Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad
  4. /
  5. 2018
  6. /
  7. January

Rajeev Kumar Gupta vs State Of U P And Others

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad|29 May, 2018
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4147 of 2018 Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Divisional/Additional Commissioner Agra, Division Agra to decide the revision no.
43 of 2007 along with connected revisions without being influenced by order dated 19.12.2007 passed by Board of Revenue at Allahabad in revision no. 40 of 2007-08.
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent Divisional/Additional Commissioner Agra, Division Agra to decide the revision No.
43 of 2007 along with connected revisions on the issue of maintainability and merits as well within stipulated period prescribed by this Hon'ble Court"
Issue with regard to right of the petitioner to get a writ of mandamus issued to the subordinate courts or the authorities to expedite the matter fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani and others Vs. Ali Isteba and others, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB). The Court has opined in the following terms:-
"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 disability 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."
In view of the above principle of law, I do not find good ground to entertain the present writ petition for the relief sought therein. The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is a self contained Code. The petitioner without taking recourse to the remedy available under law has directly instituted the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
It is open to the petitioner to move appropriate application before the authority concerned and this Court hopes and trusts that in case such an application is moved by the petitioner, the authority concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate order thereon in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, present petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.5.2018 Ram Murti
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Rajeev Kumar Gupta vs State Of U P And Others

Court

High Court Of Judicature at Allahabad

JudgmentDate
29 May, 2018
Judges
  • Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
Advocates
  • Shiv Kumar Singh