Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6638 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kailash Chandra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Singh,Pratibha Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition amongst others for the following reliefs:
"(i) Issue an, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondent No.2 disposed of the Appeal No. T201801260301190 "Km.Muskan and others Vs. State of U.P." within period of one month."
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 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."
Having due regard to the facts of the case we do not find it a fit case to issue any direction, however, we leave it open to the petitioner to make an application before the authority concerned to expedite the matter.
We hope and trust that in case any such application is made before the authority concerned, he shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of.
Order Date :- 26.2.2019 MAA/-