This article is for educational and legal awareness purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or solicitation. Please consult a qualified advocate for advice on specific legal matters.
Overview
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 presented at the Allahabad High Court has to clear three distinct filters before it reaches a judge. It must be presented at the correct seat — Prayagraj (Allahabad) or Lucknow. It must fall within a category on the roster at that seat, which determines whether it goes to a Division Bench or a single Judge and to which court. And it must satisfy the form requirements of Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court, 1952, which the Registry checks at scrutiny before the matter is numbered.
Each filter is governed by a different instrument. This article deals with all three.
The Seat Question in Short
The division of work between the two seats rests on Clause 14 of the United Provinces’ High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948, which requires that not less than two nominated Judges “shall sit at Lucknow in order to exercise in respect of cases arising in such areas in Oudh, as the Chief Justice may direct, the jurisdiction and power for the time being vested in the new High Court.”
Three propositions from Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331 (decided 29 August 1975, Ray CJ, Mathew, Krishna Iyer and Fazal Ali JJ) continue to govern the question. The Supreme Court held that no permanence attaches to Allahabad as a seat — “if that were the intention of the Order, the word ‘and’ instead of the word ‘or’ would have been used.” It held that the Chief Justice’s power to specify the Oudh areas, once exercised, is exhausted, and that “the areas once determined should hold good on account of certainty and to dispel problems.” And it held that where the cause of action arises in part within the specified Oudh areas, “it would be open to the litigant who is the dominus litis to have his forum conveniens” — that is, a choice between the two seats. Where the cause of action arises wholly within those areas, Lucknow is the seat.
The district-wise scope of the Oudh areas is treated separately in Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench — Jurisdiction, Districts, and How It Differs from the Principal Seat. For filing, the test is the cause of action, not the residence of a party or the location of counsel.
How Writ Matters Are Allocated Within the Lucknow Bench
Once the seat is settled, the roster — the Constitution of Benches issued by order of the Chief Justice — determines which court hears the petition. The roster in force at Lucknow from 1 July 2026 allocates writ work by subject matter rather than by the Writ-A / Writ-B / Writ-C code categories used at the principal seat.
Division Benches at Lucknow under that roster take Public Interest Litigations (civil and criminal), service writs, tax writs including recovery of tax, miscellaneous writs, writs relating to land acquisition, writs relating to local bodies, local authorities, development authorities and co-operative societies, environmental matters, habeas corpus writ petitions and criminal writs.
Single Judges take service writ petitions divided between Government service and non-Government service, civil writ petitions, writs relating to disputes of Committees of Management and education matters, writs relating to consolidation and Board of Revenue matters, matters under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, the U.P. Land Revenue Act and the U.P. Revenue Code, and matters under Article 227 not provided for elsewhere.
Two features of this allocation matter at the drafting stage. Several categories are split by year of institution as well as by subject, so the correct court depends on when the petition is filed, not only on what it is about. And the roster is reissued periodically and supplemented between issues, so the categories above should be read against the current Constitution of Benches on the High Court website rather than assumed to be static.
What Chapter XXII Requires in the Petition
Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court, 1952 governs applications for a direction, order or writ under Article 226 other than a writ in the nature of habeas corpus. Rule 1(2) requires that the application set out concisely, in numbered paragraphs, the facts upon which the applicant relies and the grounds on which the Court is asked to issue a direction, order or writ, and conclude with a prayer stating the relief sought. It requires the application to be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts stated, restricted to matters within the deponent’s own knowledge, and further requires the affidavit to state whether the applicant has filed any previous application on the same facts and, if so, the orders passed on it.
The disclosure requirement is the mechanism by which the Registry and the Court detect a petition barred by Rule 7.
Affidavits and Verification
A Full Bench of the Lucknow Bench in Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi v. Hasan Raza Khan & 6 Others (decided 22 January 2016, Chandrachud CJ, Upadhyaya and Rajan Roy JJ) addressed defective affidavits in writ petitions. Applying State of Bombay v. Purushottam Jog Naik, the Court held that verification must follow the standard of Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: where facts are not based on personal knowledge, the sources of information must be clearly disclosed. The Court also held that an affidavit filed on behalf of another must, under Rule 9 of Chapter IV, state the deponent’s relationship, association or connection with the person on whose behalf it is filed, and that where a power of attorney holder files a writ petition, the affidavit must state that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the donor’s inability to be present before the Court.
On identification of the deponent, the Lucknow Bench clarified in August 2026, in proceedings reported as Biswajit Chowdhury v. Registrar General (Alok Mathur and Amitabh Kumar Rai JJ, order dated 2 August 2026), that an affidavit duly notarised anywhere in the country is accepted at the stage of filing a writ petition, and that no person is mandatorily required to approach the Photo Verification Centre. The clarification was made in a challenge to the Photo Affidavit Identification Regime introduced by an Office Memorandum dated 7 October 2015. This position is reported by a single legal news publisher and the order itself has not been independently verified here.
Notice — and the Standing Counsel Exception
Rule 2 of Chapter XXII deals with notice after the application is presented. Its first proviso, quoted by the High Court in Satya Pal v. State of U.P. (17 September 1999), provides that “unless the Court otherwise directs it shall not be necessary to serve any notice on the parties represented by the Government Advocate or the Standing Counsel.” This is why petitions against the State proceed without separate service on each State respondent once the Standing Counsel has appeared.
E-Filing: Portal, Format and Registry Scrutiny
E-filing runs through separate portals for the two seats. The High Court’s “Procedure of e-Filing” material directs the user to select option 1 for Allahabad and option 2 for Lucknow Bench; the Lucknow portal is at efiling-lko.allahabadhighcourt.in. Counsel and litigants in person register once, completing registration by an OTP sent to the registered mobile number, after which counsel log in using their AOR number or user name.
The case file is uploaded as a single bookmarked PDF. The High Court’s “Instructions for Bookmarking and Linking of Case Files” require page numbering from the first page of the case file, bookmarks on each component — Petition, Index, Dates and Events, Annexures, Affidavits, Court Fee, Vakalatnama and other relevant pages — and hyperlinks from each index entry to the corresponding page, so that the file can be navigated from the index itself.
The High Court’s instructions for e-filing routed through District Courts and e-Sewa Kendras set out the underlying document specification: text prepared on legal paper (8.5 by 14 inches) with 1.5 inch top, 1 inch bottom, 1.75 inch left and 0.5 inch right margins, Arial 12 point for English and a Unicode font at 14 point for Hindi, full justification and double line spacing; non-text annexures scanned black and white at 300 dpi; and the collated PDF digitally signed. Court fee is paid electronically through the e-Court fee and e-stamping facility operated by Stock Holding Corporation, with the receipt number, amount and date entered on the filing screen and the receipt uploaded with the file.
After final submission an e-filing (diary) number is generated. The Stamp Reporter appends the scrutiny report electronically and any defect is intimated by SMS or email. Under the same instructions, apart from making good a deficiency in court fee, every other defect requires the complete e-file to be uploaded afresh after the defect is removed; once the file is free of defects the case is registered and numbered, and the matter is placed before the designated Court 48 hours after registration.
Rule 7 — No Second Application on the Same Facts
Rule 7 of Chapter XXII is short and absolute. As quoted by the Lucknow Bench in M/S Shiv Filling Station v. State of U.P. (23 June 2025):
“No second application on same facts.— Where an application has been rejected, it shall not be competent for the applicant to make a second application on the same facts.”
In that case the petitioner had already challenged the same order dated 16 November 2024 in an earlier writ petition, and no liberty to file afresh had been granted. The Court held the second petition not maintainable, treating it as barred by Rule 7 read with the principle underlying Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and by constructive res judicata, and observed that the rule exists to discourage multiplicity of proceedings.
The practical consequence is that where an earlier petition is withdrawn or rejected, liberty to file a fresh petition must be sought and recorded in the order at that time. It cannot be supplied afterwards.
Takeaway
Three instruments operate in sequence on a writ petition at Lucknow, and each is a separate point of failure. Clause 14 of the 1948 Amalgamation Order, as construed in Nasiruddin, fixes the seat by reference to where the cause of action arose. The Constitution of Benches then routes the petition by subject matter and, for several categories, by year of institution. Chapter XXII of the Rules of Court, 1952 governs the document itself: numbered paragraphs of fact, a prayer, a verifying affidavit confined to the deponent’s own knowledge with sources disclosed where it is not, an express statement of any previous application on the same facts, and the bar in Rule 7 against a second application where an earlier one has been rejected without liberty.
Useful Resources
- Indian Kanoon — Clause 14, United Provinces’ High Courts (Amalgamation) Order, 1948
- Indian Kanoon — Nasiruddin v. State Transport Appellate Tribunal, AIR 1976 SC 331
- Indian Kanoon — Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi v. Hasan Raza Khan & 6 Others (Full Bench, Lucknow, 2016)
- Indian Kanoon — M/S Shiv Filling Station v. State of U.P. (Lucknow, 2025) on Chapter XXII Rule 7
- Allahabad High Court — eFiling of Cases (portals for Allahabad and Lucknow, and instruction documents)
- Allahabad High Court — Roster / Constitution of Benches
- LiveLaw — Allahabad High Court on notarised affidavits and photo verification for writ filings (August 2026)
Disclaimer: The information provided on this website is for general legal awareness and educational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, advertisement, or solicitation. No reader should act or refrain from acting based on this information without seeking professional legal counsel. Advocate Akhil Singh and this website are not liable for any actions taken based on the content provided herein.