LiveLaw Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 5 - October 11, 2026
NOMINAL INDEX
Rekha Saxena and another v. Roman Catholic Diocese Allahabad Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director General the Bishop and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 793
Fanindra Das v. The General Manager and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 794
Rajeshwar vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 795
National Insurance Co. Ltd. Faizabad Thru. Manager Legal vs. Reeta and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 796
M/s Divya Enterprises Thru. Authorized Signatory Sudhakar Awasthi vs. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Chief Conservator of Forest and Wildlife Deptt.of Forest,Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 797
Dr. Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 798
Moti Ram Jaat @ Moti Ram Jaat Fauji vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 799
Raisa Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Minority Welfare Lko. and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 800
Shanawaz Khan And 5 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 801
Rajesh Kumar Singh v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions New Delhi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 802
X vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 803
: Ravi Chaurasiya And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 804
Babu Lal vs. Shahabuddin And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 805
Lokendra vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 806
Prateek Mishra and 2 others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 807
Prem Goel and 3 others v. Union of India and 9 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 808
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 809
Vinod Chandra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Higher Education Govt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 810
Ankit Singh vs. State of U.P. and another along with a connected revision petition 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 811
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 812
Mahendra Singh Pawar vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy to the C.M. and 2 others and 2 connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 813
'X' And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 814
Akshay Upadhyay vs. Election Commission of India and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 815
Surgimed Hospital vs. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 816
: Srinagar Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. and another v. State of UP and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 817
Vinita Kumari vs. The State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 818
Kapil Dev Vyas Filling Station Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 819
Dr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 820
ORDERS/JUDGMENTS OF THE WEEK
Case Title : Rekha Saxena and another v. Roman Catholic Diocese Allahabad Pvt. Ltd. Thru. Director General the Bishop and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 793
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 793
The Allahabad High Court has held that a decree which only cancels a sale deed, and carries no direction for eviction or delivery of possession, does not authorise the decree-holder to remove the occupant from the property.
It held that a person in long and settled possession makes out a prima facie case for temporary injunction even where the sale deed on which his claim of title rests stands cancelled.
Case Title : Fanindra Das v. The General Manager and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 794
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 794
The Allahabad High Court has held that the Railway Administration cannot refuse an electricity connection on the ground that the premises stand on private land, where the site lies in the midst of Railway property and the Railway alone is in a position to supply electricity.
It held that access to electricity is a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and that the connection ought to have been granted unless the law disentitled the applicant.
Case Title : Rajeshwar vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 795
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 795
The Allahabad High Court has held that the power to convene a meeting for consideration of a no-confidence motion against the Chairman of a cooperative society vests exclusively in the District Magistrate as the specified authority under Rule 465 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Rules, 1968, and cannot be delegated or sub-delegated.
It held that where any other officer fixes the time, date and place of such a meeting, he acts coram non judice and the resolution cannot be sustained.
Case Title : National Insurance Co. Ltd. Faizabad Thru. Manager Legal vs. Reeta and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 796
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 796
The Allahabad High Court has held that where an Insurance Company appeals against an award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the compensation can be enhanced even though the claimants have filed no appeal or cross-objection.
It held that once the adequacy of the award is in question in the appeal, the Court is duty-bound to see whether what was awarded is 'just compensation' and to enhance it if it is deficient.
Allahabad High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Tender For Food Supply At Lucknow Zoo
Case Title : M/s Divya Enterprises Thru. Authorized Signatory Sudhakar Awasthi vs. State of U.P. Thru.Prin.Chief Conservator of Forest and Wildlife Deptt.of Forest,Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 797
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 797
The Allahabad High Court has dismissed the petition challenging the tendering of food supply for animals at the Nawab Wazid Ali Shah Zoological Garden, Lucknow holding that the final eligibility for supply of products depends on the owner.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held,
“It is not uncommon that when a tender matter is challenged by one of the parties the entire focus of the Court shifts in choosing the most eligible party. However, this inquiry of choosing the most eligible party cannot ignore the needs of the owner. The final choice has to be left to the owner, as it is for the owner to take the final decision with necessary flexibility and pragmatism.”
Case Title : Dr. Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Medical Health and Family Welfare Lko. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 798
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 798
The Allahabad High Court has held that Rule 4(3)(b) of the U.P. Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999 casts a mandatory obligation on the competent authority to take an express and conscious decision on the representation made by a Government servant against his deemed suspension after his release from custody.
It held that deemed suspension does not lapse on its own upon release, but its continuance beyond that date must rest on an express order.
Case Title : Moti Ram Jaat @ Moti Ram Jaat Fauji vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 799
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 799
The Allahabad High Court has held that the 'second' arrest of an accused already in custody in another case amounts to a "fresh arrest" and therefore, the grounds for such arrest must be communicated to the accused in accordance with Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.
