Allahabad High Court
WRIC/1/2026 of MADHAV RAJ GUPTA Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. ADDL. CHIEF SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND 9 OTHERS on 3 January 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 1 of 2026 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - C No. - 1 of 2026
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard Sri Sumit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Badrish Tripathi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State respondents and Sri Surya Prakash Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6.
2. By means of present writ petition the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaiserganj, Bahraich to forthwith decide the petitioner's application under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "the BNSS, 2023") and also to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the State authorities to restrain respondent no. 10 from interfering with the petitioner's access to his house.
3. It is noticed that previously, the petitioner's wife had approached this Court by filing Writ - C No. 9899 of 2025 (Pramila Vs. State of U.P. and 6 Others), which was dismissed as withdrawn by means of order dated 08.10.2025, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition with better particulars. Thereafter, the petitioner Madhav Raj Gupta preferred Criminal Misc. Application (CRLP) No. 11495 of 2025 (Madhavraaj Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and Others) and that too was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh, by means of order dated 09.12.2025. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Sumit Kumar Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Surya Prakash Singh Madhav Raj Gupta .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And 9 Others .....Respondent(s)
4. In the present writ petition the petitioner has pleaded that he had got the Writ Petition No. 11495 of 2025, dismissed as withdrawn as respondent no. 10 had given him assurance to amicably settle the dispute. It has been further pleaded that petitioner and respondent no. 10 are related to each other.
5. In the application filed under Section 152(1) of the BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has pleaded that respondent no. 10 has obstructed the public and ancestral passage. However, a copy of the site plan annexed with the present writ petition indicates that the passage in question exists on a private land and it leads to the petitioner's house only. It appears that the passage is not a public passage.
6. Section 152 of BNSS, 2023 is contained in Part - B of Chapter 11. Chapter 11, deals with maintenance of public order and tranquility. Part - B of Chapter 12 of BNSS, 2023 contains provisions regarding public nuisance. Chapter 11 of BNSS, 2023 is not intended to confer jurisdiction on the authorities to adjudicate upon private property disputes between private individuals. Allegations of obstruction of a private passage by a private individual does not make out public nuisance. Section 152 of BNSS contains provisions of removal of nuisance from any public place or from any pathway which may be used by public. A bare perusal of Section 152 of BNSS, 2023 makes it manifest that this provision is not intended to confer any right on the State authorities in case of any obstruction of any private passage by a private individual.
7. Accordingly, the Sub Divisional Magistrate has no jurisdiction to interfere in the alleged obstructions created by respondent no.10 on a private passage leading to the house of the petitioner.
8. Therefore, we do not find any good ground to issue any direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Kaisarganj, Bahraich to decide application under Section 152 of BNSS, 2023, filed by the petitioner.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, no good ground is found by us to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, present writ petition being devoid of merits is dismissed at the admission stage itself. WRIC No. 1 of 2026
10. However, it will be open for the petitioner to file a suit before the competent civil Court, which shall be decided in accordance with law, without being prejudiced by the dismissal of the present writ petition or by the orders passed by this Court in the previous writ petitions. January 3, 2026 A. Verma WRIC No. 1 of 2026
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) (Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench