NOMINAL INDEX
U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam vs. Basant Lal and four others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 905
Vijay Sonkar & 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. & 2 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 906
Bans Bahadur Singh and another v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Land Revenue and 8 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 907
Ruchi Sinha v. U.P. King George Dental Science University and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 908
Yogendra Maurya vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 909
In Re: Commission of Criminal Contempt and Criminal Offences by Lawyers in Court No. 49 on 28.10.2026 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 910
Dr. Sarita Teotia vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 911
State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Ambedkar Nagar and Anr vs. Samundra Devi Deceased Thru. Ram Surat and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 912
Raghuraj Singh v. Director Agriculture Gokhale Marg U.P. Lko. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 913
Omendra Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 914
Surendra v. State of U P and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 915
Chief Engineer Electrical Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Another vs. U.P. Human Rights Commission Thru. Chairperson Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 916
Smt. Nirmala Devi (Since Deceased) v. Punjab National Bank and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 917
Dr. Upasana Giri vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 918
Kanpur Development Authority vs. Hakkim Singh and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 919
Pankaj Chauhan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 920
A v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 921
M/s Damodar Das Gopal Das Business and 2 others v. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 922
Principal Guru Govind Singh Sports College Kursi Road Gudamba Lucknow v. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Lko. Thru. Registrar and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 923
Amit Kumar v. Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 924
Nageshwar Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 925
Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif vs. State of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and connected criminal appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 926
Mohd. Yaseen vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 927
Omveer And 3 Others v. Parul Tomar And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 928
Kuldeep Singh Virdi v. Union Of India Thru.Secy.Home Affairs New Delhi.And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 929
Petitioner 'X' and another vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 930
Azra Parveen And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 931
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title : U.P. Rajya Sadak Parivahan Nigam vs. Basant Lal and four others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 905
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 905
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cannot answer issues framed on the pleadings in the negative merely because counsel for a party states that he is not pressing them.
It held that the obligation to give notice to the insurer under Section 168(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a statutory mandate in public interest and cannot be defeated by the waiver of a party.
Case Title : Vijay Sonkar & 3 Ors. v. State of U.P. & 2 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 906
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 906
The Allahabad High Court has held that where the examining authority itself accepts two options as correct in a multiple-choice question requiring the candidate to mark a single answer, the question must be excluded from evaluation.
It held that the benefit cannot be confined to candidates who happened to mark one of the two accepted options.
Case Title : Bans Bahadur Singh and another v. State of U.P. Through Principal Secy. Land Revenue and 8 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 907
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 907
The Allahabad High Court has held that revenue authorities acting under Section 28 of the U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901 cannot, while correcting a village map, act on a disputed measurement and take away part of one plot to make good an alleged shortfall in the plot next to it.
The summary character of such proceedings, it held, calls for closer compliance with the statutory procedure, not a relaxation of it.
Case Title : Ruchi Sinha v. U.P. King George Dental Science University and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 908
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 908
The Allahabad High Court has directed King George's Medical University (KGMU) to calculate average interview marks from the surviving records of the same selection if the petitioner's marks cannot be verified, and then declare the result of her candidature.
The Court also observed that a recruitment process, once undertaken and candidates have participated in its prescribed stages, must be brought to a lawful conclusion. It held that the final result is an essential part of transparency in public recruitment and cannot be left undeclared merely because time has passed or old records have been lost.
Case Title : Yogendra Maurya vs. State Of U.P. And 7 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 909
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 909
The Allahabad High Court has observed that private CCTV cameras cannot be installed or positioned in a manner that interferes with a neighbour's privacy.
A Bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad made the observation while disposing of a writ petition filed by one Yogendra Maurya, who was aggrieved by the positioning of a CCTV camera by his neighbour.
Case Title : In Re: Commission of Criminal Contempt and Criminal Offences by Lawyers in Court No. 49 on 28.10.2026 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 910
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 910
The Allahabad High Court has found that the acts of lawyers who allegedly assaulted State law officers, court staff and security personnel and vandalized a courtroom on October 28 over alleged ill-treatment of lawyers by Justice Ajay Bhanot, prima facie constitute criminal contempt.
The Court also requested the Chief Justice to consider issuing directions for the registration of FIRs against the lawyers allegedly involved and persons who circulated false social media posts about the incidents.
Case Title : Dr. Sarita Teotia vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 911
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 911
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the mere failure of an IVF procedure to achieve a successful medical outcome does not automatically establish fraudulent intent or constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC.
A bench of Justice Chawan Prakash observed that there is a clear distinction between a mere breach of contract or medical failure and the offence of cheating, depending on the intention of the accused at the time of the inducement.
Case Title : State of U.P. Thru. District Magistrate Ambedkar Nagar and Anr vs. Samundra Devi Deceased Thru. Ram Surat and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 912
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 912
The Allahabad High Court has held that the State cannot exchange or divert an existing pond by offering another parcel of land in its place, and that construction of a Fire Station on pond land, along with its exchange under Section 161 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, is barred by the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hinch Lal Tiwari v. Kamala Devi.
Case Title : Raghuraj Singh v. Director Agriculture Gokhale Marg U.P. Lko. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 913
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 913
The Allahabad High Court has held that a department which relies on documents lying in the custody of a criminal court cannot treat that custody as a reason for denying the delinquent employee inspection of those documents.
It held that where such documents are essential to prove or rebut the charges, the department must take reasonable steps to secure lawful access to them or explain why access could not be provided.
Case Title : Omendra Yadav vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 914
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 914
The Allahabad High Court expressed regret for having been "unduly harsh" towards Bareilly Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) Anurag Arya, after it discovered that a petitioner had concealed the filing of an earlier habeas corpus petition concerning the same sequence of events.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev dismissed two habeas corpus petitions filed by Omendra Yadav, holding that he had not approached the Court with clean hands and had indulged in suppressio veri and suggestio falsi (suppression of truth and suggestion of falsehood).
Wife Who Cultivates Husband's Land Can Claim Farmers' Accident Relief: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Surendra v. State of U P and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 915
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 915
The Allahabad High Court has held that a woman who does agricultural work on a land recorded in her husband's name, and whose principal source of livelihood is the agricultural income from that land, is an 'earning member' of the family under Clause 2(2) of the Mukhyamantri Krishak Durghatna Kalyan Yojana (CM Farmers' Accident Relief Scheme).
It held that her claim cannot be rejected merely because she was neither a recorded tenure-holder nor a bataidar (tenant).
Case Title : Chief Engineer Electrical Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. And Another vs. U.P. Human Rights Commission Thru. Chairperson Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 916
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 916
The Allahabad High Court held that a State Human Rights Commission can recommend additional compensation in a case of human rights violation even if the victim has already received damages under other provisions covering the same subject matter.
The Court thus upheld the Uttar Pradesh Human Rights Commission's direction to the Madhyanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited to pay an additional ₹10 lakh to a man who suffered electrocution in 2011.
Case Title : Smt. Nirmala Devi (Since Deceased) v. Punjab National Bank and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 917
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 917
The Allahabad High Court has held that its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India may be exercised to direct an executing court to decide an objection under Order XXI Rule 97 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 within a fixed period, without the High Court going into the merits of the objection.
Such a direction, it held, neither curtails the objector's opportunity to contest nor predetermines the outcome.
Can Children Appeal Against Eviction Orders Under Senior Citizens Act? Allahabad High Court Answers
Case Title : Dr. Upasana Giri vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 918
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 918
The Allahabad High Court has observed that the children aggrieved by eviction orders passed under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, have a right to challenge such orders before the appellate authority under Section 16 of the Act.
A Bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Indrajeet Shukla relied on an earlier decision of the High Court in Akhilesh Kumar v. State of UP 2019, wherein it was held that an appeal filed by children aggrieved by an eviction order passed by the Tribunal is maintainable.
Appeals Against Urban Land Ceiling Orders Abated After 1999 Repeal: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Kanpur Development Authority vs. Hakkim Singh and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 919
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 919
The Allahabad High Court has held that an appeal under Section 33 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 can neither be filed nor continued after the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999 came into force, and that the right of appeal is not saved by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.
