HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9269 of 2025 alongwith WRIT - A No. - 9916 of 2025 alongwith WRIT - A No. - 10026 of 2025 Court No. - 4 HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J. 1. Heard Shri Prem Prakash Giri, Advocate, holding brief of Shri Suresh Chandra Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri P. K. Singh, Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Suresh Chandra Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajiv Raman Srivastava Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ravi Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Vivek Awasthi And 2 Others .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Lko And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Mohan Mishra .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Rural Development Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) Mohd Zahid (Gram Panchayat Adhikari) .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Gram Vikas Lko. And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondents no. 1 to 5. 2. Learned counsel for the parties contend that the issue involved in WRIT - A No. - 9269 of 2025, WRIT - A No. - 9916 of 2025 and WRIT - A No. - 10026 of 2025 are the same. As such, the Court proceeds to hear all the writ petitions together. For convenience, facts of WRIT - A No. - 9269 of 2025 are being taken. 3. With the consent of learned counsels appearing for the contesting parties, the writ petition is finally being decided. 4. The facts and grounds as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner have already been set forth in the order dated 29.8.2025, which for the sake of convenience is reproduced below: "1.Heard. 2. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on the basis of instructions dated 25.08.2025 states that prior to passing of the order impugned the petitioners had been issued with a show cause notice dated 22.07.2025 but they failed to submit their reply and thus the order impugned dated 05.08.2025 has been passed. 3. Responding learned counsel for the petitioners states that after issuance of the show cause notice dated 22.07.2025 the petitioners had submitted their reply on 25.07.2025, copies of which have been filed cumulatively as Annexure-4 to the petition but there is no consideration of the reply as submitted by the petitioner. 4. A perusal of the order impugned dated 05.08.2025 would also indicate that the reply submitted by the petitioners has not even been referred to in the order impugned. 5. Upon the same being pointed out learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel prays for some time to seek instructions as to whether the reply as submitted by the petitioners dated 25.07.2025 was ever served on the competent authority. 6. Let the instructions be obtained within two weeks. 7. List this case in the week commencing 15.09.2025 in terms of earlier order of this Court. 8. Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of listing. " WRIA No. 9269 of 2025 2 5. Today Shri P. K. Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State on the basis of the instructions sent by Block Development Officer i.e. respondent no. 5 dated 6.9.2025 states that no instructions are forthcoming regarding the query as raised by this Court and the grounds as raised by learned counsel for the petitioner as to why the reply submitted to the show cause notice as submitted by the petitioner had not been even referred to in the order dated 5.8.2025. 6. However it is specifically admitted by learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the basis of instructions, that reply had been submitted by the petitioner and thus once the petitioner had submitted reply to the show cause notice consequently there does not appear to be any occasion as to why competent authority has not considered the said reply while passing the order impugned. 7. Needless to mention that once reply had been submitted it was the duty of the competent authority to have considered the said reply and thereafter to have passed an order but non consideration of reply submitted by the petitioner and thereafter passing the order cannot be countenanced in the eyes of law. 8. Keeping in view aforesaid discussion, writ petition is allowed. 9. The order dated 5.8.2025, a copy of which is annexure 1 to the writ petition, is set aside. 10. Consequences to follow. 11. However it would be open for the respondent no. 5 to pass a fresh order in accordance with law and relevant rules after considering the reply as has been submitted by the petitioner. September 19, 2025 J. K. Dinkar WRIA No. 9269 of 2025 3 (Abdul Moin,J.) Digitally signed by :- JESHU KUMAR DINKAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench