Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 98999 (ALL)

KM. SRISHTI v. State of UP AND ANOTHER

WRIC/31757/2024 · 2025-01-24

Shekhar B Saraf, Vipin Chandra Dixit

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:12862-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 31757 of 2024 Petitioner :- Km. Srishti Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi,Rakesh Kumar Mishra,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Shekhar B. Saraf,J. Hon'ble Vipin Chandra Dixit,J. 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 2. This is a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein the following prayers have been made by the petitioner:- "i. a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 30.8.2024 (Annexure no.1 to this writ petition) passed by respondent - authorities as well as the impugned declaration of result dated 30.8.2024 (Annexure no.2 to this writ petition) issued by respondent - authorities. ii. a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent - authorities to properly apply the Rules of reservation and then allot the petitioner her preferred college in accordance with her merit. iii. any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice. iv. award cost of the petition to the petitioner." 3. Upon perusal of the documents and after hearing learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, it appears that a detailed representation was made by the petitioner on 2.9.2024. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that the entire process of counselling is over and it is too late in the date for any further consideration with regard to the petitioner's claim. 5. However, we are of the view that when such a representation was made by the petitioner, the authorities were duty bound to have considered the same and pass a reasoned order on the same. 6. In light of the same, we direct the authorities to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter pass a reasoned order on the representation of the petitioner, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. 7. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 24.1.2025 Kpy (Vipin Chandra Dixit, J.) (Shekhar B. Saraf, J.) Digitally signed by :- KAVLESHWAR PRASAD YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad