Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3634 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Lakhan Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Chandra Shekhar Agnihotri Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for a direction upon the Deputy Director, Consolidation/ respondent no. 1 to decide the reference pending before him since 1989. Relief sought by the petitioner reads as under:
"i. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the respondent no. 1 to decide the reference pending before him since 1989 (Subhkaran versus Ram Chander) within stipulated time as fixed by this Hon'ble Court."
The issue whether a writ of Mandamus can be issued has been 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), wherein the Court has held 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."
In a writ petition being Writ-B No. 3569 of 2018 (Dashrath v. Board of Revenue, Uttar Pradesh & others) this Court has held that the principle laid down in Ali Shad Usmani (supra) can be safely applied to the Revenue Courts and other Administrative Tribunals also.
The U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 is a complete code in itself. Accordingly, it is open to the petitioner to take recourse to the appropriate remedy within the framework of the Act itself. In case the petitioner moves any such application, the same shall be considered in accordance with law expeditiously.
The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 24.4.2018 Digamber