Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4216 of 2018 Petitioner :- Chandra Bhushan Respondent :- Board Of Revenue And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manvendra Nath Singh,Anjali Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Diwakar Singh
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a direction to the Board of Revenue to decide the restoration application filed by the petitioner in Revision No. 66 of 2006- 07.
The same issue fell for consideration before 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), wherein the Division Bench has considered the issue elaborately and has held that High Court should not ordinarily issue a direction or writ of mandamus to the subordinate courts to expedite the matter. The Court was of the view that such directions may create separate class of litigants who can approach the Court and the poor litigants are made to suffer. Relevant part of the judgment 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 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."
The same principle has been applied by this Court in various matters of revenue courts and other subordinate tribunals.
Having due regard to the facts of the case I am of the view that no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to move an application before the authority concerned raising his grievance.
The Court hopes and trusts that in the event any such application is moved, the authority concerned shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 31.5.2018 Digamber