Allahabad High Court
SARMAST KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition was disposed of, and the reliefs sought by the petitioner were not granted.
Summary
The petitioner, Sarmast Khan, filed a writ petition seeking two orders of mandamus: (i) to suspend the effect of an order dated 19‑12‑2025 passed by the District Magistrate penalising him for alleged unauthorised sand extraction, and (ii) to direct the Commissioner of Jhansi to expeditiously dispose of the stay application pending before him. The State, represented by the Chief Standing Counsel, opposed the petition and sought an adjournment, which was denied. The court recorded the submissions, noted the pending stay application, and ultimately disposed of the writ petition without granting the reliefs sought. No substantive reasoning or analysis of the merits was provided in the excerpt. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus to suspend the operation of the District Magistrate's order pending a stay application.
- Whether the High Court can direct the Commissioner to expeditiously dispose of a pending stay application.
Subjects
- mandamus
- stay application
- district magistrate order
- sand extraction
- expeditious disposal
- writ petition
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 9449 of 2026
Sarmast Khan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Bobby Mishra, Faizan Siddiqui,
Rishabh Kesarwani, Shiva Pandey,
Shrish Chandra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 29
HON'BLE ARINDAM SINHA, J.
HON'BLE SATYA VEER SINGH, J.
1. Dr. Rajeshwar Tripathi, learned advocate, Chief Standing Counsel,
appears on behalf of State and with reference to prayer (II) submits, the
writ petition be disposed of with direction upon respondent no. 2 (the
Commissioner) to expeditiously disposed of the stay application pending
before him. Mr. Shrish Chandra, learned advocate appearing for petitioner
draws attention to prayer (II). Said prayers are reproduced below.
"(I) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the
Respondent No. 3 to suspend the effect and operation of the order dated
19.12.2025 until pendency of the stay application in the appeal filed
before respondent no. 2.
(II) To issue a writ in the nature of mandamus thereby directing the
respondent no. 2 to expeditiously dispose the stay application pending
before learned Court of Commissioner Jhansi. "
2. On moving the writ petition we had recorded submissions made on
behalf of petitioner. Paragraph-1 from order dated 15th April, 2026 is
reproduced below.
"1. Mr. Shrish Chandra, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner
and submits, initially there was allegation that his client had
unauthorisedly obtained sand from districts Fatehpur and Mahoba.
Consequently, his client was restrained from dealing with disclosed
WRIC No. 9449 of 2026
2
amount of stored sand less the amount alleged to have been imported.
There was first inspection made. The report alleged discrepancy between
the declared and actual quantities. On his client's protest there was a
second inspection made. The report said that the disclosed and actual
quantities were same. However, by impugned order dated 19th
December, 2025, respondent no.3 (the District Magistrate) penalized his
client. His client applied for stay. The writ petition has been filed for
passing restraint order since the stay application remains pending."
State sought for adjournment on 22nd April, 2026. It appears from order
made that day, on petitioner having opposed adjournment was granted as
peremptory. Today contention of State is there be direction for
expeditious disposal of petitioner's stay application. In the circumstances
there will be order in terms of above prayers (I) (II).
3. The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha,J.)
(Satya Veer Singh,J.)
May 6, 2026
Shiraz
Digitally signed by :-
SHIRAZ ALI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…