Allahabad High Court
RAM SEVAK YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the writ under Article 226 for the relief sought.
Summary
Ram Sevak Yadav filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Gaon Sabha (respondent No.2) to decide a pending revenue case (Case No.15290 of 2024) under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within a time frame fixed by the court. The High Court examined whether it had jurisdiction to entertain such a petition and to compel an administrative body to render a decision. It held that the relief sought could not be granted by way of a writ under Article 226. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the court allowing the petitioner to initiate appropriate proceedings under the applicable law. The order was pronounced by Justice Chandra Kumar Rai on 18 September 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus under Article 226 can be issued to compel an administrative authority to decide a pending case within a stipulated period.
- Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain the petition for such relief.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 67
Subjects
- Article 226
- mandamus
- writ jurisdiction
- administrative law
- U.P. Revenue Code
- procedural delay
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 28651 of 2026
Ram Sevak Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Akhilesh Kumar, Chandra Shekhar
Agnihotri
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, C.S.C.
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Heard Mr. C.S. Agnihotri, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr.
Jitendra Narain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State-respondents and Mr. Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi, learned counsel
for the Gaon Sabha.
2. The instant petition has been filed for the following relief:
"to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent no.2 to decide the Case No.15290 of 2024, Computerized Case
No.T202414700115290 (Report Lekhpal vs. Hansraj and others), under Section 67 of
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
3. The prayer made in the instant petition cannot be entertained in
exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by
way of writ-C petition.
4. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to initiate proper proceeding
in accordance with law.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 18, 2026
Rameez
Digitally signed by :-
RAMEEZ AHMED
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…