A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench — Hon’ble Justice Rajan Roy and Hon’ble Justice Amitabh Kumar Rai — on 25th March 2026 passed an interim order protecting Lalit Tiwari alias Lalit Kishore Tiwari, declared elected Corporator of Ward No. 73, Faizullaganj-III, Nagar Nigam Lucknow, from penal consequences of an oath ceremony that had been withheld for nearly three months.
BACKGROUND
The petitioner was declared elected Corporator vide judgment dated 19.12.2025 of the Additional District Judge, Court No. 12, Lucknow in Election Petition No. 2 of 2023 under Section 69(c) of the U.P. Municipal Corporations Act, 1959. The defeated candidate Pradeep Kumar Shukla challenged this in First Appeal No. 7 of 2026, in which no interim stay was granted. Despite this, the Mayor of Lucknow Municipal Corporation refused to administer oath to the petitioner — even after the State Government issued directions on 04.02.2026 directing compliance under Sections 85(1) and (1A) of the Act. The petitioner filed the writ seeking a Mandamus commanding the authorities to administer oath under Section 85 of the Act.
THE MAYOR’S POSITION
In response to the Court’s earlier order, the Mayor submitted written instructions stating that since First Appeal No. 7 of 2026 was pending, the legal position regarding her duty to administer oath was unclear to her.
INTERVENER’S BID FOR DISMISSAL
Pradeep Kumar Shukla pressed an application under Chapter XXII Rule 5A of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, seeking dismissal of the writ petition on three grounds: first, that the petitioner had violated Chapter XXII Rule 1(3)(i) by not disclosing the pendency of the First Appeal in paragraph 1 of the petition, amounting to fraud upon the Court; second, that he had not been impleaded despite being the person most affected; and third, that the proper remedy was execution under the CPC and not a writ.
He relied upon Rama Ram vs. State of U.P. (2013 SCC Online All 3263), Arun Kumar vs. State of U.P. (Writ-C No. 43441 of 2023), and Prem Prakash Yadav vs. Union of India (Writ-C No. 3990 of 2014).
The petitioner’s Senior Counsel Sri Gaurav Mehrotra countered that the pendency of the appeal had in fact been disclosed in paragraphs 29 and 30 and its order-sheet annexed — it was merely not in paragraph 1. All three cited decisions involved concealment of prior proceedings initiated by the petitioner himself, which was entirely absent here.
He further submitted that Section 74(6) of the Act bars interim orders in appeals against Section 69(c) decisions, that Sections 76 and 77 create a self-contained enforcement mechanism displacing CPC execution, and that no relief was sought against the intervener making him no necessary party.
COURT’S FINDINGS
On the dismissal application, the Court held that while the pendency of the appeal should have been mentioned in paragraph 1, its disclosure in paragraphs 29 and 30 with annexed documents established absence of mala fide intent. All three cited precedents were distinguished as involving concealment of the petitioner’s own earlier proceedings — facts entirely different from the present case.
The Court held this to be a bona fide error of drafting counsel and observed that “considerations of substantial justice outweigh procedural requirements” on these facts. On non-impleadment, the Court held the intervener was not a necessary party as no relief was sought against him specifically.
On executability, the Court found it prima facie very difficult to hold that CPC execution was the prescribed remedy, given the self-contained mechanism under Sections 76 and 77 of the Act.
The Court granted the intervener a right of hearing under Rule 5A but rejected the prayer for dismissal.
On the Mayor’s conduct, the Court observed that her stand appeared “prima facie in the teeth of statutory provisions” — particularly Sections 77 and 85 of the Act — and also the de facto doctrine, noting that the State Government had directed compliance as far back as 04.02.2026.
OPERATIVE DIRECTIONS
The Court directed:
(i) the ill-effects, if any, of Section 85(2) of the Act shall not visit the petitioner;
(ii) the Municipal Corporation and its Mayor, being bound by Section 77, shall not violate the same;
(iii) opposite parties to file response within seven days;
(iv) rejoinder within three days thereafter;
(v) matter listed as fresh on 07.04.2026, on which date the petition may be finally disposed of, failing which further interim relief — including on oath — shall be considered.
The order is subject to proceedings in First Appeal No. 7 of 2026 and the Order IX Rule 13 CPC application.
Next date: 07.04.2026.
Case Details:
“WRIT – C No. – 2531 of 2026
Lalit Tiwari Alias Lalit Kishore Tiwari vs State of U.P. And Others”
