Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 35643 of 2018 Petitioner :- Anima Srivastava Respondent :- State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Uttar Pradesh And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Anand Kr Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Manish Goyal
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Ved Prakash Vaish,J.
The grievance of the petitioner is that his appeal in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P, Lucknow is pending since 2009 under Section 15 of The Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondent no.1 to decide his appeal within the time framed.
We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jitendra Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondent no.2.
Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 and 3.
A Division Bench of the Apex Court has held that under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court ordinarily should not issue any such direction to the Tribunals or the Sub- ordinate Court to expedite the matter. The Division Bench has opined that issuing such type of direction place a class of litigants, who move the Court, in a separate and preferential category.
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) has held that the High Court in exercise of its power, ordinarily, should not issue a direction to the subordinate courts to expedite the matter. The law laid down by the Court is extracted herein below:
"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 isfor 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 view of the facts and circumstance of the case, no direction is required to be issued to the respondent no.1. However, we grant the liberty to the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the respondent no.1, we hope and trust that if any such application is made by the petitioner, the same shall be considered in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. Order Date :- 26.10.2018 Savita