Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3690 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ajay And Another Respondent :- District Deputy Director Of Consolidation And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Satendra Bahadur Yati Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manoj Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioners have preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first and second respondents to decide the application of the petitioners pending before them. The principal relief sought for by the petitioners reads as under:
"i. Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents No. 1 and 2 to decide the application dated 06.07.2006 moved by the petitioners under rule 109(1) of U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Rules, 1954 for compliance of the order dated 14.06.2006 passed by Dy. Director of Consolidation, Ghazipur, expeditiously as possible as within stipulated time fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel.
The issue whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to the subordinate Courts to expedite hearing of the case pending before it came to be considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani and others v. Ali Isteba and others, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB). The Division Bench held that ordinarily the High Court should not issue a writ of mandamus directing the subordinate Courts or the judicial officers to expedite the matter and decide it as such type of directions create a separate class of litigants and the ordinary and poor litigants, who cannot afford to come to this Court for such a direction, are made to suffer as their cases are left to be decided in normal course. The relevant part of the judgment reads as under:
"2. We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), District-Azamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the Court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expense of moving the High Court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order.
3. Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disabililty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited."
In Writ-B No. 3569 of 2018 (Dashrath v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh & others) this Court has held that the principle laid down in Ali Shad Usmani (supra) can be safely applied to the Revenue Courts, Board of Revenue and other Administrative Tribunals also.
Having due regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case to interfere in the matter and to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondent authorities to decide the application of the petitioners. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed leaving it open to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy which is available in law.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 27.4.2018 SKT/-