Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 74293 (ALL)

DINESH KUMAR NISHAD v. STATE OF UP AND 4 OTHERS

WRIC/22880/2025 · 2025-09-22

Amitabh Kumar Rai, Saral Srivastava

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - C No. - 22880 of 2025 Court No. - 40 HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J. HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J. 1. Heard Sri Balram Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to release the payment in regard to the work done by the petitioner in Village Panchayat Imlideeha, Block Mehandawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar for the financial year 2020-21 under MANREGA scheme being a capacity of Village Pradhan. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to decide the letter dated 13.12.2024 pending before the respondent no.2 for release of the work payment in regard to interlocking work done under the MANREGA scheme for the financial year 2020-21 in Village Panchayat Imlideeha, Block Mehandawal, District Sant Kabir Nagar, within stipulated period as fixed by this Hon'ble Court." 3. The petitioner is the Up-Pradhan of the village concerned. It has been stated that during his tenure, certain works were executed however, the payments for such works have not been released to the persons who actually carried out the execution. 4. In such view of the fact, the petitioner cannot be said to be an aggrieved party, as he has not executed the work in question. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. It is the persons who have actually executed the work and whose payments have not Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Balram Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Dinesh Kumar Nishad .....Petitioner(s) State Of Up And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) been released, can be only considered the aggrieved parties. 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as misconceived. September 23, 2025 Gaurav WRIC No. 22880 of 2025 2 (Amitabh Kumar Rai,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.) Digitally signed by :- GAURAV PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad