Allahabad High Court
MANOJ KUMAR PANDEYversusREGISTRAR GENERAL, HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ALLAHABAD AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed as the required record is unavailable and the petitioner is not a party to the original suit.
Summary
The petitioner, Manoj Kumar Pandey, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Mathura judgeship to provide a copy of an order dated 27 January 2025 (originally O.S. No. 26 of 1968). He claimed to be the successor sebat of a temple and argued that the order was needed for a pending Supreme Court case. The judgeship reported that the old records were being digitized but the specific file could not be located, and the employees responsible for the records had retired. The court examined the digitization reports and noted that the 1968 case was not listed among the digitized files, indicating its absence from the record room. Since the petitioner was not a party to the original suit and the record could not be reconstructed, the court held that the relief could not be granted and consigned the petition to the records.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel the judgeship to produce a copy of an order when the record is unavailable.
- Whether a person who is not a party to the original suit is entitled to obtain the order.
- Whether the court can order reconstruction of records that are missing and the custodians are retired.
Subjects
- Article 226
- writ of mandamus
- record digitization
- reconstruction of records
- High Court
- petition dismissed
- non-party access to records
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 39428 of 2025
Manoj Kumar Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
Registrar General, High Court Of Judicature
Allahabad And Another .....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravi Shanker Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ashish Mishra
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Heard Sri Ravi Shanker Pathak, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and Sri Ashish Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Judgeship
Mathura.
2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,
petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus to command Mathura
judgeship to provide order dated 27th January, 2025 passed in O.S. No.-
26 of 1968.
3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is
successor Sebait of temple Thakur Dau Ji Maharaj and since there is some
case going on in Supreme Court, he wanted a copy of the order. The
petitioner having failed to obtain the copy of the order for the reason that
records were not available in the record room of judgeship, Mathura
approached this Court by means of this present petition.
4. Initially, while this petition was entertained, a statement was made on
behalf of the respondents that reconstruction of the file was in progress
and accordingly, the matter was adjourned on 26th November, 2025 for
the status/ report. On 27th January, 2026, learned counsel for the
judgeship concerned prayed for further time but instead of submitting the
WRIC No. 39428 of 2025
2
report regarding reconstruction of record, Mr. Ashish Mishra submitted
on 24th March, 2026 that he has filed counter affidavit in the matter.
5. In the counter affidavit stand was taken that digitization of old records
of judgeship Mathura was already underway but record of this case was
not available and as per the report of reconstructing officer, necessary
disciplinary inquiry could also not be held in the matter against both the
employees who had the duty to keep the records, because both have
already stood retired.
6. This Court in the circumstances directed Mr. Mishra to place the details
of the digitization records of the relevant year 1995 when this matter of
suit was disposed of.
7. Today, Mr. Ashish Mishra, learned counsel has placed instructions
before this Court, which are taken on record. Along with instructions the
details of 1995 files that have been digitized have also been placed before
this Court.
8. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that digitization details are relating to the
cases of the year 1995 and this case could not find place in the list
because it is of the year 1968 though disposed of in the year 1995. He
submits that as per the details of 1968 files available in the record room,
this file being O.A. No. 26 of 1968 is not mentioned which means records
are not available in the record room. These details have also been placed
before us.
9. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra that digitization has been done of the
records of the disposed cases between 1998 and 2012 and now
digitization is taking place of the records prior to the year 1998.
10. Having perused the instructions and reports, in our considered view,
since record of case being O.S. No.- 26 of 1968 is not available and
petitioner was also not party in the said suit so as to get record
reconstructed inasmuch as a statement has been made at the bar by
learned counsel for the petitioner that original counsel of the case is also
not traceable, the relief claimed now cannot be granted.
WRIC No. 39428 of 2025
3
11. In view of the above, petition is consigned to records.
(Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
May 5, 2026
Atmesh
Digitally signed by :-
ATMESH KESARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…