# Chetram v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 1062
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-14
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 38368 of 2025
- **Bench:** Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chetram-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53819
- **Pages:** 10

## Text

1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appeal, set-aside the order dated 12.03.2024 passed by the S.D.M., Mankapur and remanded the
matter to the S.D.M. for being decided afresh within a period of two months.

6. After remand of the matter by the impugned order dated 31.07.2025, the fair price shop in
question has been allotted in favour of the opposite party No.5 by means of an order dated
11.12.2025 which has not been challenged by the petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that the appellate order was passed
on 31.07.2025 and in the writ petition filed challenging the appellate order on 18.12.2025, the delay
in filing his writ petition has not been explained.

8. Replying to the aforesaid submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that
the impugned order has been passed without jurisdiction and it is liable to be set-aside.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not advance any submission in opposition to the
objection that the petition suffers from laches.

10. Para 13(3) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation of Sale and Distribution Control)
Order, 2016 provides that any person aggrieved by an order of the competent authority denying the
issue or renewal of the agreement to the fair price shop owner, suspension or cancellation of the
agreement, may appeal to the appellate authority. This paragraph provides for filing of appeal by a
person whose request for issuance of agreement of fair price shop has been denied.

11. When an application submitted by the opposite party No.5 for issuance of a fair price shop
license after death of his father, who himself was a fair price shop owner, has been denied, the
rejection order would be appealable under Para- 13(3) of U.P. Essential Commodities (Regulation
of Sale and Distribution Control) Order, 2016.

12. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned appellate order dated 31.07.2025 has been
passed by the appellate authority without jurisdiction. This Court finds no good ground to entertain
the writ petition which is dismissed at the admission stage.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1062
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ C No. 38368 of 2025

Chetram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
1 All. Chetram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1063
ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which contemplate rejection
of a plaint, are applicable to summary proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006;
and whether the Assistant Collector is mandatorily required to adjudicate such objection as a preliminary
issue.

HEADNOTE
U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, Sections 67, 210, 214 - U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, Rule 186 - Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 - Order VII Rule 11 - Proceedings under Section 67 are summary proceedings - Provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall not be applicable to the summary proceedings - Proceedings under
Section 67 are administrative-cum-quasi-judicial summary proceedings and do not constitute civil suits -
Proceedings under Section 67 do not originate from a plaint but are triggered upon information furnished
culminating in an RC Form-19 report - RC Form-19 report cannot be equated with a plaint, either in form,
substance, or legal character - Order VII Rule 11 CPC is plaint-centric and suit-oriented and has no
application proprio vigore to summary proceedings under Section 67 - Application seeking rejection of
proceedings under Order VII Rule 11 CPC would not be maintainable - Objections as to maintainability are
ordinarily required to be considered in conjunction with, and not in isolation from, the merits of the case -
Interlocutory orders in summary proceedings not amenable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction -
Impugned orders declined to interfere - Writ petition dismissed with direction to expeditiously conclude
proceedings.

HELD:
Proceedings under Section 67(1) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 was initiated against the petitioner on the
allegation of unauthorised occupation of Gram Sabha land. Assistant Collector issued show-cause notice.
Petitioner filed an application invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC, seeking rejection of the proceedings at the
threshold on the ground of non-maintainability. Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector, passed an order dated
24.03.2025, declining to decide the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the threshold, and held that
the objection as to maintainability would be considered along with the objections on merits at the stage of
final adjudication under Section 67(3). The revision was also dismissed. Petitioner filed a writ petition
challenging the order dated 24.03.2025.(E-5)
Held : Proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are administrative-cum-quasi-judicial
summary proceedings and do not constitute civil suits. On a conjoint reading of Section 214 of the Code, 2006
and Rule 186 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, the Court held that the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 are expressly excluded from summary proceedings, and only the principles of CPC and
natural justice apply. Proceedings under Section 67 do not originate from a plaint but are triggered upon
information furnished, culminating in an RC Form-19 report. The RC Form-19 report cannot be equated with
a plaint, either in form, substance, or legal character. Order VII Rule 11 CPC is plaint-centric and suitoriented, and since proceedings under Section 67 do not originate from a plaint but from an RC Form-19
report, the provision has no application proprio vigore to such proceedings. Consequently, an application
seeking rejection of such proceedings by invoking Order VII Rule 11 CPC would not be maintainable. A person
proceeded against under Section 67 can raise objections relating to jurisdiction or maintainability, but there is
no vested right to demand that such objections must be decided as separate preliminary issues. The authority
may decide them along with the merits, unless a patent jurisdictional defect is apparent. Interlocutory or
procedural orders passed in the course of summary proceedings are not amenable to interference in exercise
of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition was dismissed.(Paras 3-7,
10, 13-17, 20-26, 29-35, 36)

