The Allahabad High Court has issued strict directions to its Registry after noticing repeated listings of defective petitions. Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery has directed the Registrar General to investigate why defects are not being flagged by the reporting section and to ensure that a Senior Officer verifies whether defects have been cured before petitions are presented to the Court.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition filed by Minakshi Bhetwal against the Union of India and others (Writ-A No. 16103 of 2025). During the proceedings, the Court observed that the petition was defective, specifically noting that there was “double page numbering on several pages of paper book.”
This was not an isolated incident; the Court remarked that it was the “fourth matter of date wherein such defects are found by this Court.”
Faced with the defect, Sri A.P. Paul, learned counsel for the petitioner, requested the Court to dismiss the writ petition as withdrawn. He sought liberty to file a fresh petition with “better particulars.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Shamshery expressed strong displeasure over the Registry’s failure to identify such patent defects at the filing stage.
The Court directed the Registrar General to look into the matter and ascertain “why such defects were not pointed out by concerned section at the time of filing of writ petitions.”
To prevent recurrence, the Court issued a specific direction regarding the verification process:
“Further, it is directed that before presenting any petition to this Court Registrar General will himself or depute any other Senior Officer of Registry to verify whether defects have been cured or not.”
Subsequent Observation in Renu Devi Case
In a subsequent order dated November 10, 2025, in the case of Renu Devi And 4 Others vs. State Of U.P. And 15 Others (Writ-A No. 16610 of 2025), the same Bench noticed another lapse where a copy of a communication annexed to the petition was “illegible.”
The Court expressed surprise that the Registry had again failed to flag the defect, despite the specific order passed a week earlier. The Court observed:
“It is very strange that no defect was pointed out by Registry despite the fact that taking note of such repeated incidents, this Court has already passed an order dated 03.11.2025 in Minakshi Bhetwal vs. Union of India and others, 2025:AHC:192745…”
Decision
In the matter of Minakshi Bhetwal, the Court allowed the withdrawal of the petition with liberty to file afresh. However, the Court imposed a cost of Rs. 500/-, directed to be deposited in the Bank account of the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad.
The Court ordered that the “Registry will accept fresh petition only after receipt of payment of cost.”
A copy of the order was directed to be served to the Registrar General forthwith for compliance.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Minakshi Bhetwal Versus Union Of India And 2 Others
- Case No: WRITA No. 16103 of 2025
- Citation: 2025:AHC:192745
- Bench: Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- Counsel for Petitioner: Anand Prakash Paul, Kaustubh Tewari
- Counsel for Respondent: A.S.G.I., Manoj Kumar Singh, Shivendu Ojha
