TAUSEEF AHMAD v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 3 OTHERS
WRIC/8655/2025 · 2025-09-09
Brij Raj Singh, Sangeeta Chandra
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 162126 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 162126 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 8655 of 2025 Court No. - 2 HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.
2. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner with following main prayers:
"(i). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the Additional Deputy Police Commissioner, Line, Commissionerate, Lucknow as contained in Annexure No. 1 to this writ petition ; (ii). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to accept the 10% payment against security guard provided to petitioner instead of 25% or 50% ; (iii). Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to exempt the arrears of amount in lieu of 25% & 50% as made by respondents."
3. Shri Manish Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the writ petition as the petitioner has only challenged the consequential order of recovery dated 14.08.2025. He has not challenge the order dated 08.05.2025 by which the liability to pay 25% of the expenses for security guard to be provided to the petitioner was decided by the State Government. Also, it has been pointed out that if the order dated 08.05.2025 is not challenged and set aside, the second prayer made in the writ petition cannot be granted. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anupam Mishra, Aman Agarwal Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Tauseef Ahmad .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s)
4. The writ petition challenging only consequential orders are not maintainable in view of the judgment rendered by Supreme Court reported in the case of Government of Maharashtra vs. Deokar's Distillery AIR 2003 SC 1216.
5. The writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition. September 9, 2025 Pks WRIC No. 8655 of 2025 2 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) (Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.) Digitally signed by :- POOJA SETH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench