Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 4179 of 2018 Petitioner :- Ram Swaroop Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Kumar Pandey,Virendra Singh Chauhan 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/directing the respondent no.2 Director Consolidation, Lucknow to consider and decide the recall/restoration application dated 14.2.2017 which is still pending before the respondent no.2 for consideration till date not decided.
ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding/directing the respondent no. 2 consider and decide restoration application filed by the petitioner within stipulated timed specified 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."
Having regard to the fact that the recall application has been filed in the year 2017, I do not find it a fit case to issue a direction to the first respondent as prayed for in this petition. It is open to the petitioners to move appropriate application before the authority concerned, who shall consider the same and decide the matter in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 30.5.2018 Ram Murti