
of petitioners' dated 18.1.2026 and pay compensation to the petitioners
forthwith.
ii) issue /or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper.
iii) Award cost of the writ petition to the petitioners."
3. At the outset, Shri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State-respondents, has raised an objection regarding the
maintainability of the writ petition, submitting that the same has been
preferred on vague and evasive pleadings, merely on the basis of a
questionnaire of the year 2002. He submits that a stale and belated claim
cannot be entertained under writ jurisdiction. In support of his
submission, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble
WRIC No. 17517 of 2026
2
Apex Court in Syed Maqbool Ali vs. State of U.P. and Another, (2011) 4
SCR 238, as well as the judgment of this Court in Writ-C No. 12698
of 2025 (Dalip Singh and 4 Others vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others). It is,
thus, submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of inordinate delay and laches.
4. Confronted with the aforesaid objection, learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that the instant writ petition may be dismissed as not
pressed.
5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 5, 2026
NLY
Digitally signed by :-
NAND LAL YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…