OMR Sheet Error: Allahabad High Court Refuses Manual Evaluation, Says Exam Instructions Must Be Strictly Followed

Case Title : Garima Diwaker vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 774

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 774

The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate who fills the 'Question Book Number' column of an OMR sheet in breach of the instructions cannot seek indulgence in the form of manual evaluation of the sheet. It held that the instructions issued to candidates are mandatory and that OMR sheets cannot be permitted to be evaluated physically.

Motor Accident | Insurer Must Prove Tanker Was Carrying Hazardous Goods Before Alleging Want Of Licence Endorsement: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : National Insurance Company Ltd. Lucknow Throu. Astt. Manager vs. Reena Devi And Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 775

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 775

The Allahabad High Court has held that an insurer cannot avoid liability under a motor accident award by pointing to the absence of an endorsement on the driver's licence authorising carriage of hazardous goods, unless it also establishes that the substance actually being carried was one of the goods listed as hazardous under the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989.

Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs On State For Failing To Inform Court That 1994 Interim Order Was Not Complied With

Case Title : Uma Kant Tripathi vs. C/M Bahraich Coop Bank Ltd. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 776

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 776

The Allahabad High Court last week imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000 on the State for the unexplained delay of more than 3 decades in filing its counter affidavit and for failing to bring to the Court's notice the non-compliance with an interim order, while dismissing the writ petition on merits.

Justice Garima Prashad observed:

"The State cannot avoid responsibility for this lapse merely because the petitioner has failed to establish his substantive claim. The prolonged delay deprived the Court of timely assistance from the authorities concerned and allowed the issue of compliance with the interim order to remain unresolved until the petitioner had crossed the age of superannuation. The petitioner is, therefore, entitled to be compensated by way of costs, though not by the grant of service benefits to which he has established no legal right".

Bar Council Has No Power To Suspend Advocates At Interim Stage Pending Disciplinary Inquiry: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Akhilesh Jaiswal And Another vs. Bar Council Of India Thru. Chairman Rouse Avenue New Delhi And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 777

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 777

Case Title : Rakesh Yadav @ Pappu And Another v. State of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 821

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 821

The Allahabad High Court has requested the Law Commission to recommend suitable amendments to the provisions of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, dealing with minor couples after examining the social realities prevailing in India.

A bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev observed that, in certain circumstances, strictly applying the Act could produce consequences that may "advance injustice rather than justice", particularly where a relationship has resulted in the birth of a child.

Allahabad High Court Quashes Rejection Of Police Constable Candidature Over Pending Criminal Case

Case Title : Ravi Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 822

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 822

The Allahabad High Court has held that instructions issued by the Director General of Police on 05.04.2025 will not override the Government Order dated 28.04.1958, which continues to hold the field on the grant of character certificates at the time of first appointment to government service. It held that the appointing authority cannot simply adopt the recommendation of the District Magistrate, but must apply its own mind before refusing a candidate appointment.

Decree Affirmed Up To Supreme Court Can't Be Reopened For Alleged Collusion When State Contested At Every Stage: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and others v. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 823

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 823

The Allahabad High Court has held that the State cannot resist execution of a decree by pleading collusion between the decree holder and State authorities, where it contested the suit and every appeal from the Trial Court up to the Supreme Court.

Justice Chandra Kumar Rai held,

“The judgements from Trial Court to Apex Court further demonstrate that at every stage, State was given opportunity through Counsel/special Counsel to argue the matter, as such, it cannot be said that the judgement was passed on the basis of collusion between the plaintiff of the suit and State authorities.”

Courts Can't Expand Academic Eligibility For Assistant Professor Post By Declaring 'Allied' Subjects: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Dr. Vartika Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, along with Lalit Kumar Singh and 47 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 824

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 824

The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate has no immutable right to insist that a subject once recognised as allied or relevant to an advertised discipline must continue to be treated as such in a later recruitment.

It held that the identification of allied/relevant subjects is an academic and policy determination falling within the domain of the competent authority, which a writ court cannot replace with its own assessment of academic affinity.

Order VI Rule 17 CPC | Subject-Matter Jurisdiction Must Be Decided Before Application For Amendment Of Plaint: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v. Anugya Gupta and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 825

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 825

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a defendant's application under Order VII Rule 10 and Rule 11 CPC raises the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, it must be decided before the plaintiff's application to amend the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC.

It held that a court lacking subject-matter jurisdiction cannot order an amendment that would bring the suit within its jurisdiction, as such an order would be a nullity.

Written Plea For Permanent Alimony Is The Rule; Oral Prayer Permissible Where Parties Agree On Entitlement, Quantum: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : P v. A 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 826

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 826

The Allahabad High Court has held that a claim for permanent alimony under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 must ordinarily be made in writing, either by a separate application or by a demand carried in the written statement.

It held that an oral prayer can be entertained only in the exceptional case where the Court is not required to decide either the entitlement to permanent alimony or its quantum.

Candidate Can't Be Excluded From Selection For Postal Delay When Application Was Dispatched Within Time: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Anuradha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 827

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 827

The Allahabad High Court has held that a candidate who applies online within time and dispatches the hard copy of the application within the prescribed period by a mode of transmission permitted by the advertisement cannot be excluded from the selection process merely because the postal article reached the recruiting authority after the cut-off date.

Non-Payment Of Subsistence Allowance Doesn't Vitiate Disciplinary Proceedings, Employee Must Show Prejudice: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Nazar Husain Khan v. Member Secy. State Cadre Authority and Anr 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 828

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 828

The Allahabad High Court has held that non-payment of subsistence allowance to a suspended employee does not by itself invalidate the disciplinary proceedings taken against him. The employee must show a connection between the non-payment and the prejudice he claims to have suffered in defending himself.

Justice Garima Prashad held,

“The plea relating to non-payment of subsistence allowance also does not, by itself, invalidate the proceedings. Subsistence allowance is an important protection available to a suspended employee. Where its non-payment prevents an employee from participating in the inquiry or effectively presenting his defence, the resulting proceedings may be vitiated. The employee must, however, show a connection between the non-payment and the prejudice claimed.”

UP Tenancy Act 2021 | Plaint Can't Be Rejected Where Defence Raises Questions Beyond Scope Of Rent Authority: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Sri Siraj Ahmad v. Satya Narain Singh and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 829

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 829

The Allahabad High Court has held that a defendant cannot obtain rejection of a plaint by invoking the bar on civil court jurisdiction in Section 38(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 when the defence he himself sets up raises questions which, under Section 38(2), the Rent Authority has no jurisdiction to decide.

Urban Ceiling Act | State Must Prove Actual Possession Before 1999 Repeal To Retain Land: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Munna Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 830

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 830

The Allahabad High Court has held that in proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the burden of proving that possession of the excess land was in fact taken over lies upon the State. It held that where the State fails to discharge it, the landholder is entitled to the benefit of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999.

Black-Marketing Or Obstruction Of Essential Supplies? Allahabad High Court Explains When NSA Applies & When PBMSEC Act Prevails

Case Title : Mohammad Haroon vs. Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 831

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 831

The Allahabad High Court has explained when the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), can be invoked in cases involving essential commodities as it clarified that while physical obstruction of essential supplies may attract the NSA, black-marketing cases must ordinarily be dealt with under the Prevention of Blackmarketing and Maintenance of Supplies of Essential Commodities Act, 1980 (PBMSEC Act).

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev held that invoking the NSA to detain a person for one year in a black-marketing case, merely because the special law prescribes a maximum detention period of 6 months only, would amount to a "perversion of the law".

Will Can't Be Invalidated For Undue Influence Merely Because Beneficiary Son Was Caring For Aged Father: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Bhanu Datta Pathak vs. Hardutta Pathak and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 832

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 832

The Allahabad High Court has held that the advanced age of a testator, taken together with the fact that the son in whose favour the Will was made was looking after him and his property, does not by itself raise a presumption of undue influence. It held that a registered Will, which carries a presumption of validity, cannot be cancelled on that ground alone.

Justice Siddharth Nandan held,

“The question of a dominating position or fiduciary relationship, depends upon the facts of each case and merely because there was relationship of a father and son, while the father being of old age, cannot itself automatically be inferred that the son was in a dominating position.”

Cops To Face Contempt Action For Misbehaving With Govt Advocates Communicating Court Orders: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Sachin Yadav vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 833

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 833

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) to issue a circular to all police officers warning that misbehavior with government advocates communicating court orders for compliance would amount to contempt of court and be dealt with strictly in accordance with law.

The Court directed thus while taking exception to the conduct of Rajesh Kumar Singh, the Public Relations Officer (PRO) of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Azamgarh, who had allegedly misbehaved with an Additional Government Advocate (AGA) who was attempting to inform him about a court order.

Freedom Of Religion Does Not Entitle Christian Community To Seek Specific Plot For Housing Cemetery: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Christian Community Welfare Society vs. State of U.P. and Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 834

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 834

The Allahabad High Court has held that the right to freedom of religion, including the right to perform last rites in accordance with religious beliefs, does not entitle a community to claim a specific plot of land belonging to a local body for establishing a cemetery.

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla made the observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by the Christian Community Welfare Society, which had challenged the rejection of its request to convert a piece of barren land in Ghaziabad into a Christian cemetery.

'Oudh Bar Must Lead By Example In Democratic Conduct': Allahabad High Court Calls For Free, Fair & Peaceful Bar Elections

Case Title : In Re- Conduct Of Elections To The Oudh Bar Association 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835

The Allahabad High Court has called upon the stakeholders to ensure that the upcoming Oudh Bar Association elections are conducted in a free, fair, transparent and peaceful manner. The Court said that the Bar must set an example of democratic conduct for society.

A bench of Justice Alok Mathur and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary observed that elections must reflect the highest standards of integrity, fairness, transparency, and mutual respect.

Allahabad High Court Declines Mother's Plea Seeking CBI Probe Into Bhojpuri Actress Akanksha Dubey's Death

Case Title : Madhu Dubey vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835

The Allahabad High Court on October 12 consigned to record a petition filed by Madhu Dubey, mother of Bhojpuri actress and model Akanksha Dubey, seeking a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into her daughter's death in a hotel room in Varanasi in March 2023.

A bench of Justice Rajeev Misra and Justice Dr. Ajay Kumar-II opined that the arguments advanced to suggest that the actress's death was homicidal rather than suicidal were misconceived.

Pressurizing Only Son To Abandon His 68-Year-Old Widowed Mother Is Mental Cruelty: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : H v. H 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 836

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 836

The Allahabad High Court has held that persistent pressure by a wife upon her husband, the only son of his 68-year-old widowed mother, to leave the mother and set up a separate household amounts to mental cruelty and entitles the husband to a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held,

“The attempt to deprive the appellant's mother of her son's company in the twilight years of her life is a cruel act on the part of the respondent.”

Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹25K Costs On Litigant For Filing Forged Documents, Disallows Withdrawal

Case Title : Gareeba v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 837

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 837

The Allahabad High Court has held that a litigant who files a writ petition along with forged documents cannot be permitted to withdraw it in order to escape the consequences of the proceedings.

Dismissing the petition as an abuse of the process of the Court, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 25,000 on the petitioner.

S. 4 SC/ST Act | Dissatisfaction With Police Probe Alone No Ground To Prosecute Cops For Wilful Neglect: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Guddo vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 838

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 838

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the dissatisfaction of a complainant with a police investigation or the failure of policeto invoke particular provisions of the SC-ST Act 1989, does not by itself constitute "wilful neglect of duty" by public servants under Section 4 of the Act.

A bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that prosecution under Section 4 (Punishment for neglect of duties) requires that it must be shown that there was a specific statutory duty and there was a demonstrable omission in performing that duty. It added that material must indicate that the omission was wilful or deliberate.

Limited Grounds For Judicial Review, 20-Year Delay: High Court Rejects Challenge To Ambedkar Nagar Constituency Delimitation

Case Title : Dileep Kumar vs. Union of India,Thru. Secy. Ministry of Law and Justice New Delhi and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 839

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 839

The Allahabad High Court today dismissed a petition challenging the delimitation of Assembly constituencies in Uttar Pradesh's Ambedkar Nagar district, including the reservation of the Alapur constituency for Scheduled Castes.

The bench said the plea failed to establish grounds for judicial interference and was filed nearly two decades after the delimitation order was passed.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Once Statutory Revision Against Same Order Is Withdrawn As 'Not Pressed': Allahabad High Court

Case Title : M/S Raj Hans Towers Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 840

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 840

The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ petition under Article 226 is not maintainable where the petitioner had already challenged the same order in a statutory revision and then got the revision concluded as “not pressed”. Such a withdrawal, it held, amounts to abandonment of the claim and attracts the Rule of Public Policy.

The Rule of Public Policy, as the Court explained it, bars a fresh suit where the earlier suit has been abandoned and is enshrined in Order XXIII Rules 1 to 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Its application to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is no longer res integra, the Court noted, having been settled in Sarguja Transport Services v. State and Upadhyay & Co. v. State of U.P. and others.

Execution Not A Nullity Merely Because Name Of Deceased Joint Decree-Holder Figures In Execution Application: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Jaipal vs. Anil Kumar and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 841

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 841

The Allahabad High Court has held that an execution proceeding is not rendered a nullity merely because the name of a joint decree-holder who had died before its institution continued to be shown in the execution application, where the execution was invoked by a surviving joint decree-holder competent to execute the whole decree.

Order XXI Rule 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure permits any one or more of the persons in whose favour a decree has been passed jointly to apply for execution of the whole decree for the benefit of them all and, where one of them has died, for the benefit of the survivors and the legal representatives of the deceased.

Allahabad High Court Directs UP Panchayat Elections Within 3 Months Under Existing 27% OBC Quota, Says Commission Inquiry Can't Delay Polls

Case Title : Dashrath Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 842

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 842

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government and the State Election Commission (SEC) to complete Panchayat elections in the State within 3 months under the existing reservation arrangement, including 27 % reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs).

The bench said the polls cannot be delayed pending the Dedicated Backward Classes Commission's inquiry, report or the process of giving lawful effect to its recommendations on OBC reservations.

JJ Rules | Regular FIR Can't Be Lodged Against Juveniles For 'Serious Offences': Allahabad High Court Quashes FIR Against 2 Minors

Case Title : X & Y vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 843

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 843

The Allahabad High Court has observed that registration of a regular First Information Report (FIR) against Juveniles for "serious offences" is impermissible as per Rule 8 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Model Rules, 2016.

The Court thus quashed the entire criminal proceedings initiated against two juveniles for the alleged offenses of 'Aggravated Criminal Intimidation' [Section 351(3)] and 'Wrongful Restraint' [Section 126 (2)].

S. 125 CrPC | Allahabad High Court Seeks Chief Justice's Consideration Of Rules For Notice To Alleged Co-Adulterer In Maintenance Cases

Case Title : XYZ vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 844

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 844

Observing that a specifically named alleged co-adulterer must be given an opportunity to be heard before the court records an adverse finding against him in maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday urged the Chief Justice to consider framing rules governing notice to such a person.

A bench of Justice Lakshmi Kant Shukla said that a judicial finding attributing an adulterous relationship to a specifically identified person "may have consequences beyond determining the maintenance claim and may prejudice the reputation and dignity of the person concerned".

Second Appeal Against Same Stamp Duty Order Not Maintainable After Earlier Appeal Withdrawn: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Smt. Manmeet Kaur v. State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 845

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 845

The Allahabad High Court has held that once an appeal under Section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 has been dismissed because the appellant chose not to press it, a fresh appeal against the very same order of the Collector is not maintainable. It held that such an appeal is non est, and cannot attract the benefit of the State's stamp settlement scheme.

Justice Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi held,

“… it is safely observed that the subsequent Appeal No.1174/2021 filed under section 56(1-A) of the Indian Stamp Act, 1899 was not a legally instituted Appeal and was, rather non-est, more particularly when no liberty was granted or obtained for filing an another appeal afresh.”

45 Years After Murder Conviction, Allahabad High Court Finds 2 Life Convicts Were 'Juveniles'; Remits Sentencing To JJB

Case Title : Ali Hasan vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 846

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 846

The Allahabad High Court set aside the life sentences awarded to 2 men convicted in a 1980 murder case after finding that they were juveniles on the date of the offence, nearly 45 years after their conviction by the trial court.

A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Pramod Kumar Srivastava upheld their convictions but remitted the matter to the jurisdictional Juvenile Justice Board (JJB) to determine the appropriate punishment under the applicable law.

Specific UGC Qualifications For Business Administration Faculty Override General Eligibility Criteria: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Dr. Himanshu Mohan v. Chancellor Lko. University. Lko. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 847

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 847

The Allahabad High Court has held that where the First Statutes of a university prescribe specific minimum qualifications for teachers of Management/Business Administration, those qualifications govern the selection, and the general criteria for the faculty under which the department is placed cannot be applied instead.

The General Eligibility Criteria in Statute 11.03.01 of the First Statutes of the University of Lucknow, applied to the Faculty of Commerce by Statute 11.03.04(A), require evidence of having guided doctoral candidates and research students. Statute 11.03.04(G) carries the University Grants Commission Regulations, 2010 qualifications for teaching posts in Management/Business Administration.

Child Kept Away From Mother Can't Form 'Intelligent Preference': Allahabad High Court Directs Grandmother To Handover Custody

Case Title : S v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 848

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 848

The Allahabad High Court has held that a child of tender age who has been kept away from his mother cannot give an intelligent preference on custody, and his wish to stay with the relatives who raised him cannot outweigh the claim of the mother as his natural guardian.

It held that merely because the grandmother had looked after the child, she could not be said to have a better claim to his custody than the mother.

Contract Workers Must Prove Their Work Matches With Regular Employees In Quality & Sensitivity For Equal Pay : Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Thru Executive Director v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Ministry of Labour and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 849

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 849

The Allahabad High Court has held that workmen engaged on a contractual basis may claim equal pay for equal work if they show that they were actually performing the work of regularly appointed employees of the post, but the burden of proving parity in duties and responsibilities lies on them.

It held that such workmen must establish through oral and documentary evidence that their work was equal not merely in function but also in quality and sensitivity, and that a common name for the post is not enough.

Entitlement To Family Pension Flows From Service Rules, Not General Law Of Succession: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Smt. Shashi v. Smt. Sona Devi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 850

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 850

The Allahabad High Court has held that a court dealing with an application for a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act cannot finally decide who is entitled to family pension, gratuity and other retiral benefits of a deceased employee.

It held that such entitlement flows from the service rules governing the benefit and must be decided by the competent authority, not by applying the general law of succession.

Decide Maintenance Execution Cases Within 6 Months; Failure May Invite Contempt: Allahabad High Court Directs UP Trial Courts

Case Title : Data Ram vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 851

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 851

The Allahabad High Court has directed all trial courts in Uttar Pradesh to ensure that they decide execution applications in maintenance cases within 6 months. The Court warned that non-compliance to this direction may amount to contempt of the Supreme Court as well as the High Court.

A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri issued the direction while dismissing a criminal revision filed by a husband challenging a Family Court order directing him to pay maintenance to his wife and two minor children.

After 14 Years Of Service, Allahabad High Court Quashes Appointment Made From Expired Select List; But Refuses To Recover Salary Paid

Case Title : District Judge v. Anand Kumar Verma and others

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 852

The Allahabad High Court has held that a select list prepared under Rule 14(3) of the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1947 comes to an end on the expiry of one year and that no appointment can be made from it thereafter.

It held that a direction keeping such a list alive until it is exhausted amounts to legislation and cannot survive against the statutory rule.

Can Transgender Woman Invoke S. 69 BNS In False Promise Of Marriage Case? Allahabad High Court Answers

Case Title : Mohd Saakir @ Mohd Sakir v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 853

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 853

The Allahabad High Court has held that a transgender woman, even after undergoing sex-reassignment surgery, would not fall within the statutory definition of 'woman' under Section 69 BNS (Sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means etc.)

Section 69 BNS prescribes punishment for sexual intercourse with a woman by employing deceitful means or making a promise to marry without any intention of fulfilling it, where the act does not amount to rape.

High Court Denies Bail To Accountant Accused Of Embezzling ₹4 Crore From Donations To A Religious Institution In Varanasi

Case Title : Vivek Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 854

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 854

The Allahabad High Court has rejected the bail applications of an accountant accused of embezzling over ₹4 crore belonging to a religious institution in Varanasi by allegedly forging bank deposit receipts and siphoning off public offerings.

Given the nature and gravity of the allegations, a bench of Justice Krishan Pahal found that the case did not warrant bail.

Where Agreement To Sell Fixes No Date For Performance But Ties It To A Future Event, Limitation Runs From Notice Of Refusal: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Shashwat Kesarwani and another vs. Anil Kumar Singh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 855

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 855

The Allahabad High Court has held that where an agreement to sell fixes no date for performance and instead makes execution of the sale deed dependent on the happening of a future event, the second part of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies, and time begins to run only when the plaintiff has notice that performance has been refused.

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides a period of three years for a suit for specific performance of a contract, computed from the date fixed for performance, or, where no such date is fixed, from the date on which the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.

Allegation Of Illicit Relationship Does Not Divest A Woman Of Her Legal Status As Widow: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Rajeshwari Devi And Others vs. Hari Shankar Pandey And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 856

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 856

The Allahabad High Court has held that once the marriage of a woman and the death of her husband are admitted, her status as his widow follows as a legal consequence and is not lost merely because she is alleged to have formed a relationship with another man after the husband's death.

Justice Anil Kumar-X held

“The status of widow is a legal status arising from marriage and the death of the husband. It cannot be extinguished merely because an individual or even society chooses, according to personal belief, conduct or convenience, not to recognise such status. A legal status can be displaced only by establishing a legally recognised fact having that consequence.”

Non-Payment Of Admitted Contractual Dues Is Arbitrary, Writ Lies For Their Recovery: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : M/s Vikas Constructions vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 857

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 857

The Allahabad High Court has held that withholding contractual dues which the State authority itself admits is arbitrary, and a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable for their recovery. It held that the rule against deciding money claims in writ jurisdiction is not absolute, and does not apply where the amount is admitted by the authority.

The bench of Justice J.J. Munir and Justice Indrajeet Shukla held

“Non-payment of even the admitted dues/contractual dues for an uncertain period amount to arbitrary in action and cannot be countenanced in law.”

Public Tender| Experience Of Building A Road Can't Be Equated With Internal Development Works Of A Township: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : M/s Balaji Construction vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 858

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 858

The Allahabad High Court has held that experience of building and maintaining a road cannot be equated with experience of internal development works in a township, and that such experience was an essential condition of the tender from which no deviation was permissible.

The bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Kunal Ravi Singh held

“If the authority were to treat work experience in making a road as equivalent to undertaking internal development works in a Township, then the eligibility condition would be rendered practically meaningless as the specialised nature of work required to develop a Township cannot be equated with that of constructing a road and maintaining it.”

Indemnity Bond Taken At Retirement Won't Let State Recover Wrongly Fixed Pay, Undertaking Must Be At Time Of Pay Fixation: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Suraj Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 859

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 859

The Allahabad High Court has held that an undertaking or indemnity bond taken from a government servant at the time of his retirement does not entitle the State to recover salary paid in excess due to wrong fixation of his pay scale. The undertaking which permits such recovery is the one furnished at the time of the pay fixation later said to be wrong.

Referring to the decision of the Apex Court in High Court Of Punjab & Haryana v. Jagdev Singh, Justice Anish Kumar Gupta held

“In Jagdev (Supra), the aforesaid position has been clarified that if any undertaking was submitted by such government servant at the time of fixation of the pay scale on the basis of the aforesaid undertaking, the amount paid in excess can be recovered. However, that doesn't mean that any undertaking or indemnity bonds taken by the respondents at the time of retirement would entitle them to recover the amount as in Jagdev (Supra), the undertaking, which is to be relied upon is the undertaking at the time of fixation of the pay scale, which is stated to be wrong.”

Case Title : Arvind Pandey and Another vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 860

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 860

The Allahabad High Court directed the Judicial Training and Research Institute (JTRI), Lucknow, to prepare and disseminate training modules for Magistrates after flagging repeated instances of Magistrates failing to properly scrutinize remand applications and routinely authorizing remand.

A Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Achal Sachdev observed that Magistrates cannot take shelter behind an overload of judicial work when dealing with remand proceedings, which directly concern the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution.

Allahabad High Court Stays Conviction Of Murder Convict Who Wishes To Contest UP Assembly Polls On BJP Ticket

Case Title : Nandlal Rai Alias Babloo Rai vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 861

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 861

The Allahabad High Court has stayed the conviction and sentence of a man convicted in a 2017 murder case after noting that he wished to contest the 2027 Uttar Pradesh Assembly election, either as an independent candidate or, if possible, on a BJP ticket.

A Bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Vinai Kumar Dwivedi passed the order in the criminal appeal filed by Nandlal Rai alias Babloo Rai, who was convicted in 2025 in connection with a 2017 Murder case.

'Focus On Academics': High Court Warns Student Against Repeated Frivolous Pleas Against Allahabad University, Dismisses Appeal

Case Title : XYZ vs. University of Allahabad through its Registrar and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 862

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 862

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a BA student challenging the rejection of his pleas against the University of Allahabad, warning him against filing frivolous petitions and cautioning that filing such cases could invite adverse orders.

A Bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Kshitij Shailendra observed that the student's intention did not appear to be to pursue his studies, but rather to engage in activities unrelated to academics.

UP Mahila Samman Kosh | Can't Deny Compensation To POCSO Survivor Citing Absence Of Injury In Medical Report: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : X Rape Victim vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Women Welfare Deptt. Lko and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 863

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 863

The Allahabad High Court has observed that the absence of injuries in a medical report cannot be a ground to deny compensation to a victim of penetrative sexual assault under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Scheme, 2015.

The Court observed that compensation under the scheme is payable because the victim has suffered penetrative sexual assault, and not because the victim sustained physical injuries during the assault.

Allahabad High Court Upholds Rejection Of Plea Seeking 1% Senior Citizens' Quota In NEET Admissions

Case Title : Ashok Bahar vs. Union of India and Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 864

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 864

The Allahabad High Court upheld a single-judge order rejecting a plea seeking 1% reservation or a special quota for eligible senior citizens in admissions to MBBS and other medical courses through the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET).

A Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla disposed of the special appeal filed by Ashok Bahar while observing that the proposed reservation was a matter to be considered by the competent legislature or the concerned government.

Allahabad High Court Directs Verification Of Educational & Appointment Documents Of All UP Basic School Teachers: Here's Why

Case Title : Kusumlata vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 865

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 865

In a significant order, the Allahabad High Court has directed the verification of the educational qualifications and appointment documents of all teachers posted in the state's basic schools teaching students of Classes I to VIII.

The teachers have been directed to furnish legible copies of their appointment letters and educational documents, including those relating to High School, Intermediate, Graduation, B.Ed./B.T.C. (D.El.Ed., B.El.Ed., etc.), TET/CTET, to the Basic Shiksha Adhikari (BSA) concerned within 1 week of receipt of the notification issued from the office of the BSA.

Right To Electricity Protected U/Art 21, Connection Can't Be Denied Merely Due To Property Ownership Dispute: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 866

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 866

The Allahabad High Court has observed that access to electricity constitutes an important element of a dignified life and it derives constitutional protection through Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

The Court added that if the applicant is willing to furnish the prescribed indemnity form and comply with applicable requirements, the electricity connection cannot be denied merely because a dispute over ownership of the premises is pending before a civil court.

UP Legislative Council Elections: ECI Assures Allahabad High Court Of Continuous Polling Station Videography

Case Title : Shailendra Singh vs. Election Commission Of India Thru. Secy. Nirvachan Sadan New Delhi And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 867

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 867

The Election Commission of India (ECI) today assured the Allahabad High Court that it will conduct continuous, uninterrupted videography of polling proceedings inside all polling stations during the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council elections from the Lucknow Division Graduates' Constituency.

University Adopting UGC-NET Criteria Cannot Be Compelled To Accept JEST Score For PhD Admissions: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Aakash Narayan vs. Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation Univerversity Lko. Thru. Registrar Vice Chancellor 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 868

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 868

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a university that has adopted UGC-NET criteria for PhD admissions cannot be compelled to accept a Joint Entrance Screening Test (JEST) score in place of a NET score.

A bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh made this observation while dismissing a writ petition filed by Aakash Narayan, who sought a direction to Dr Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation University, Lucknow, to allow him to appear for an interview for PhD admission in Physics for the 2025–26 academic session.

Magistrate Taking Cognizance Before Transfer To Special Court Does Not Vitiate Proceedings Under SC/ST Act: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Ajai Yadav and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 869
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 869

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a Magistrate taking cognizance of an offences under the SC/ST Act before committing the case to the Special Court does not, by itself, result in the entire criminal proceedings being vitiated.

A bench of Justice Santosh Rai observed that even if the ACJM's initial exercise of jurisdiction in taking cognizance and recording statements under Sections 200 and 202 CrPC was procedurally irregular, that irregularity could not be treated as an incurable illegality which vitiates subsequent proceedings.

Allahabad High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Of Husband, In-Laws Based On Dying Declaration Despite Witnesses Turning Hostile

Case Title : Rajeshwari and Anr vs State of UP and connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 870

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 870

Observing that the dying declaration could not be disbelieved in toto merely because all prosecution witnesses of fact had turned hostile, the Allahabad High Court recently upheld the murder convictions of a husband and his parents in a case involving the death of a woman from burn injuries.

A Bench of Justice Siddhartha Varma and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay observed that there are circumstances in which prosecution witnesses are won over either emotionally or by material benefits.

Removal Of Court Employee For Off-Duty Incident After Two Decades Of Service 'Shockingly Disproportionate': Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Virendra Kumar Srivastava v. District Judge Unnao 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 871

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 871

The Allahabad High Court has held that the removal of a court employee over a single incident outside working hours, after more than two decades of service and in the absence of any earlier adverse record, was shockingly disproportionate.

The Court set aside the penalty while leaving the findings of misconduct undisturbed.

Registration Act | Writ Court Can't Conduct Full-Fledged Trial To Decide Fraud Allegations Over Land Agreement: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Rajendra Kumar and another v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Taxation and Registration Lko. and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 872

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 872

The Allahabad High Court has held that allegations of fraud and fabrication, however serious, do not permit a writ court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to act as a court of first instance by recording oral evidence, testing the credibility of witnesses and deciding disputed questions of fact.

It held that where a statutory authority has reached its conclusion on the material before it and the substantive rights of the parties are already pending before a civil court, interference must be exercised with restraint.

Allahabad High Court Declares Mandatory Injury Report Requirement Under UP Financial Assistance Scheme For POCSO Survivors 'Unconstitutional'

Case Title : Victim X vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 873

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 873

The Allahabad High Court has declared 'unconstitutional' the mandatory requirement under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Evam Bal Samman Kosh Scheme, 2015, to submit an injury report indicating penetrative sexual assault to claim financial assistance for child sexual assault survivors.

A Bench of Justice Saral Srivastava and Justice Garima Prashad held that the condition was manifestly arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it makes the operation of the Scheme dependent upon a medical document which may not lawfully or practically be available

Allottee Must Be Compensated For Investment If Advertisement Is Withdrawn Due To Authority's Own Fault: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Shantanu Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 874

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 874

The Allahabad High Court has held that where an advertisement is cancelled after a Letter of Intent has been issued, and the cancellation is the authority's own fault rather than any breach by the allottee, the allottee must be compensated for what he has spent in complying with the Letter of Intent.

Moulding the relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court awarded Rs. 15,78,486 to a man selected for a Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. retail outlet dealership.

Allahabad High Court Flags Use Of 'False' Victim DOB Certificates In POCSO Cases; UP Govt Proposes School Record Guidelines

Case Title : Banti @ Banshi vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 875

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 875

About 2 months after the Allahabad High Court flagged cases in which boys around 19-20 years of age were allegedly falsely implicated in POCSO Act cases based on victims' false age certificates, the Uttar Pradesh government has proposed guidelines for recording students' ages at the time of school admission.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal was apprised that the proposed guidelines prescribe 4 documents that may be accepted as proof of a child's age at the time of admission, in the absence of a birth certificate.

Court Custody Till 4 PM, ₹5K Cost: Allahabad High Court Acts Against Woman IO Who Failed To Collect POCSO Accused's Phone

Case Title : Raj Raeen vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 876

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 876

The Allahabad High Court directed a woman investigating officer (IO) to remain in the Court's custody until 4 PM and deposit ₹5,000 in the Army Welfare Fund after she admitted that she had 'mistakenly' failed to collect the accused's mobile phone in a POCSO case.

The case involves allegations of editing an obscene photograph/video of a minor girl and uploading it on social media.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal passed the order while hearing a bail application filed by the accused, who is facing charges under the BNS, POCSO Act and the UP Prohibition of Unlawful Conversion of Religion Act, 2021.

