Court No. - 21
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 14298 of 2019 Petitioner :- Kashi Prasad Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Yadvendra Yadav,Bhriguram Ji Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Ashok Kumar Pandey,C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for the following reliefs:
"A. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding the respondent No.4 to decide the objection/representation dated 28.12.2018.
B. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of the mandamus commanding the respondents to pay the compensation accordance with law due to reason the respondent has been taken possession over the land accordance with law and.
C. Issue any suitable direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
D. To award the cost of this writ petition in favour of the petitioner through out."
We have heard learned counsel for petitioner; learned Standing Counsel for respondent No. 2; Shri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent No.3; and Shri Tez Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.4 Shri B.R.J. Pandey has filed his memo of appearance on behalf of respondent No. 1, Union of India.
We find that the matter is of the year 2018. There is no reasonable delay, to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The Division Bench in the case of Ali Shad Usmani and others v. Ali Isteba and others, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) 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. 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."
The said judgment has been applied by this Court in various cases in the matter of the Revenue Courts, Board of Revenue and other Administrative Tribunals also.
Having due regard to the facts of the case, we decline to issue any direction in the light of the judgment quoted above. However, having regard to the facts of this case, we grant liberty to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the authority concerned to expedite the matter. In the event, any such application is made, we hope and trust that the same shall be considered and pass order in accordance with law. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 25.4.2019 A.N. Mishra