Allahabad High Court
DIGVIJAY SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed as not pressed because the petitioner is not the aggrieved party and the petition is a PIL.
Summary
The petitioner, Digvijay Singh, filed a writ petition (Writ‑C No. 17684 of 2026) before the Allahabad High Court challenging actions of the State of Uttar Pradesh and two other respondents. The respondent’s counsel, Ms. Vatsala, contended that the petitioner was not the aggrieved party and that the petition was in the nature of a public‑interest litigation (PIL), rendering it non‑maintainable. The petitioner’s counsel, Amar Nath Tiwari, agreed that the petition could be dismissed for lack of proper standing. The Court examined the issue of maintainability and the requirement of a personal aggrieved interest for a writ petition. It held that the petition was not pressed and therefore could not proceed. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, with the Court noting that the petitioner remains free to approach a competent forum where no permission is required.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition filed by Digvijay Singh is maintainable given that he is not the aggrieved party and the petition is in the nature of a public‑interest litigation.
Subjects
- public interest litigation
- maintainability
- standing
- writ petition
- dismissal
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17684 of 2026
Digvijay Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Amar Nath Tiwari, Rishi Kant Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Vatsala
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
1. Heard Sri Amar Nath Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner, learned
standing counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2 and Ms. Vatsala, learned counsel
for respondent no. 3.
2. At the very out set, Ms. Vatsala pointed out that petitioner is not the
person aggrieved rather petition is in the nature of PIL, therefore, it may be
dismissed as not maintainable.
3. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that this petition
may be dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file PIL.
4. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
5. So far as liberty is concerned, it is always open to the petitioner to
approach competent forum for which no permission is required.
May 6, 2026
Sartaj
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Neeraj Tiwari,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SARTAJ AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…