Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SUSHIL KUMAR SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The court may issue mandamus directing the authority to decide the pending recall/restoration application expeditiously, without expressing any view on the merits.

Summary

The petitioner Sushil Kumar Singh filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the Additional District Magistrate (respondent No.2) to decide a recall/restoration application filed on 2 July 2025 under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, and to stay the effect of an order dated 22 February 2025 pending that decision. The court examined the petition without delving into the merits of the underlying revenue dispute. It held that the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the authority to decide the pending application expeditiously, subject to hearing and compliance with procedural law. Accordingly, the court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent to decide the application within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. No stay of the earlier order was granted. The decision emphasizes the court’s power to ensure administrative authorities act without undue delay.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the Additional District Magistrate to decide a pending recall/restoration application under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.
  • Whether the order dated 22 February 2025 can be stayed pending the decision of the recall/restoration application.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • mandamus
  • writ petition
  • recall application
  • restoration application
  • U.P. Revenue Code
  • administrative law
  • expeditious decision
  • stay order

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 32266 of 2026

Sushil Kumar Singh
                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                   Versus

State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                               .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                         :       Syed Wajid Ali
Counsel for Respondent(s)                         :       C.S.C.

Court No. - 37
                 HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Mr. Mohd. Shiraz, learned counsel, holding the brief of Mr.
Syed Wajid Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Awadhesh
Kumar Patel, learned standing counsel for the state-respondents.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-

     "1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
     commanding      the    respondent      no.       2   to   decide    the
     recall/restoration application dated 2.7.2025 filed by the
     petitioner in Case No.16 of 2025 (Computerized Case
     No.D202517630000016), under Section 30(1) of the U.P.
     Revenue Code, 2006, Village Chaukhara, Tappa Karhi,
     Rasulpur, Tehsil- Dumoriaganj, District Siddharth Nagar,
     pending between Dinesh Singh and Others vs. State.

     2. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus,
     that till the decision of the recall/restoration application dated
     2.7.2025, the effect and operation of the order dated 22.2.2025
     may kindly be stayed"

3. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that against the order passed
in the proceeding under Section 30(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006 dated 22.2.2025, a restoration/recall application dated 2.7.2025
has been filed on behalf of the petitioner which is pending before
respondent no.2/Additional District Magistrate, as such, appropriate
direction be issued to the respondent-authority to expeditiously
                                                                                      WRIC No. 32266 of 2026
                                                                 2

                                    decide the aforementioned proceeding. He further placed copy of the
                                    order-sheet of the pending proceeding, in order to demonstrate that
                                    the case is not proceeding expeditiously.

                                    4. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without
                                    expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this petition is
                                    disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2 to decide the
                                    aforesaid restoration application dated 2.7.2025, as expeditiously as
                                    possible, preferably within a period of 3 months, from the date of
                                    production of a certified copy of this order before the authority
                                    concerned, considering the delay condonation matter first, after
                                    affording proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, in
                                    accordance with law.



                                                                                 (Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
                                    September 17, 2026
                                    C.Prakash




Digitally signed by :-
CHANDRA PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.