Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4119 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kaushillya Devi Respondent :- The Consolidation Officer And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Mainuddin Ahamad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent to decide Case No. 65 pending before the Consolidation Officer.
The issue whether the Court can issue a writ of mandamus to the subordinate courts has been elaborately considered by 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). Relevant part of the said 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 same principle has been applied by this Court in various matters of revenue courts and other subordinate tribunals.
In addition to above, the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is a self contained Act. The petitioner without resorting to the remedy available under the provisions of the Act, 1953 has rushed to this Court which is already struggling with the huge pendency of cases. Encouraging such litigation will further chock the roaster of this Court.
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 disposed of leaving it open to the petitioner to move an application before the authority concerned raising her grievance, who shall pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Digamber