Allahabad High Court Weekly Round-Up : July 21 To July 27, 2025

Ashok Kumar Maurya v. The State Of U.P. And 25 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 258

Prabhat Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Govt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 259

State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow and others v. Jai Singh and others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 260

Ishak v. State of U.P. and 4 others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 261

Suez India Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorized Signatory, Rajesh Chandra Mathpal v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman And 6 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 262

Ram Dular Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 263

Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 264

Jamiat Ulma E Hind (Arshad Madani) Public Trust And Another vs. Union Of India And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 265

Juvenile X vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 266

Naina Gupta v. Union Of India And 4 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 267

Sachin Gupta vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 268

Bindra Prasad Patel v. State Of Up And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 269

ORDERS/JUDGEMNTS OF THE WEEK

Preliminary Decree In Partition Suit 'Interlocutory' Or Conclusively Decides Substantive Rights? Allahabad High Court Larger Bench To Decide

Case Title: Ashok Kumar Maurya v. The State Of U.P. And 25 Others [WRIT - C No. - 41837 of 2024]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 258

A single judge of the Allahabad High Court has referred to a larger bench the question whether a preliminary decree in a partition suit is an interlocutory order or an order finally deciding the substantial rights of the shareholder. It also referred the question whether such an order is appealable under Section 207 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

Separate Cut Off Marks Must Be Given For Physically Handicapped Category At Each Stage Of Recruitment: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Prabhat Mishra v. State Of U.P. Thru. Secy. Higher Education Govt. U.P. Lko. And 2 Others [WRIT - A No. - 4991 of 2023]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 259

While granting relief to a person with optical atrophy in both eyes, the Allahabad High Court has held that separate cut off marks must be given for the physically handicapped category at each stage to ensure that physically handicapped candidates get adequate representation in service.

Relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services, Rekha Sharma vs High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and another and Saurav Yadav and others vs State of U.P. and others, Justice Abdul Moin held,

“physically handicapped category is to be considered as a separate category and provided with reservations and it is indispensable on the part of the authorities to declare separate cut off marks for physically handicapped category for each stage to ensure that those similarly placed candidates are adequately represented in service fulfilling the very purpose of reservation.”

Court Orders Are Cared For Only When Personal Appearance Of Officer Is Called: Allahabad High Court Raps State

Case Title: State of U.P. through its Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Basic Education, Government of U.P., Lucknow and others v. Jai Singh and others [ SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 276 of 2024]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 260

On Monday, the Allahabad High Court rapped the officials of the State Government by observing that court orders were not being followed even after issuance of notice of contempt, unless personal appearance of officer concerned was ordered by the Court.

The bench of Chief Justice Arun Bhansali and Justice Jaspreet Singh observed,

“The attitude of the officers, in ignoring the orders passed by the Court till such time that notices in the contempt petition are issued, cannot be approved. On many occasions, despite issuance of notices in contempt petition, no action is taken and it is only when the directions are issued for personal presence that for the first time, the officers care for the orders passed by the Court. There are hardly any appeals which are filed without application seeking condonation of delay, which conduct on part of the appellants cannot be appreciated/encouraged.”

Senior Citizen Maintenance Tribunal Can't Adjudicate On Property Ownership Claims: Allahabad High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Ishak v. State of U.P. and 4 others [ WRIT - C No. - 18408 of 2025]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 261

The Allahabad High Court has held that the Maintenance Tribunal under Section 7 of the Senior Citizens Act, 2007 does not have the power to adjudicate property ownership claims especially in case of third party dispute, and the same must be adjudicated before the Civil Courts.

Observing that the Senior Citizen Act is aimed at providing maintenance and for welfare of senior citizens, the bench of Justice Arindam Sinha and Dr. Justice Yogendra Kumar Srivastava held,

“The maintenance tribunals constituted under the Act have been empowered to entertain applications relating to claims for maintenance against children, or in case of a childless senior citizen against his relative who would inherit the property. There is no conferment of jurisdiction to adjudicate questions relating to property and ownership rights particularly where there is a dispute with third parties. Disputes in this regard are to be adjudicated before the Civil Courts of competent jurisdiction.”

State Pollution Control Board Can't Impose Environmental Compensation Upon Any Person Or Industry: Allahabad High Court

Case Title: Suez India Pvt. Ltd., Through Its Authorized Signatory, Rajesh Chandra Mathpal v. Uttar Pradesh Pollution Control Board, Through Its Chairman And 6 Others [WRIT - C No. - 4816 of 2024]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 262

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court allowed 178 writ petitions and quashed the orders of the State Pollution Control Board imposing environmental compensation upon the petitioners.

The bench of Justice Attau Rahman Masoodi and Justice Subhash Vidyarthi held that the State Pollution Control Board has powers only to issue administrative directions and does not have any adjudicatory powers.

“The State Pollution Control Board has no power to impose environmental compensation upon any person or Industry and it can merely file an application before the NGT under Section 15 read with Section 18 of the NGT Act for issuance of a direction to the person concerned for payment of compensation,” it said.

