Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SRIRAM GUPTAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed because an alternative remedy is available to challenge the impugned order.

Summary

The petitioner, Sriram Gupta, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the State of U.P. and three other respondents. The petitioner’s counsel argued that the order could be contested through an alternative statutory remedy. The court observed that because an alternative remedy exists, the writ petition is not the appropriate avenue for relief. Consequently, the court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to pursue the alternative remedy and indicating that any time spent before this court may be excluded if a limitation issue arises. The court further noted that any application for restoration, if filed, will be decided based on the applicable law.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy is available.
  • Whether the limitation period should be excluded for the period spent before this court.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • alternative remedy
  • limitation
  • restoration
  • jurisdiction

Judgment

                                                  HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                            WRIT - C No. - 39488 of 2025

                                    Sriram Gupta
                                                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                       Versus

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

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)                 :    Virendra Kumar Yadav
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)                 :    Azad Rai, C.S.C.

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

                                    1. Shri Virendra Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
                                    Vijay Prakash Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
                                    State.

                                    2. Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that there is alternative
                                    remedy to challenge the impugned order, therefore, this writ petition is
                                    disposed of with the aforesaid liberty as well as that the period consumed
                                    before this court may be excluded if the question of limitation arises.

                                    3. Meanwhile, if any restoration is filed, the same be decided if the law
                                    permits.



                                                                                  (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.