Allahabad High Court
JAYSHRI CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The Court directed the District Magistrate to decide the pending representation within two months, thereby granting the relief sought.
Summary
Petitioner Jayshri Chauhan filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the District Magistrate, Mau, to decide a claim/representation filed on 6 July 2026 within a fixed time. The petition argued that the pending representation was being unduly delayed. The respondents, including the State of U.P., did not object to the direction. The Court, after hearing counsel, held that it could issue a direction under its writ jurisdiction to ensure expeditious decision. Accordingly, the petition was disposed with an order directing the District Magistrate to decide the representation within two months of receiving the certified copy of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can, under Article 226, issue a mandamus directing a District Magistrate to decide a pending representation within a stipulated time
Subjects
- Article 226
- mandamus
- writ jurisdiction
- administrative law
- expeditious decision
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 37111 of 2026
Jayshri Chauhan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Tiwari, Baijant Kumar
Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Rameshwar Prasad Shukla
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE GARIMA PRASHAD, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioners have prayed for following relief:
"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the
respondent No. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Mau, District Mau to decide the claim/
representation of the petitioner dated 06.07.2026, pending before the respondent
No.2, within stipulated time frame fixed by this Hon'ble Court (Annexure No.1 to the
writ petition)."
3. Learned Standing Counsel states that he does not have any objection in
the event a direction is issued to the respondent No.- 2 to decide the
pending representation of the petitioner in accordance with law.
4. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with a direction to
the respondent No.- 2 to consider and decide the pending application/
representation of the petitioner dated 6th July, 2026 strictly in accordance
with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of two
months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
(Garima Prashad,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
September 30, 2026
Atmesh
Digitally signed by :-
ATMESH KESARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…