A bench of Justice Manish Mathur said that a subsequent formal arrest cannot be treated merely as a change of custody when the accused is already under remand in an earlier case.
Case Title : Smt. Raisa Khan v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Minority Welfare Lko. and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 800
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 800
The Allahabad High Court has held that a madarsa teacher cannot be denied gratuity merely on the ground that she did not exercise the option to retire at the age of 60 years and continued in service till she was 62.
Having permitted her to serve the extended period, it held, the authorities could not rely on that very continuation to withhold her retiral dues.
Case Title : Shanawaz Khan And 5 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 801
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 801
The Allahabad High Court has directed the Saharanpur police and district administration not to interfere with the petitioners' right to perform Azan five times at Ayesha Mosque in the city, subject to their undertaking to strictly comply with the Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules, 2000 and the HC's 2020 judgment on the use of loudspeakers for Azan.
A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad passed the direction while disposing of a petition filed by Shanawaz Khan and five others under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Case Title : Rajesh Kumar Singh v. U.O.I. Thru. Secy. Ministry of Personnel Public Grievances and Pensions New Delhi and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 802
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 802
The Allahabad High Court has held that an officer who acts in good faith, with no trace of corrupt intent or personal gain, is not guilty of misconduct merely because the stand he took ran contrary to what his department expected of him.
Quashing the charge sheet issued to a senior officer who gave his “no objection” to a C.B.I. closure report before the Special (CBI) Court, Kolkata, the Court held that a bonafide exercise of judgment does not become a disciplinary delinquency.
Case Title : X vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 803
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 803
The Allahabad High Court has held that marital estrangement, by itself, cannot be treated as a ground for medical termination of pregnancy under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Rules, 2003 (as amended in 2021).
The Court said ordinary matrimonial differences cannot be equated with a change in marital status, such as 'divorce' or 'widowhood', which Rule 3B(c) specifically mentions in the context of a change in marital status during an ongoing pregnancy.
Case Title : Ravi Chaurasiya And Another vs. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 804
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 804
Applying the 'Fruit of the Poisonous Tree' doctrine in the context of constitutional protections under Articles 21 and 22, the Allahabad High Court has held that a subsequent formal arrest and remand cannot legitimize an earlier illegal detention.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev held that where the initial detention of a person is unlawful, a subsequent arrest, even if otherwise supported by valid grounds, and the remand proceedings flowing from it would also stand vitiated.
Case Title : Babu Lal vs. Shahabuddin And Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 805
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 805
The Allahabad High Court has held that a suit filed in a representative capacity under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC is not liable to be dismissed merely because the permission of the Court was never sought. It held that the only consequence is that it is treated as a suit by the plaintiffs alone, binding only the parties to it.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held,
“As referred above, purpose of Order 1 Rule 8 C.P.C. is that if the permission is sought and granted the suit will be considered to be filed in representative capacity and in case permission is rejected, it would be considered that outcome of suit will be final between parties only.”
Case Title : Lokendra vs. Union Of India And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 806
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 806
The Allahabad High Court has held that a person detained under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act (PITNDPS Act) must be specifically informed of his right to make a representation to the detaining authority.
The Court held that merely informing a detenu of his right to make a representation to the State Government is insufficient, even where the same officer passed the detention order while acting in a different capacity.
Case Title : Prateek Mishra and 2 others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 807
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 807
The Allahabad High Court has held that the decision of the State of Uttar Pradesh to conduct a Special Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) for in-service teachers does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
The Court held that the special examination only enables such teachers to acquire the qualification which the Supreme Court has declared mandatory for them, and confers no preference in appointment over candidates who have already qualified the regular TET.
Case Title : Smt. Prem Goel and 3 others v. Union of India and 9 others
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 808
The Allahabad High Court has held that the State cannot stop construction on a land by merely alleging it to be evacuee property, without placing on record any document showing that the property was registered as evacuee property or that proceedings for its registration are pending.
The bench of Justice Prakash Padia and Justice Vivek Saran held,
“Since the respondents State has not brought on record any such document, which would refer the property in question either registered as an evacuee property or any such proceedings are still pending for its registration etc., mere allegation would not suffice and the action of the State respondents for stopping the constructions work on the land in question, where the map has been sanctioned, cannot be justified.”
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 809
The Allahabad High Court allowed a habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of a man by Noida Police, as a bench led by Justice Atul Sreedharan rebuked the police officials for how they took the detenue into custody and subsequently arrested him.
During the hearing, a division Bench of Justice Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev orally told the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate and the SHO, "Sharm aani chahiye aapko" (you should be ashamed).
Case Title : Vinod Chandra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Higher Education Govt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 810
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 810
The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition in which particularised breaches of natural justice are pleaded cannot be dismissed at the threshold as not maintainable on the ground that an alternative statutory remedy is available, without a counter-affidavit being called for and the plea being tested on the rival versions.
The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary held,
"a finding that a case does not fall within the natural-justice exception is itself a finding of fact, as it presupposes an answer to whether a violation in fact occurred. Such a finding cannot be returned on the strength of the pleading made in the writ petition alone, and cannot then be used as the ground for holding the petition not maintainable...the said ground has to be necessarily decided after hearing the other-side of the story."
Case Title : Ankit Singh vs. State of U.P. and another along with a connected revision petition 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 811
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 811
The Allahabad High Court has observed that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is meant to secure reasonable and dignified support rather than create a "bonanza or windfall".
The Court added that it is not intended to confer an "unmerited financial advantage" or serve as a source of enrichment for the person claiming it.
2026 LiveLaw (AB) 812
The Allahabad High Court allowed the habeas corpus petitions filed by Vibhor Rana and Vishal Singh and quashed their detention under the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (PITNDPS Act), in connection with cases concerning the alleged diversion and illegal trafficking of codeine-based cough syrups.
A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev passed the order while relying upon a recent judgment in the case of Lokendra vs. Union Of India And 3 Others.
Case Title : Mahendra Singh Pawar vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin.Secy to the C.M. and 2 others and 2 connected petitions 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 813
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 813
The Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) issued strict 8-point guidelines on Monday for appointments of the State Law Officers in Uttar Pradesh.
The Court has strictly directed the State Government to ensure that a transparent, merit-based selection process is in place and that there is adequate representation of women advocates, subject to availability.
Case Title : 'X' And Another vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 814
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 814
Granting relief to an interfaith couple facing threats to their lives and liberty from family members, the Allahabad High Court dispensed with publishing a marriage notice and inviting objections under the Special Marriage Act, 1954.
The Court directed the Marriage Officer in Lucknow not to publish the notice or entertain objections to the proposed marriage of the petitioners.
Case Title : Akshay Upadhyay vs. Election Commission of India and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 815
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 815
The Allahabad High Court dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the electoral rolls for elections to 5 Graduates' Constituencies and 6 Teachers' Constituencies of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council.
The bench said that the exercise of amending the electoral rolls could not be faulted and that Article 329 of the Constitution of India bars a challenge to the election notification once the election process has begun.
Case Title : Surgimed Hospital vs. Union of India and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 816
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 816
The Allahabad High Court upheld the removal of a private Hospital from the panel of hospitals empanelled under the Ayushman Bharat-Pradhan Mantri Jan Arogya Yojana (AB-PMJAY), after it allegedly charged ₹9,000 for two units of blood provided to a 2-month-old child suffering from blood cancer, instead of providing them free of cost under the government health scheme.
A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla dismissed the hospital's writ petition challenging the State Empanelment Committee's order dated August 19, 2026, which struck off its empanelment under the State Health Agency for Comprehensive and Integrated Services (SACHIS).
Case Title : Srinagar Sahakari Awas Samiti Ltd. and another v. State of UP and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 817
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 817
The Allahabad High Court has held that an Interim Committee of Management appointed under Section 29(4-B) of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965 has no power to enrol new members or remove existing members of a co-operative society. A resolution by which it purports to do so is a nullity, and the Registrar cannot give it effect in exercise of his powers under Section 128 of the Act.
Case Title : Vinita Kumari vs. The State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 818
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 818
The Allahabad High Court has held that a government servant who contracts a bigamous marriage without obtaining the Government's permission can be subjected to a major penalty, as the punishment for violation of Rule 29(1) and (2) of the U.P. Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1956, is now within the discretion of the appointing authority.
Justice Manish Kumar Nigam noted that sub-rule (3) of Rule 29, which had prescribed withholding of increments for three years as the minimum punishment for violating the prohibition on bigamous marriages, was deleted in 1976 and was never reintroduced. Accordingly, a government servant cannot claim that only a minor penalty can be imposed for such misconduct.
Case Title : Kapil Dev Vyas Filling Station Allahabad and another v. State of U.P. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 819
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 819
The Allahabad High Court has held that a Development Authority cannot levy impact fee or open area penalty. It held that Section 15(2-A) of the Uttar Pradesh Urban Planning and Development Act, 1973 permits it to charge only development fees, mutation charges, stacking fees and water fees.
The two levies had been impugned only on the rate at which they were worked out, and not on the Authority's power to impose them at all. The Court held that a declaration of the law by a Constitutional Court speaks from the beginning, and the petitioner could not be shut out from its benefit.
Case Title : Dr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra v. State of U.P. and 6 others
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 820
The Allahabad High Court has held that the doctrine of necessity is not limited to situations involving bias and can be invoked wherever an administrative exigency in the discharge of a public duty threatens to leave a vacuum and render an entire exercise futile.
Law permits certain things to be done as a matter of necessity, which it would otherwise not countenance on the touchstone of judicial propriety.