Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SHAHZAD AHMAD KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The inquiry report is not a final order, and the petitioner may be heard when it is acted upon; the writ petition is therefore disposed.

Summary

Shahzad Ahmad Khan filed a writ petition challenging an inquiry report issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh and two other respondents. The petitioner argued that the report was a final order and sought relief. The respondents contended that the report was not a final order and must be acted upon through due process, allowing the petitioner to raise objections later. The Court held that the inquiry report does not constitute a final order and that the petitioner retains the right to be heard when the report is acted upon, provided there is no legal impediment. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed without granting any substantive relief.

Issues considered

  • Whether the impugned inquiry report qualifies as a final order amenable to writ jurisdiction.
  • Whether the petitioner may raise objections to the report at the present stage or must wait for due process.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • inquiry report
  • final order
  • due process
  • hearing
  • disposal

Judgment

                                                  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                             WRIT - C No. - 38492 of 2025

                                    Shahzad Ahmad Khan
                                                                                                   .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                        Versus

                                    State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                                                 .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)                    :   Amit Kumar Shukla
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)                    :   C.S.C.

                                    Court No. - 32
                                                   HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.

                                    1. List has been revised. None appears for the petitioner.

                                    2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that impugned report is
                                    not a final order and it has to be acted upon by due process, therefore, the
                                    petitioner has still liberty to raise all legally permissible objections as and
                                    when it is acted upon.

                                    3. In above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of that in case
                                    inquiry report is acted upon in a due process, the petitioner may be heard,
                                    if there is no legal impediment.



                                                                                 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
                                    March 19, 2026
                                    A.N. Mishra




Digitally signed by :-
AMARNATH MISHRA
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.