Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 8032 of 2018 Petitioner :- Upendra And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shriprakash Shrivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Naqvi,J.
Heard Sri Shriprakash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Abhishek Shukla, the learned Standing Counsel.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that ends of justice would be met if any appropriate direction is issued to the competent authority to execute the order dated 31.8.2010, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tamkuhiraj, District Kushinagar, in Case No.194 of 2010, (Jai Prakash Vs. Rama Shanker and others) to its logical conclusion within a stipulated period.
The learned Standing Counsel submits that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending, it be disposed of by giving appropriate direction to the authority concerned.
The writ petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2/Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tamkuhiraj District Kushinagar to dated 31.8.2010, passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tamkuhiraj, District Kushinagar, in Case No.194 of 2010, (Jai Prakash Vs. Rama Shanker and others) to dispose of the pending restoration filed by respondent nos. 3 and 4, to its logical conclusion within a stipulated period expeditiously preferably within 4 months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that he shall not seek any adjournment and so also is expected from the private opposite parties in the mutation case, except for strong and compelling reasons, else would attract an exemplary cost of not less than Rs.250/- payable to the other side.
It is clarified that the proceedings as far as possible should not be repeatedly adjourned, merely on the ground that the Presiding Officer is busy in administrative work.
Order Date :- 28.2.2018 RS