CASE LAW CITED
-

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006;
Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code Rules, 2016;
1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

List of Keyword
Section 67 proceedings; Summary proceedings; RC Form-19; Order VII Rule 11 CPC; Rejection of plaint; Nonapplicability of CPC; Maintainability objection; Interlocutory orders; Writ jurisdiction; Gram Sabha land.

CASE ARISING FROM
Order dated 24.03.2025 passed by the Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Dadri, Gautam Budh
Nagar, in Case No.14775 of 2023 and revisional order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Additional
Commissioner (Administration)-III, Meerut Division, Meerut.

Appearances for Parties
Advs For Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar Mishra; Shrawan Kumar Pandey
Advs For Respondents: C.S.C.; Rakesh Kumar Srivastava; Sunil Kumar Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Heard Sri Shrawan Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J N Maurya,
learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing along with Sri O P Sharma, learned Additional Chief
Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. The present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been instituted
for quashing the order dated 24.03.2025 passed by respondent no.4, namely the Tehsildar
(Judicial)/Assistant Collector, Tehsil Dadri, District Gautam Budh Nagar, in Case No.14775 of
2023 (Computer Case No. T202311270214775), Land Management Committee versus Chetram,
arising out of proceedings under Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 20061, as also the
order dated 19.08.2025 passed by respondent no.2, the Additional Commissioner (Administration)-
III, Meerut Division, Meerut, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner under Section 210 of
the Code has been rejected.

3. Though the impugned orders are interlocutory in nature, the writ petition raises a substantial
and recurring question of law concerning the applicability of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 19082 to summary proceedings under Section 67 of the Code, 2006. The question
assumes significance, inasmuch as proceedings under Section 67 are intended to provide an
expeditious remedy, whereas the power of rejection of a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 operates at
the threshold to terminate proceedings that are barred in law or do not disclose a cause of action.
The issue has repeatedly arisen before the revenue courts and, therefore, calls for a considered
exposition of the legal position.

4. Proceedings under Section 67 (1) of the Code, 2006 were initiated against the petitioner on
the allegation of unauthorised occupation of Gram Sabha land. The initiation of proceedings was
founded upon information furnished in the manner prescribed by the concerned revenue authority,
culminating in a report submitted in RC Form 19, as contemplated under Section 67(1).
Consequent thereto, a show-cause notice in RC Form 20 was issued to the petitioner under Section
67(2), affording him opportunity to submit objections within the time prescribed.
1 All. Chetram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1065

5. Upon receipt of the notice issued under Section 67(2), the petitioner, instead of confining
himself to objections contemplated thereunder, filed an application captioned under Order VII Rule
11 CPC, seeking rejection of the proceedings at the threshold on the ground of alleged nonmaintainability. Subsequently, the petitioner also filed detailed objections on merits on 21.04.2024,
as contemplated under Section 67(2).

6. The Assistant Collector, by order dated 24.03.2025, declined to decide the application under
Order VII Rule 11 CPC at the threshold, holding that the objection as to maintainability would be
considered along with the objections on merits at the stage of final adjudication under Section
67(3).

7. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a revision under Section 210 of the Code, 2006,
which came to be dismissed by the Additional Commissioner on 19.08.2025, holding that no
jurisdictional error or illegality was made out.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the application under Order
VII Rule 11 CPC raised a pure question of maintainability, which ought to have been decided as a
preliminary issue prior to adjudication on merits. Reliance was placed upon Section 214 of the
Code, 2006, contending that principles of CPC apply and deferment of such adjudication amounts
to jurisdictional error warranting interference under Article 226.

9. Per contra, learned Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents submitted
that proceedings under Section 67 are summary proceedings, to which provisions of CPC stricto
sensu do not apply by virtue of Rule 186 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016. It was submitted
that integrated adjudication of objections aligns with the statutory scheme and legislative intent of
expeditious removal of encroachments over public land.

10. The seminal question that arises for consideration is whether the provisions of Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which contemplate rejection of a plaint, are
applicable to summary proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the U. P. Revenue Code, 2006,
and, if so, whether the Assistant Collector is mandatorily required to adjudicate such objection as a
preliminary issue ?

11. In order to appreciate the controversy, the relevant provisions under the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 and the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 are being set out herein below:

 "Section 67. Power to prevent damage, misappropriation and wrongful occupation
of Gram Panchayat property. - (1) Where any property entrusted or deemed to be entrusted under
the provisions of this Code to a Gram Panchayat or other local authority is damaged or
misappropriated, or where any Gram Panchayat or other authority is entitled to take possession of
any land under the provisions of this Code and such land is occupied otherwise than in accordance
with the said provisions, the Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti or other authority or the Lekhpal
concerned, as the case may be, shall inform the Assistant Collector concerned in the manner
prescribed.
1066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2) Where from the information received under sub-section (1) or otherwise, the Assistant
Collector is satisfied that any property referred to in sub-section (1) has been damaged or
misappropriated, or any person is in occupation of any land referred to in that sub-section in
contravention of the provisions of this Code, he shall issue notice to the person concerned to show
cause why compensation for damage, misappropriation or wrongful occupation not exceeding the
amount specified in the notice be not recovered from him and why he should not be evicted from
such land.

(3) If the person to whom a notice has been issued under sub-section (2) fails to show
cause within the time specified in the notice or within such extended time as the Assistant Collector
may allow in this behalf, or if the cause shown is found to be insufficient, the Assistant Collector
may direct that such person shall be evicted from the land, and may, for that purpose, use or cause
to be used such force as may be necessary, and may direct that the amount of compensation for
damage or misappropriation of the property or for wrongful occupation as the case may be, be
recovered from such person as arrears of land revenue.

(4) If the Assistant Collector is of opinion that the person showing cause is not guilty of
causing the damage or misappropriation or wrongful occupation referred to in the notice under subsection (2), he shall discharge the notice.

(5) Any person aggrieved by an order of the Assistant Collector under sub-section (3) or
sub-section (4), may within thirty days from the date of such order, prefer an appeal to the
Collector.

(6) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Code and subject to
the provisions of this section every order of the Assistant Collector under this section shall, subject
to the provisions of sub-sections (5) be final.

(7) The procedure to be followed in any action taken under this section shall be such as
may be prescribed.

Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, the word land shall include the trees and
building standing thereon.

 Section 214. Applicability of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Limitation Act,
1963.- Unless otherwise expressly provided by or under this Code, the provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 and the Limitation Act, 1963 shall apply to every suit, application or
proceedings under this Code.

