Allahabad High Court

Ramashankar @ Rama Shankar Yadav v. State of U.P. thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko & Ors.

WRIC/6250/2026

Decision date
2026-06-08
Text availability
Full text
Judges
Karunesh Singh Pawar

Source: Indian High Court Judgments, AWS Open Data (CC BY 4.0) ↗

Connected provisions and cases

No further provision or case links are recorded.

Judgment text

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 6250 of 2026 Ramashankar @ Rama Shankar Yadav .....Petitioner(s) Versus State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lko And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anil Kumar Yadav, Devansh Singh Chauhan, Manoj Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Dilip Kumar Pandey Court No. - 3 HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Sri Dilip Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent No. 4. Notice to respondent No. 5 is dispensed with in view of order proposed to be passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 23.05.2026 was passed by Respondent No. 3 in a wholly arbitrary manner. It is a non-speaking order, and no reasons have been assigned for vacating the stay order earlier granted by the Court on 02.05.2026. Even the arguments advanced by the parties have not been recorded therein. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the petition, however, he could not dispute the fact that no reasons were assigned by Respondent No. 3 while passing the impugned order. Perused the record.

A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the same has been passed without recording any reasons or findings and is, therefore, a cryptic order. In view of the above, and with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being disposed of at the admission stage itself. The impugned order dated 23.05.2026 passed by Respondent No. 3 is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to Respondent No. 3 to pass a fresh order, in accordance WRIC No. 6250 of 2026 2 with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to both the parties. An endeavour shall also be made by Respondent No. 3 to decide the original case within a period of three months. It is needless to state that, until a fresh order is passed, the earlier stay order dated 02.05.2026 shall remain operative. June 8, 2026 Vinay/- (Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.) Digitally signed by :- VINAY KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench