Allahabad High Court
SAURABH AGRAWALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The High Court directed the municipal authority to consider the petitioner’s grievance and decide within two months, thereby granting the writ of mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner, Saurabh Agrawal, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a mandamus directing the third respondent, a municipal authority, to consider his representations dated 28 January 2026 and 12 May 2026 for the mutation of his father's name in the Nagar Nigam records. The petitioner alleged that the earlier representation of 28 January 2026 remained pending without any action. The respondents did not contest the prayer and the standing counsel expressed no objection to the petition being disposed with a direction to the municipal authority. The Court examined whether it could issue a mandamus under its supervisory jurisdiction to compel the municipal authority to act on the pending representation. Finding no legal impediment, the Court ordered that the third respondent must consider the grievance and pass an appropriate order within two months of receiving the certified copy of the judgment. Accordingly, the petition was disposed with the specified direction.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can, under Article 226, issue a writ of mandamus directing a municipal authority to consider a pending representation for mutation of a name in its records.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of India — s. Article 226
Subjects
- writ jurisdiction
- mandamus
- Article 226
- mutation of name
- municipal records
- administrative law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 36461 of 2026
Saurabh Agrawal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Girja Shanker Mishra, Pratiksha Rai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Abhinava Krishna Srivastava, C.S.C.,
Vijay Bahadur Maurya
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
Heard Sri Girja Shanker Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Sanjiv Dubey, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Abhinava Krishna
Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondent Corporation as well as learned
Standing Counsel.
By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner has prayed for following relief as substantial relief:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent
no. 3 to consider the representation dated 28.01.2026 & 12.05.2026 regarding
mutation of the name of father of petitioner and legal heirs within in the Nagar Nigam
record within some stipulated time."
It appears from the records that the petitioner has already represented the
matter to the respondent no. 3 vide representation dated 28.01.2026 which is
still pending consideration.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection in the event this
petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 3 to look
into and consider the grievance of the petitioner and pass appropriate order
strictly in accordance with law.
In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction that
respondent no. 3 shall consider the grievance of the petitioner raised in his
representation dated 28.01.2026 and decide the same within a period of two
WRIC No. 36461 of 2026
2
months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 21, 2026
IrfanUddin
Digitally signed by :-
IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…