Food Safety Act | Junior Analyst (Food) Is Distinct Post From Food Analyst; State Can Prescribe Its Qualifications: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Pankaj Kumar and 9 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety Drug Administration and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 877

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 877

The Allahabad High Court has held that the post of Junior Analyst (Food) in the State service cadre is distinct from the post of Food Analyst under Section 45 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006. It held that the State Government is competent to prescribe the academic qualification for it.

Holding that no question of repugnancy arose, the Court upheld Rule 8(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Food Safety and Drug Administration Department Analysts (Food and Drug Laboratory) Service Rules, 2017, as amended by the First Amendment Rules, 2020, as intra vires.

Approval Order Missing From Department Records Doesn't Prove Appointment Was Procured By Fraud: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Rajneesh Upadhyay and 14 others v. The State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 878

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 878

The Allahabad High Court has held that the inability of a department to trace an approval order in its own records does not establish that the approval was never granted, much less that the employee fabricated it.

It held that where the State seeks to brand an appointment fraudulent, it must identify the false representation or the fabricated document, fix responsibility for it and establish its connection with the appointment of the particular employee.

Allahabad High Court Orders UP Police To Pay ₹25K To Woman Kept In Jail For 12 Extra Days Due To Police Negligence

Case Title : Leelawati Devi vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 879

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 879

The Allahabad High Court directed the Uttar Pradesh Police to pay ₹25,000 to a woman as compensation for 12 extra days she remained in jail because the police department failed to supply timely instructions to the state counsel in her bail matter.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal noted that the court could not decide the bail application on October 12, 2026, because the police failed to provide the necessary instructions to the Assistant Government Advocate (AGA).

Dismissal Vitiated Where Employer Fails To Supply Documents Or Produce Original Inquiry Record Despite Court's Direction: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : P.K. Nigam v. P.N.B. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 880

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 880

The Allahabad High Court has held that disciplinary proceedings are vitiated where the employer does not supply the delinquent employee copies of the documents used against him and, despite a direction of the Court, fails to produce the original inquiry record on the plea that it has been misplaced.

It held that the employer must establish from the inquiry record that a fair opportunity of defence was given, and that where the record is unavailable, that burden is not discharged.

Collection Amins Service Rules | Seniority Can't Override 70% Recovery Requirement For Regular Appointment: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and 4 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 881

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 881

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Seasonal Collection Amin who has failed to achieve the minimum recovery of 70% prescribed under the U.P. Collection Amins Service Rules, 1974 cannot claim regular appointment on the strength of seniority. It held that satisfactory work is a condition of eligibility under Rule 5 of the Rules and seniority becomes relevant only among those who are eligible.

Rule 5 of the Rules, as amended in 1992, provides that 35% of the vacancies of Collection Amin shall be filled by selection from Seasonal Collection Amins who have worked satisfactorily for at least four fasals. Work is treated as satisfactory where the recovery is at least 70% of the prescribed standard in the last four fasals, coupled with good conduct throughout.

Authority Can't Reject Application For Document Not Required By Brochure, 'Rules Of The Game' Apply: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : M/S Nalini Khandelwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Industrial Development 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 882

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 882

The Allahabad High Court has held that a statutory authority administering a public allotment scheme cannot reject an application because the applicant did not file a document which the scheme brochure never made mandatory.

It held that the principle that the rules of the game cannot be changed after the game has started is not limited to recruitment and applies equally to allotment schemes.

Allahabad High Court Orders SSP Meerut To Remain In Courtroom Till 4 PM Over Failure To Produce Accused Before HC Despite NBW

Case Title : X vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 883

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 883

The Allahabad High Court directed the Meerut Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) BBGTS Murthy, to remain in court until 4 PM after an accused, against whom it had issued a non-bailable warrant, was not produced before the High Court.

A bench of Justice Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal observed that although there appeared to be negligence on the part of the SSP's subordinates, the SSP himself, being the authority responsible for executing the warrant, was duty-bound to ensure the accused's presence before the High Court.

Prescribed Authority Under UP Ceiling Act Not A Civil Court, Its Orders Are Amenable To Article 226: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Saeeda Fatima Ashraf vs. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Barabanki and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 884

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 884

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Prescribed Authority under the U.P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 is not a Civil Court and that an order passed by it can be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

It held that the powers and privileges of a Civil Court conferred on the Prescribed Authority by Section 37 of the Act do not make it one, as those powers can be exercised only for determining surplus land.

S. 14 Family Courts Act Doesn't Exempt Family Courts From Fundamental Rules Of Proof & Natural Justice: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : P vs. P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 885

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 885

The Allahabad High Court has held that the partial freedom from the Evidence Act which Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 gives to Family Courts does not release them from the ordinary principles of proof or from the rules of natural justice. It held that custody could not be decided on an affidavit filed by the father when he never presented himself for cross-examination.

Missing RT-PCR Report No Ground To Deny COVID-19 Compensation When Hospital Records Confirm Infection: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Archana Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 886

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 886

The Allahabad High Court has held that a claim for ex gratia assistance of Rs. 50,00,000/- under the Government's COVID-19 scheme cannot be rejected merely for want of a positive RT-PCR report, where the Government hospital's own records show a positive antigen result and the authorities themselves accept the infection and the cause of death.

The scheme provides a one-time payment of Rs. 50,00,000/- to the dependants of personnel who died of COVID-19 while performing duties connected with its prevention, protection or treatment. A Government Order dated 26.07.2021 required a legible copy of the deceased employee's RT-PCR, antigen or CT scan report to be uploaded on the Relief Commissioner's portal.

Kisan Bima Yojana | Unmarried Sister Can Claim Accidental Death Benefit As Legal Heir Even If Not Listed As Family Member: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Km. Vidyawati vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 887

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 887

The Allahabad High Court has held that an unmarried sister is not disqualified from receiving the Rs. 5,00,000/- accidental death benefit under the Mukhyamantri Kisan Evam Sarvahit Bima Yojana merely because a sister is not named in the list of family members covered by the Scheme.

The Court held that the clause listing covered family members and the clause directing payment of the insured sum to the nominee or legal heir on the accidental death of the head or breadwinner operate separately. It held that the latter does not confine the legal heir to the relationships named in the family composition clause.

Allahabad High Court Dismisses PIL Challenging 18% GST On Online Legal Research Database

Case Title : Aniket Gupta vs. Union of India and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 888

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 888

The Allahabad High Court on Monday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea challenging the levy of 18% Goods and Services Tax (GST) on online legal research and legal educational data based services.

The Court questioned as to why the advocate who filed the plea in 2026 had suddenly become aware of the alleged unreasonableness of the tax when the tax rates were in force since 2017.

High Court Bars 300 Advocates From Voting In Oudh Bar Polls; Directs UP Bar Council To Develop Online COP Verification System

Case Title : Girdhari Lal Yadav vs. Bar Council of U.P. & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 889

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 889

The Allahabad High Court has barred 300 advocates from voting in the upcoming Oudh Bar Association elections scheduled for October 28 over issues with their Certificates of Practice (COP).

The Court has also directed the Uttar Pradesh State Bar Council to develop an online COP verification system within six months.

A bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Manjive Shukla passed the order in 3 connected petitions, including two Public Interest Litigation (PIL) pleas filed concerning the upcoming Oudh Bar Association elections.

Allahabad High Court Issues Statewide Directions To Prevent Child Marriages, Bars Aadhaar-Only Age Verification

Case Title : Deepak Pal vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 890

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 890

The Allahabad High Court has issued strict statewide directions to prevent the registration of child marriages in Uttar Pradesh, wherein it has made the verification of the date of birth of both parties mandatory before a marriage registration certificate can be issued.

The Court directed the State Government to ensure that its online registration system does not issue certificates based solely on Aadhaar age records and does not allow applications to proceed when age is unverified or a discrepancy is flagged.

Forgery Offence U/S 467 IPC Not 'Heinous' But 'Serious' Under JJ Act As It Doesn't Prescribe 7-Yr Minimum Sentence: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Juvenile - X vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 891

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 891

The Allahabad High Court has held that an offence under Section 467 IPC, which does not prescribe a minimum sentence of 7 years, cannot be classified as a "heinous offence" for the purposes of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 (JJ Act).

A bench of Justice Jai Prakash Tiwari held that the offence falls within the category of "serious offences" under the JJ Act.

Allahabad High Court Directs UP DGP To Ensure Passport Verification Reports Reflect Current Status Of Criminal Proceedings

Case Title : Suresh Yadav @ Geeta Saran Yadav vs. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 892

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 892

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Director General of Police (DGP) to ensure that police verification reports submitted for passport applications disclose the current status of criminal proceedings, including whether a charge-sheet has been filed before a court and whether cognizance has been taken.

A bench of Justice Ajit Kumar and Justice Garima Prashad observed that police officers cannot act mechanically by merely mentioning a case crime number in which a passport applicant is implicated or providing details of a charge-sheet filed against a person.

Can Trial Court Entertain Second Plea U/S 216 CrPC To Add Or Alter Charge After Earlier Rejection? Allahabad High Court Answers

Case Title : Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 893

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 893

The Allahabad High Court has observed that a trial court can entertain a second application seeking alteration or addition of a charge under Section 216 CrPC, even after an earlier application for the same relief was rejected.

A bench of Justice Saurabh Srivastava, however, clarified that the power to entertain such plea is available only before pronouncement of judgment of the trial.

Allahabad High Court Finds GDA Colluded With Builder To Regularise Illegal Constructions, Imposes Hefty Costs On Both

Case Title : Suresh Chander and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others with Gulmohur Greens Residents Welfare Association vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 894

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 894

The Allahabad High Court has imposed costs of ₹25 lakh on the promoter of the Gulmohar Greens housing society in Ghaziabad and directed the Ghaziabad Development Authority (GDA) to pay ₹50,000 to each of the eleven apartment owners who approached the Court, holding that GDA officials had colluded with the promoter in perpetuating illegalities, including allowing flats to be sold and occupied without a completion certificate.

Dual PAN Card Case | Allahabad High Court Grants Bail To Azam Khan, Son Abdullah Azam; Refuses To Suspend Conviction

Case Title : Mohd Azam Khan vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 895

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 895

The Allahabad High Court on Thursday suspended the sentence of former Uttar Pradesh Cabinet Minister Mohd. Azam Khan and his son, former MLA Abdullah Azam Khan, in the alleged Dual PAN Card case. The Court also granted them bail.

A bench of Justice Samit Gopal, however, refused to suspend their conviction. They are likely to walk out of jail.

'Even By Performing A Hundred Misdeeds': Allahabad High Court Cites Manusmriti Verse While Stressing Husband's 'Pious' Duty To Maintain Family

Case Title : Pinki Verma And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 896

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 896

Citing a verse from the 'Manusmriti', the Allahabad High Court stressed a husband's 'pious obligation' to maintain his wife, minor children and aged parents.

A bench of Justice Praveen Kumar Giri referred to Chapter XI, Verse 10 of the Manusmriti while dealing with a criminal revision filed by the wife seeking enhancement of maintenance awarded by a Family Court in Kanpur Nagar.

Rule That Select List Confers No Indefeasible Right Can't Substitute For Examining Claim Based On Available Vacancy: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Bihari Lal Rastogi vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 897

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 897

The Allahabad High Court has held that the settled principle that inclusion in a select list confers no indefeasible right to appointment cannot be used to reject the claim of a selected candidate who relies on vacancies alleged to be available and on an earlier direction of the Court requiring his case to be reconsidered.

It held that the recruiting authority was obliged to ascertain the actual vacancy position, apply the recruitment provisions governing the selection and give legally sustainable reasons for its decision.

Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs On Landowners For Concealing Facts To Secure Release Of Acquired Land

Case Title : Sumit Makhija and another v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 898

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 898

The Allahabad High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 5 lakhs on two petitioners who obtained the release of land acquired in 1959 by concealing material facts.

The Court held that they had suppressed the fact that their predecessors had purchased the land after the acquisition had commenced, and had not disclosed the civil suit, first appeal and second appeal in which the acquisition was unsuccessfully challenged.

'Highly Reprehensible': Allahabad High Court Imposes ₹1 Lakh Costs On UP Govt For Denying Minimum Pay To Forest Dept Daily Wagers

Case Title : State of UP and 3 others vs. Ramesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 899

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 899

The Allahabad High Court has held that a writ court may grant relief at the interim stage which amounts to the final relief, where the legal position has already been settled by the Supreme Court and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner would not ultimately succeed.

Dismissing two State appeals against interim orders directing payment of the minimum pay scale to daily wagers of the Forest Department, the Court imposed costs of Rs. 1,00,000.

Allahabad High Court Prescribes Uniform Formatting Rules For Physical & E-Filings; New Norms Applicable From November 12

Case Title : Sheo Kinkar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 900

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 900

The Allahabad High Court issued significant directions prescribing certain uniform formatting requirements for pleadings filed before it.

The Court has mandated that English pleadings must be typed in Times New Roman font, size 14, with double line spacing and Hindi pleadings must use a Unicode font, size 14, with the same line spacing.

Continuing Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Teachers On Contract For Years On Paltry Pay Is 'Forced Labour' Under Article 23: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Archana Boodh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 901

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 901

The Allahabad High Court has held that the continued engagement of teachers in Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalayas on year-to-year contracts, without any step by the State to create posts for them or to pay them at par with regularly appointed teachers, amounts to a form of forced labour prohibited by Article 23 of the Constitution of India.

The Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya Scheme was launched in 2004 under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan to provide residential schooling to girls from socially, educationally and economically backward sections living in rural and remote areas, and was later merged into Samagra Shiksha. Teaching staff were first engaged through a selection process held under an advertisement dated 10.07.2009, and have since been appointed on contract from year to year on an honorarium.

Writ Court Can't Decide A Party's Eligibility On Oral Submission Made Across The Bar: Allahabad High Court

Case Title : Ashok Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planing Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 902

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 902

The Allahabad High Court has held that where a writ petition turns on disputed or unverified facts going to the eligibility of a third party, the Court must ordinarily call for a counter-affidavit before recording a finding of fact against a party who has had no opportunity to place his version on record.

Setting aside a Single Judge's order to that extent, it held that the eligibility of the officer granted officiating charge of the post of Chief Town and Country Planner could not be decided on a statement from the Bar, unsupported by any affidavit or certificate.

Acid Burns Must Have Lasting Impact To Attract S. 326A IPC: Allahabad High Court Alters Acid Attack Conviction To S. 324 IPC

Case Title : Teerathraj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 903

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 903

The Allahabad High Court has held that to attract Section 326A IPC, which punishes voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc., a burn injury must have a lasting impact on the affected body part.

The Court clarified that a 'simple' burn which heals within 13 days without leaving any visible marks or functional impairment, is not what is envisaged by the expression 'burn' as used in the said section, which contemplates a lasting impact on the affected body part and must be severe enough to alter or gravely affect it for a significant period.

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

Rakesh Yadav @ Pappu And Another v. State of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 821

Ravi Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. and 5 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 822

Dr. Chandra Mohan Singhal and others v. State of U.P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 823

Dr. Vartika Mishra v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another, along with Lalit Kumar Singh and 47 Others v. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 824

M/s I Think Apps Pvt. Ltd. v. Anugya Gupta and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 825

P v. A 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 826

Anuradha vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 827

Nazar Husain Khan v. Member Secy. State Cadre Authority and Anr 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 828

Sri Siraj Ahmad v. Satya Narain Singh and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 829

Munna Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 830

Mohammad Haroon vs. Union Of India And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 831

Bhanu Datta Pathak vs. Hardutta Pathak and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 832

Sachin Yadav vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 833

Christian Community Welfare Society vs. State of U.P. and Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 83

In Re- Conduct Of Elections To The Oudh Bar Association 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835

Madhu Dubey vs. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 835

H v. H 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 836

Gareeba v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 837

Guddo vs. State of U.P. and 7 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 838

Dileep Kumar vs. Union of India,Thru. Secy. Ministry of Law and Justice New Delhi and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 839

M/S Raj Hans Towers Private Limited v. State Of U.P. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 840

: Jaipal vs. Anil Kumar and 6 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 841

Dashrath Yadav vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 842

X & Y vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 843

XYZ vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 844

Manmeet Kaur v. State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary Stamp and Registration, Lucknow and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 845

Ali Hasan vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 846

Dr. Himanshu Mohan v. Chancellor Lko. University. Lko. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 847

S v. S 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 848

Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited Thru Executive Director v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Ministry of Labour and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 849

Shashi v. Smt. Sona Devi And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 850

Data Ram vs. State of U.P. and 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 851

District Judge v. Anand Kumar Verma and others

Mohd Saakir @ Mohd Sakir v. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 853

Vivek Kumar vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 854

Shashwat Kesarwani and another vs. Anil Kumar Singh and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 855

Rajeshwari Devi And Others vs. Hari Shankar Pandey And Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 856

M/s Vikas Constructions vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 857

M/s Balaji Construction vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 858

Suraj Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 859

Arvind Pandey and Another vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 860

Nandlal Rai Alias Babloo Rai vs. State of U.P. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 861

XYZ vs. University of Allahabad through its Registrar and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 862

X Rape Victim vs. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Women Welfare Deptt. Lko and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 863

Ashok Bahar vs. Union of India and Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 864

Kusumlata vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 865

Rakesh Kumar Mishra vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Energy Deptt. Lko. And 4 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 866

Shailendra Singh vs. Election Commission Of India Thru. Secy. Nirvachan Sadan New Delhi And 2 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 867

Aakash Narayan vs. Dr. Shakuntala Misra National Rehabilitation Univerversity Lko. Thru. Registrar Vice Chancellor 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 868

Ajai Yadav and 2 others vs. State of U.P. and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 869

Rajeshwari and Anr vs State of UP and connected appeals 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 870

Virendra Kumar Srivastava v. District Judge Unnao 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 871

Rajendra Kumar and another v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Taxation and Registration Lko. and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 872

Victim X vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 873

Shantanu Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 874

Banti @ Banshi vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 875

Raj Raeen vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 876

Pankaj Kumar and 9 others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin./ Addl.Chief Secy. Deptt. of Food Safety Drug Administration and Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 877

Rajneesh Upadhyay and 14 others v. The State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 878

Leelawati Devi vs. State of UP 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 879

P.K. Nigam v. P.N.B. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 880

Dinesh Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru Secy. Revenue and 4 Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 881

M/S Nalini Khandelwal v. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Ministry Industrial Development 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 882

X vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 883

Saeeda Fatima Ashraf vs. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Barabanki and 10 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 884

P vs. P 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 885

Archana Singh vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 886

Km. Vidyawati vs. State of U.P. and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 887

Aniket Gupta vs. Union of India and 4 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 888

Girdhari Lal Yadav vs. Bar Council of U.P. & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 889

: Deepak Pal vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 890

Juvenile - X vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 891

Suresh Yadav @ Geeta Saran Yadav vs. Union Of India And 6 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 892

Raghvendra Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 893

Suresh Chander and 10 others vs. State of U.P. and 2 others with Gulmohur Greens Residents Welfare Association vs. Ghaziabad Development Authority and another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 894

Mohd Azam Khan vs. State of U.P. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 895

Pinki Verma And Another vs. State of U.P. and Another 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 896

Bihari Lal Rastogi vs. State of U.P. Through Secy. Transport Deptt. Lko. and Ors 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 897

Sumit Makhija and another v. State of U.P. Thru Principal Secy. and others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 898

State of UP and 3 others vs. Ramesh 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 899

Sheo Kinkar Singh vs. State of U.P. and 2 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 900

Archana Boodh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko. and 3 others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 901

Ashok Kumar vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Housing And Urban Planing Lko. And 3 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 902

Teerathraj vs. State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 903