'Neglect & Cruelty Towards Elderly Parents A Violation Of Article 21': Allahabad HC Slams Sons' Conduct After Govt Assesses Compensation To Father

Case title - Ram Dular Gupta vs. State Of U.P. And 2 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 263

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 263

The Allahabad High Court recently came down heavily on the mistreatment of elderly parents, observing that cruelty, neglect, or abandonment of aged parents amounts to a violation of their fundamental right to life with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.

A bench of Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Justice Prashant Kumar stressed that it is both a sacred moral duty and a statutory obligation for children to protect the dignity, well-being, and care of their ageing parents.

'Pvt Hospitals Treat Patients As ATMs To Extract Money': Allahabad HC Denies Relief To Doctor Accused Of Medical Negligence

Case title - Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai vs. State of U.P. and another 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 264

Case citation: 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 264

Observing that private hospitals/nursing homes have started treating the patients as 'guinea pigs/ATMs' only to extort money out of them, the Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea filed by a doctor seeking quashing of a 2008 case initiated against him in connection with the death of a foetus allegedly due to delay in surgery.

A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar noted that the applicant (Dr. Ashok Kumar Rai) had failed to justify the 4-5 hour delay between obtaining consent for surgery and conducting the operation, which allegedly led to the death of the child.

'SC's 'Tehseen Poonawalla' Directives Binding On State & Centre; Can't Monitor Mob Lynching Incident In PIL': Allahabad HC

Case title - Jamiat Ulma E Hind (Arshad Madani) Public Trust And Another vs. Union Of India And 5 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 265

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 265

The Allahabad High Court disposed of a Criminal Public Interest Litigation (PIL) plea filed by Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind seeking compliance with the Supreme Court's guidelines laid down in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018), on preventing and addressing incidents of mob lynching and mob violence.

A bench of Justice Siddharth and Justice Avnish Saxena observed that every incident of mob lynching/ mob violence is a separate incident, and it cannot be monitored in a public interest litigation.

Adolescents Losing Innocence Due To TV, Internet & Social Media; Govt Helpless As Nature Of Technology Is Uncontrollable: Allahabad HC

Case title - Juvenile X vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 266

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 266

The Allahabad High Court expressed its serious concerns over the 'disastrous' effects of television, internet, and social media on adolescents, observing that these mediums are causing a "loss of their innocence at a very early and tender age", and that even the government can't control their influence due to the 'uncontrollable' nature of the technologies involved.

A bench of Justice Siddharth made these observations while allowing a criminal revision filed by a juvenile challenging an order of the Juvenile Justice Board as well as the POCSO Court, Kaushambi, that he be tried as an adult in an alleged case of consensual physical relationship with a minor girl.

Eligible Candidate For Compassionate Appointment Must Undertake To Take Care Of Financial Needs Of Other Dependents: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Smt. Naina Gupta v. Union Of India And 4 Others [WRIT - A No. - 1019 of 2025]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 267

The Allahabad High Court has held that an eligible candidate for compassionate appointment must give an irrevocable undertaking on affidavit to take care of the financial needs of other dependent of the deceased.

While dealing with discord between mother and wife of deceased employee seeking compassionate appointment, Justice Ajay Bhanot held

“The family member who is appointed on compassionate grounds steps into the shoes of the deceased, and is liable to shoulder the obligations of the deceased and discharge their responsibilities towards other dependent members. An irrevocable undertaking sworn on affidavit to maintain and take care of the financial needs of other dependents of the deceased by the eligible applicant is a mandatory prerequisite for the appointment on compassionate grounds. Violation of such undertaking by the appointee will be on the pain of cancellation of the appointment on compassionate grounds.”

'Advocates Should Assist, Not Disrupt Court': Allahabad HC Pulls Up Lawyer For Causing Ruckus After Bail Denied To Client

Case title - Sachin Gupta vs. State of U.P 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 268

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 268

The Allahabad High Court earlier this week strongly censured the conduct of an advocate who caused a ruckus in the courtroom and disrupted proceedings after his client's second bail plea was rejected.

A bench of Justice Krishan Pahal stressed the dual responsibilities of Advocates in a Court of Law: maintaining a respectful and conducive environment in the courtroom while diligently representing the interests of their clients.

Teacher/Headmaster Of A Basic Institution Not An Employee U/S 2(e) Of Gratuity Act, Not Entitled To Any Benefits: Allahabad HC

Case Title: Bindra Prasad Patel v. State Of Up And 3 Others [SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 41 of 2025]

Case citation : 2025 LiveLaw (AB) 269

Recently, the Allahabad High Court held that a teacher/ headmaster of school under the Board of Basic Education is not an employee of the State Government under Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, 1972 and is not entitled to benefits therein.

Holding that a headmaster or assistant teacher appointed in an educational institution under the Board of Basic Education is under the State Government, the bench of Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Praveen Kumar Giri held

“a teacher (including Headmaster) of a basic institution cannot be held to be an employee under Section 2(e) of the Gratuity Act, 1972. The benefits available to an employee under the Gratuity Act, 1972 would thus not be available to such a teacher.”