'Notices Issued Sans Due Application Of Mind': Allahabad HC Stays Demolition Of 27 Madrasas In Shravasti Till July 3

The order was passed on Thursday by a bench of Justice Jaspreet Singh while hearing a bunch of petitions filed by the madrasas.

The petitioners had challenged government notices that prohibited them from imparting religious education and warned of appropriate action if the directives were not followed.

It was the case of the petitioners that they had not been granted any opportunity of hearing in the matter, and claimed that the notices, which were issued without application of mind, were never served on them.

It was also submitted that the language which is used in the said notices indicates that a pre-mediated decision has been taken, and there was no purpose for the Madrasas to respond, as they had already been sealed before waiting for their response.

It was further contended that where any order is proposed to be passed against any person or an institution which gives rise to civil consequences, the least that is expected in law is to put the person to proper notice.

While hearing the plea on June 4, the High Court granted time to the Standing Counsel to produce records verifying whether notices had indeed been issued and properly served to the petitioners.

However, when the matter was taken up again on June 5, the state failed to present the required documents and instead sought an additional two weeks time.

In this context, the Court examined the notices dated May 1, 2025, sent to the petitioners and observed that all appeared to bear the same reference number. The bench noted that, prima facie, the notices seemed to have been issued without due application of mind.

The Court also questioned the standing counsel about the legal basis for recognition of madrasas, to which he referred to the Uttar Pradesh Non-Governmental Arabic and Persian Madarsa Recognition, Administration and Services Regulations, 2016.

However, the Court pointed out that the impugned notices did not mention or refer to these regulations in most cases.

Thus, emphasising the settled legal principle that any show-cause notice must clearly specify the allegations so that the recipient can respond meaningfully, the Court held that a prima facie case for intervention had been made out.

Accordingly, it granted interim relief to the petitioners and directed the state to file its counter-affidavit within two weeks.

Advocates Nipendra Singh, Aviral Raj Singh, Ali Moid, Mohd. Yasir appeared for the petitioners.

Standing Counsel Upendra Singh appeared for the State

Advocate Mohd. Irfan, holding brief of Advocate Kumar Ayush, appeared on behalf of respondent no.5 in some of the connected writ petitions.