"Rule 186. Non-applicability of CPC (Section 214) - The provisions of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 shall not be applicable to the summary proceedings under the Code or these
Rules, but the principles enshrined in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and the principles of
natural justice, shall be observed in the disposal of such proceedings.
1 All. Chetram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1067

12. Section 67 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006 confers power upon the revenue
authorities to prevent damage, misappropriation and wrongful occupation of property entrusted or
deemed to be entrusted to a Gram Panchayat or other local authority. Sub-section (1) obligates the
Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, the concerned local authority or the Lekhpal, as the case may be, to
inform the Assistant Collector in the prescribed manner upon damage, misappropriation or
unauthorized occupation of such land. Sub-section (2) empowers the Assistant Collector, upon
receipt of such information or otherwise, and upon being satisfied that damage, misappropriation or
unauthorized occupation exists, to issue a show-cause notice calling upon the person concerned to
explain why compensation should not be recovered and why eviction should not be ordered. Subsections (3) and (4) vest the Assistant Collector with authority, upon failure to show cause or upon
insufficiency thereof, to order eviction and recovery of compensation as arrears of land revenue, or
alternatively, to discharge the notice if no contravention is found. Sub-section (5) provides a
statutory appeal to the Collector within thirty days. Sub-section (6) accords finality to orders passed
under the section, subject to the appellate remedy. Sub-section (7) mandates that the procedure to
be followed shall be such as may be prescribed.

13. The applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure to proceedings under the Code is
governed by Section 214 of the Code, 2006, which makes the CPC applicable unless otherwise
expressly provided. Such express exclusion is contained in Rule 186 of the U.P. Revenue Code
Rules, 2016, which categorically provides that the provisions of the CPC shall not apply to
summary proceedings, though the principles thereof and the principles of natural justice shall be
followed.

14. A conjoint reading of Section 67, Section 214, and Rule 186 makes the statutory position
explicit. Section 67 creates a summary mechanism for protection of Gram Sabha and public land,
empowering the Assistant Collector to act on information or official report without recourse to civil
litigation. The proceedings are designed to be swift, preventive, and remedial. While Section 214
provides for application of CPC provisions generally, it does so subject to express exclusion. Rule
186 is such an express exclusion. It categorically bars application of CPC provisions to summary
proceedings, while preserving only their principles, coupled with principles of natural justice. Thus,
the statutory scheme consciously balances procedural fairness with administrative efficiency,
ensuring that the rigours of civil procedure do not obstruct the legislative object of prompt eviction
of persons found to be in wrongful occupation of Gram Panchayat property.

15. Proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are administrative-cumquasi-judicial summary proceedings and do not constitute civil suits. A civil suit under the Code of
Civil Procedure commences with the presentation of a plaint under Order IV Rule 1 CPC, followed
by service of summons, framing of issues, recording of evidence, and adjudication through a fullfledged trial.

16. In stark contrast, proceedings under Section 67 do not originate from a plaint but are
triggered upon information furnished in accordance with sub-section (1) by the Bhumi Prabandhak
Samiti, the concerned local authority or the Lekhpal, or where the Assistant Collector, upon such
information or otherwise under sub-section (2), is satisfied regarding damage, misappropriation or
unauthorized occupation of land vested in the Gram Panchayat.
1068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. The procedural trajectory under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 commences
with the receipt of information or an official report regarding alleged unauthorized occupation of
Gram Sabha land, upon which a show-cause notice is issued to the person concerned, who is
thereafter afforded opportunity to file objections, followed by a summary enquiry as the authority
deems fit, culminating in the passing of a reasoned final order in accordance with law.

18. Where a statute creates a special forum and prescribes a distinct and self-contained
procedure, concepts and technicalities drawn from ordinary civil court procedure cannot be
imported into such proceedings unless the statute itself expressly so provides. Revenue ejectment
proceedings, particularly those relating to removal of unauthorised occupation over public land,
have consistently been understood to be summary in nature, intended to secure swift and effective
remedy, and are not governed by the technical rigours of the Code of Civil Procedure.

19. The manifest legislative object underlying Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is
the expeditious vacation of public and Gram Sabha land so as to prevent public mischief and
protect community property. The introduction of procedural trappings of civil litigation such as
elaborate pleadings, technical objections, and threshold applications designed for adversarial
litigation would frustrate this object and dilute the summary character of the statutory mechanism.

20. Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure confers power upon the Court to reject a
plaint at the very threshold on grounds, inter alia, that it does not disclose a cause of action or that
the suit appears, from the statements contained in the plaint, to be barred by any law. The provision
is premised on the salutary principle that frivolous, vexatious or legally untenable litigation ought
not to be permitted to occupy the time of the Court or subject parties to avoidable proceedings.

21. The provision, it must be noted, is essentially procedural, suit centric and thresholdoriented. It presupposes, in the strict sense, the institution of a civil suit by presentation of a plaint
and is intended to operate at the inception of such adversarial civil proceedings. Its conceptual
foundation is, therefore, inextricably linked to the existence of a plaint, and it does not apply
proprio vigore dehors the framework of an ordinary civil suit.

22. Procedural provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are not to be mechanically or
automatically applied to proceedings under special statutes, particularly where such statutes
prescribe a distinct procedure and expressly limit or exclude the application of the Code. Rule 186
of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 expressly excludes the application of the provisions of the
Code of Civil Procedure to summary proceedings, while preserving only the guiding principles
thereof along with the principles of natural justice. Applying the maxim expressio unius est
exclusio alterius, once CPC provisions are expressly excluded, their indirect importation through
Section 214 is impermissible.

23. Proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 do not originate from a
plaint in the sense understood under the Code of Civil Procedure. The initiation of such
proceedings is founded upon an RC Form 19 report, which is an official report submitted by a
revenue functionary in discharge of a statutory duty. Such a report is neither an adversarial
pleading nor a statement of claim asserting private rights, but merely a piece of administrative
1 All. Chetram Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1069
information which sets in motion the statutory obligation of the Assistant Collector to enquire into
an alleged unauthorized occupation of public land.

24. The RC Form 19 report, therefore, cannot be equated with a plaint, either in form,
substance, or legal character. Any attempt to treat it as a plaint so as to attract the rigours of Order
VII of the Code of Civil Procedure would be conceptually erroneous and legally untenable, and
would amount to importing civil suit jurisprudence into a summary statutory proceeding where the
legislature has consciously excluded its application.

25. Equating such a report with a plaint would be wholly misplaced and would amount to a
fundamental category error. In the absence of a plaint, the very foundation for invoking Order VII
Rule 11 is lacking, thereby rendering the said provision wholly inapplicable to proceedings under
Section 67 of the Code. The exclusion of its applicability stands further reinforced by Rule 186
read with Section 214 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006.

26. A person proceeded against under Section 67 is entitled to raise objections relating to
jurisdiction, maintainability, or the existence of a legal bar as part of the objections contemplated
under Section 67(2). However, the statute does not mandate that such objections must invariably be
segregated and adjudicated as preliminary issues. The decision as to whether a preliminary
objection should be taken up separately or considered along with the merits lies within the
procedural discretion of the competent authority, to be exercised having regard to the nature of the
objection and the overall statutory scheme.

27. In summary proceedings, insistence on isolated adjudication of preliminary objections
often operates as a dilatory device and has the potential to defeat the very purpose of providing a
swift and efficacious remedy. Unless a jurisdictional defect is apparent on the face of the record
and goes to the very root of the proceedings, integrated adjudication remains both permissible and
desirable.

28. In the present context, the requirements of natural justice stand fully satisfied as the
petitioner has been served with notice, afforded opportunity to file objections, permitted to
participate in the proceedings, and has availed the remedy of revision. The principles of natural
justice do not mandate fragmented or piecemeal hearings, nor do they require every objection to be
adjudicated in isolation at a preliminary stage.

29. The order dated 24.03.2025 is purely procedural and interlocutory in nature, merely
deferring consideration of objections as to maintainability to the stage of final adjudication. It does
not decide any substantive right of the parties.

