HOVINDRA vs SHRI GYANENDRA PRATAP SINGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE AND 2 OTHERS — CAPL/794/2026

Next hearing: 26th May 2026.

Next hearing 26-May-2026

CNR: UPHC010662582026

Filing Number

CAPL/

Filing Date

30-Jan-2026

Registration No

CAPL/794/2026

Registration Date

02-Feb-2026

Bench Type

Single Bench

Judicial Branch

Civil Misc.

Last updated 23-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.HOVINDRA

    Adv. LAL CHANDRA MISHRA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.SHRI GYANENDRA PRATAP SINGH DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE AND 2 OTHERS

    Adv. ,RAJESH TRIPATHI 1123

  2. 2.SHRI PRAHLAD PASWAN COMMANDANT GROUP CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (C.R.P.F.)

    Adv. RAJESH TRIPATHI

  3. 3.SHRI PURAN SINGH DHARMSHAKTU DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE

    Adv. RAJESH TRIPATHI

Case History

  1. 26-May-2026

    Next hearingPending

  2. 26-May-2026

    —

    Kshitij Shailendra

  3. 19-May-2026

    —

    Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

  4. 27-Apr-2026

    For Order

    Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

  5. 24-Apr-2026

    Rohit Ranjan AgarwalView PDF

    Case Summary: In this contempt application, the Allahabad High Court found that the CRPF respondents had provided vague information about the recruitment process conclusion. The Court ordered the respondents to file a detailed affidavit clarifying the exact date the recruitment concluded and confirming no vacancy remained, within three weeks. The matter was adjourned for further hearing after three weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  6. 10-Apr-2026

    Rohit Ranjan AgarwalView PDF

  7. 10-Apr-2026

    For Order

    Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

  8. 09-Mar-2026

    Rohit Ranjan AgarwalView PDF

  9. 09-Mar-2026

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  10. 05-Feb-2026

    Rohit Ranjan AgarwalView PDF

  11. 30-Jan-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CAPL/794/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: In this contempt application, the Allahabad High Court found that the CRPF respondents had provided vague information about the recruitment process conclusion. The Court ordered the respondents to file a detailed affidavit clarifying the exact date the recruitment concluded and confirming no vacancy remained, within three weeks. The matter was adjourned for further hearing after three weeks. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case