Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - B No. - 3994 of 2018 Petitioner :- Savitri Devi Respondent :- Consolidation Officer Sadar Allahabad And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pravesh Kumar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Arun Kumar,Piyush Kumar
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, the Consolidation Officer, to decide the application dated 02nd April, 2018 in Case No. 928 of 1997. The relief sought for by the petitioner reads as under:
"i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing respondent no. 1/Consolidation Officer Sadar Allahabad to decide the application dated 2.4.2018 in case no. 928 of 1997 under section 9A(2) of C.H. Act (Rajeshwari Devi @ Rajkali Vs. Shiv Pratap Singh and others) within stipulated period."
Learned counsel for the respondents Sri A.K. Mishra has raised a preliminary objection about the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that earlier also the petitioner had filed a writ petition in this Court, being Writ-B No. 3842 of 2018 (Savitri Devi v. Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Allahabad and others), which was dismissed on 14th May, 2018. Sri Mishra has produced before the Court a copy of the transfer application moved by the same petitioner for transfer of the case from the Court of Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Allahabad and submitted that on the other hand, she is seeking the relief of direction to the Consolidation Officer, Sadar, to decide her case expeditiously. He has also stated that now the Consolidation Officer has concluded hearing on 21st May, 2018. A xerox copy of the order-sheet dated 21st May, 2018 has been produced before the Court which is taken on record.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
It appears that this writ petition is abuse of the process of law. Earlier also in respect of the same dispute the petitioner had filed a writ petition, which was dismissed with the observation that the petitioner may file a revision as without availing the remedy in the statute she has challenged the order of the Settlement Officer Consolidation by way of Writ-B No. 3842 of 2018. The Supreme Court in the case of Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India and others, (2014) 8 SCC 470, has held that now the High Courts should impose heavy cost to curb the tendency of filing frivolous writ petition. The present petitioner has already filed two writ petitions.
In addition to above, 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), has considered the same issue regarding issuance of direction to the subordinate courts for expeditious hearing of a case pending before it. The Division Bench 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 and decide it as such type of directions create a separate class of litigants and the ordinary and poor litigants, who cannot afford to come to this Court for such a direction, are made to suffer as their cases are left to be decided in normal course. 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."
Having due regard to the facts of this case, I do not find it a fit case to interfere in the matter. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
In the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court a heavy cost deserves to be imposed upon the petitioner but the Court desists to impose the cost as the petitioner is lady and it appears that she is semi-illiterate person. However, she is put on notice that in future if she prefers a writ petition in respect of the same relief i.e. to expedite the matter before any authority, the Stamp Reporter of this Court shall not register her writ petition except on deposit of a cost of Rs.10,000/-. The cost shall be returned to the petitioner in case her writ petition is allowed.
Order Date :- 28.5.2018 SKT/-