Allahabad High Court
SANTOSH KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court held that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked for a private dispute and therefore declined to issue mandamus.
Summary
Santosh Kumar filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing respondent No.3 to comply with an order dated 19‑03‑26. The petition arose out of a dispute with a private respondent. The State’s standing counsel raised a preliminary objection that the writ petition was not maintainable because it concerned a private dispute. The Court held that it would not interfere in a private dispute through its writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to seek relief under the provisions of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when the dispute is between private parties
- Whether the Court can issue a mandamus in a private dispute
Legislation cited
Subjects
- writ petition
- mandamus
- private dispute
- maintainability
- U.P. Revenue Code 2006
- High Court
- Article 226
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 17855 of 2026
Santosh Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Mohit Verma
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the
State and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief:
"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding
or directing respondent no.3 to comply the order dated 19.03.26 which is
pending within stipulated period."
3. From the perusal of the averments as well as prayer made in the writ
petition, it appears that petitioner has dispute with a private
respondent/person.
4. Learned Standing Counsel raised a preliminary objection that such a writ
petition is not maintainable for a private dispute.
5. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter.
6. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to
seek relief as available to him under provisions of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…