Section 33 of the Act of 1976 allowed a person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority, other than an order under Section 11 or sub-section (1) of Section 30, to appeal to the prescribed appellate authority within thirty days of communication of the order.
Case Title : Pankaj Chauhan vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 920
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 920
The Allahabad High Court has held that an accused can file a discharge application before the trial court without first applying/obtaining bail.
The Court further clarified that an accused may seek exemption from personal appearance under Section 355 BNSS (317 CrPC), along with the discharge application, by showing cogent and substantial grounds.
Case Title : A v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 921
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 921
The Allahabad High Court has held that the pendency of proceedings under the Guardian and Wards Act, 1890 is not an absolute bar to a habeas corpus petition seeking custody of a minor child.
It held that each such case turns on the facts before the writ court, whose discretion under Article 226 of the Constitution of India plays a vital role.
Opposite Party Can't Compel Litigant To Pursue Challenge On Merits: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : M/s Damodar Das Gopal Das Business and 2 others v. Rajendra Kumar Agrawal and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 922
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 922
The Allahabad High Court has held that a party which has invoked its supervisory jurisdiction may discontinue that challenge when it no longer wishes to pursue it, and that withdrawal does not disturb the order under challenge or the rights the opposite party has acquired under it.
It held that the opposite party's wish to have the controversy decided on merits is not, by itself, a ground to compel continuation of the proceedings.
Case Title : Principal Guru Govind Singh Sports College Kursi Road Gudamba Lucknow v. U.P. State Public Service Tribunal Lko. Thru. Registrar and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 923
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 923
The Allahabad High Court has held that teachers in the sports colleges run by the U.P. Sports Colleges Society are not “public servants” under Section 2(b) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Tribunals) Act, 1976, and that their claim petitions are not maintainable before the U.P. State Public Service Tribunal.
Section 2(b) of the Act, 1976 covers a person in the service or pay of the State Government, a local authority other than a Cantonment Board, or any other corporation owned or controlled by the State Government.
Highest Auction Bid Can't Be Cancelled Merely In Hope Of Fetching Better Price: Allahabad High Court
Case Title : Amit Kumar v. Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 924
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 924
The Allahabad High Court has held that a public body which receives the highest bid in a validly conducted auction must abide by it, and cannot cancel it merely in the hope that a future auction will fetch more.
It held that the Ghaziabad Development Authority's repeated cancellation and re-auction of one plot, with the reserve price never revised, was a colourable exercise of power.
Case Title : Nageshwar Mishra and another vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 925
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 925
Stressing that Rahul Gandhi's September 2024 remarks on the Sikh community during his US visit are protected under Article 19 of the Constitution, the Allahabad High Court observed that an elected representative is entitled to raise concerns relating to the rights of a section of society.
The Court further observed that the speech did not tend to incite violence or disturb public order and that no material had been placed before it to show that it attracted the ingredients of an offence under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023.
Case Title : Kunal Ashok Chaudhari @ Atif vs. State of U.P. Thru.Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko and connected criminal appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 926
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 926
The Allahabad High Court has rejected the post-conviction bail applications of Maulana Kaleem Siddiqui and Mohd. Umar Gautam and six other convicts in connection with an alleged illegal mass religious conversion racket case.
The Court, however, granted bail to eight other convicts during the pendency of their criminal appeals.
A Bench of Justice Rajesh Singh Chauhan and Justice Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra passed the order on Wednesday while deciding bail applications filed in 16 criminal appeals challenging the common judgment of the Special Judge, NIA, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow of September 2024.
Case Title : Mohd. Yaseen vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 927
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 927
The Allahabad High Court directed the Superintendent of Police, Farrukhabad, to register an FIR against an investigating officer (IO) after finding that additional particulars in the reasons for arrest column pertaining to an accused appeared to have been inserted subsequently.
The Court also declared the arrest of the accused-petitioner unlawful and ordered his immediate release while holding that the reasons for arrest and grounds of arrest had not been communicated to the him in accordance with law.
Case Title : Omveer And 3 Others v. Parul Tomar And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 928
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 928
The Allahabad High Court has held that NOIDA, though a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, is not a State Government or a Central Government, and the two months' notice mandated by Section 80(1) CPC is therefore not required before a suit is instituted against it.
Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal held,
“it is clear that though NOIDA would come within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India but it is not a State Government nor a Central Government. The mandatory requirement of Section 80 (1) cannot be expected for NOIDA, and plaintiff petitioners had rightly proceeded to institute the Suit No. 306 of 2006 and court below was not correct in proceeding to accept the supplementary report of Munsrim on the basis of which it has refused to register the civil suit.”
Case Title : Kuldeep Singh Virdi v. Union Of India Thru.Secy.Home Affairs New Delhi.And Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 929
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 929
The Allahabad High Court has held that the requirement of sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is governed by the law in force when the offence was committed and the FIR lodged, and not by the law in force when the trial court takes cognizance.
It held that an officer who had retired long before the FIR was not a public servant on that date and could be prosecuted without sanction.
Case Title : Petitioner 'X' and another vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 930
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 930
The Allahabad High Court has strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh Police over alleged unlawful detention and repeated instances of non-availability of police station CCTV footage, observing that the situation relating to civil liberties in the State is "shameful, to say the least".
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev said that the police appear to have "little regard" for the fundamental rights and civil liberties of citizens. It added that infringement of these rights seems to have become a matter of routine for the UP Police.
Case Title : Azra Parveen And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 931
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 931
The Allahabad High Court has observed that government teachers can be assigned election-related duties as Booth Level Officers (BLOs), including work pertaining to preparation, revision and correction of electoral rolls.
A bench of Justice Vinod Diwakar referred to Section 27 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act), which expressly permits the deployment of teachers for election-related duties and that BLO duties fall within this exception.
UPDATES OF THE WEEK
Case Title : C/M Madrasa Islamia Safinatul And Another vs. Sri K. Ravindra Nayak,Principal/Additional Chief Secretary
The Allahabad High Court has warned Sanyukta Samaddar, Principal Secretary, Minority Welfare and Waqf, UP Government that she will have to appear for framing of contempt charges if the State fails to comply with HC's 2020 direction to include a madrasa in Mau district in the grant-in-aid list within a month.
A bench of Justice Piyush Agrawal was hearing a contempt application alleging non-compliance with the High Court's November 25, 2020 order wherein the state government was directed to include Madrasa Islamia Safinatul Hedaya, situated in Meerpur Rahimabad, Mau, in the grant-in-aid list with effect from April 1, 2021.
Case Title : Preeti Bajpai vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Kanpur Nagar Commissioner of Police, Raghubir Lal, to appear personally before the HC with an affidavit in connection with an alleged incident of looting and vandalism at a hotel in the city.
The Court sought his personal appearance after it prima facie found involvement of senior police personnel in the incident.
Case Title : In Re- Layout Plan/Town Planning And Provision Of Necessary Amenities
The Allahabad High Court has expanded the scope of its suo motu Public Interest Litigation (PIL) concerning gaps in town planning and sought details from Uttar Pradesh authorities on whether layout plans for cities, towns and colonies provide for police stations, police chowkis, traffic booths, fire stations and medical clinics or hospitals.
A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla also called for a comprehensive roadmap for future town planning as it stressed that the needs of citizens in the years to come must be anticipated while planning amenities in new colonies and towns.
Case Title : Mohammad Kaif vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Others
In an interim relief for Ranji cricketer Mohammad Kaif, brother of renowned cricketer Mohammed Shami, the Allahabad High Court directed that he shall not be arrested in connection with an FIR registered against him over allegations of sexual relations on a false promise of marriage.
The order will remain in effect until November 4, the next hearing date.
A Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Zafeer Ahmad passed the order on October 24 while hearing Kaif's criminal writ petition challenging the FIR registered against him at a Police Station in Lucknow.
Amid the ongoing protests by advocates over the alleged conduct of Justice Ajay Bhanot, the Allahabad High Court on Wednesday took exception to a group of lawyers allegedly blocking the courtroom's entry doors and preventing court staff from entering through the main gate.
The Court observed that judicial proceedings cannot be allowed to remain 'paralyzed' on account of lawyers deliberately abstaining from their duties.