Allahabad High Court
PRABHUNATH PRASADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 12 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court held that the petitioner must first avail the alternative remedy under Rule 225(F) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016, and therefore the writ petition was not entertained.
Summary
Petitioner Prabhunath Prasad filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the respondent to call records of two cases and decide them based on an earlier decree and a consolidation order. The respondent raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner has an alternative remedy under Rule 225(F) of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for consolidation of proceedings. The Court held that it would not interfere with the petition as the alternative statutory remedy is available. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioner to pursue the appropriate application under the said rule. No substantive merits of the petition were examined.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy for a petitioner seeking consolidation of multiple cases under the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016?
- Whether the High Court can entertain a writ petition for mandamus when an alternative statutory remedy exists?
Legislation cited
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016 — s. Rule 225(F)
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- consolidation of cases
- alternative remedy
- Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17584 of 2026
Prabhunath Prasad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 12 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anand Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. This petition has been filed for the following relief:-
"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the direct
the respondent no. 3 call the record of both the cases i.e. 311 of 2024 (Prabhunath
Prasad versus Bhrigunath Prasad) and case no. 13 of 2025 (Vinod Narayan versus
Rajesh Chandra and others).
B. issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the direct
the respondent no. 3 to decide the case on the ground of initial decree dated 2.11.2024
and further direct the application of the consolidated of both the case dated 29.1.2026
has been decided in proper manner."
2. A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Standing Counsel that petitioner
has alternative remedy of filing an application under Rule 225 (F) of Uttar Pradesh
Revenue Code Rules, 2016 for consolidation of proceedings.
3. In view of above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move
an appropriate application under Rule 225 (F) of Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules,
2016.
May 6, 2026
Nitika Sri.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…