30. The legislative declaration of finality under sub-section (6) of Section 67, subject only to
the statutory appeal, further underscores the legislative intent to restrict procedural obstructions and
reinforces judicial restraint against interference with interlocutory procedural orders in summary
proceedings.
1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

31. It is well settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution is
not to be exercised against interlocutory or procedural orders passed in the course of summary
proceedings, unless such orders disclose a patent lack of jurisdiction or result in manifest injustice.

32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that Order VII
Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, being plaint centric and suit-oriented, has no
application proprio vigore to summary proceedings under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code,
2006, which are not instituted by presentation of a plaint but are set in motion by an RC Form 19
report. Consequently, an application seeking rejection of such proceedings by invoking Order VII
Rule 11 CPC, in its strict sense, would not be maintainable.

33. At the same time, it cannot be gainsaid that the revenue courts are not denuded of the
authority to examine, at the threshold, whether the very initiation of proceedings is wholly without
jurisdiction, barred by law, or constitutes an abuse of the statutory process. While the formal
machinery of Order VII Rule 11 CPC cannot be imported into Section 67 proceedings, the
underlying principle that legally untenable proceedings ought not to be permitted to continue may,
in an appropriate case, be applied in a limited manner, consistent with the summary scheme and
legislative intent of the Code.

34. The legal position that emerges form the foregoing discussion may be summarised thus :

34.1 Proceedings initiated under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 are
summary in character, administrative-cum-quasi-judicial in nature, and do not partake the character
of civil suits governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

34.2 The provisions of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which
contemplate rejection of a plaint, are wholly inapplicable to proceedings under Section 67,
inasmuch as such proceedings do not originate from any plaint.

34.3 Rule 186 of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 expressly excludes the application
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to summary proceedings under the Code, save and except for
adherence to the underlying principles thereof and the principles of natural justice.

34.4 A person against whom proceedings are initiated under Section 67 is entitled to raise
objections relating to maintainability, jurisdiction, or the existence of any statutory or legal bar;
however, no vested, absolute, or indefeasible right accrues to such person to demand that those
objections be taken up, isolated, and adjudicated as separate or independent preliminary issues,
divorced from consideration of the merits of the proceedings

34.5 Objections as to maintainability constitute an integral part of the objections
contemplated under Section 67(2) of the Code and are ordinarily required to be considered in
conjunction with, and not in isolation from, the merits of the case.
1 All. M/S Wizitec Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1071

34.6 Segregated or threshold adjudication of preliminary objections is warranted only in
exceptional situations where a patent and apparent jurisdictional defect is discernible on the face of
the record.

34.7 Interlocutory or procedural orders passed in the course of summary proceedings
under Section 67 are not amenable to interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India, unless such orders disclose a patent lack of jurisdiction or result in
manifest injustice.

35. The impugned orders disclose no jurisdictional error, illegality or procedural impropriety
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is, therefore, held to be devoid of merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed.

36. However, to serve the ends of justice, Respondent no.4-Tehsildar (Judicial)/Assistant
Collector, Tehsil Dadri, Gautam Budh Nagar is directed to expeditiously conclude adjudication of
Case No.14775 of 2023 by passing reasoned and speaking final order considering all objections
including those on maintainability within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of
certified copy of this order.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 1071
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE MRS. SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

Writ C No. 44710 of 2025

M/S Wizitec Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether the indefinite blacklisting order is legal and valid; whether the District Basic Education Officer was
competent to pass the blacklisting order in view of the Government Order dated 26.07.2024; and whether the
blacklisting order is vitiated for non-supply of material, non-consideration of the petitioner's replies, and failure
to specify the duration of debarment.

HEADNOTE
Administrative Law - Blacklisting/Debarment - Indefinite blacklisting - Petitioner blacklisted without
specification of period - Principles of natural justice - Replies submitted by petitioner not considered -
Material forming basis of decision not supplied - Government Order dated 26.07.2024 - Competent authority
- Authority issuing blacklisting order not competent - GeM contractual framework - Requirement to prepare
merit list of 504 candidates not part of original engagement. (E-5)
HELD: