Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 42057 of 2019 Petitioner :- Heera Lal Respondent :- State Of U P And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajendra Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel.
The petitioner is before this Court for a direction to second respondent to decide Case No.35 of 2009 (Heeralal & Ors. v. State) under Section 41 of Land Revenue Act within stipulated period.
The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question as well as the ordersheet of the case in question and find that in most of the dates either the Advocates were abstaining from judicial work or the Presiding Officer was busy in administrative work. In such situation the claim of the petitioner to decide the said case is being sacrificed and the Court cannot become mute spectator of such situation.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd and others, 2011 (89) ALR 232, has made the following observations:-
" It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The Courts, particularly Trial Courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit."
In the facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the writ petition stands disposed of issuing a mandamus to second respondent to decide the aforesaid case in accordance with law expeditiously and by all means within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without according single adjournment to either of the parties and if necessary day to day hearing may also be ensured in the matter.
Order Date :- 18.12.2019 SP/