Allowed

Smt. Meera v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2021WRIB/1894/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Settlement Officer to decide Appeal No.565 within six months. The Court emphasized that striking lawyers cannot halt judicial processes and directed the Bar Council to take action against counsel responsible for the delay caused by strikes.

What did the court decide?

A writ of mandamus issued directing the Settlement Officer to decide the appeal within six months; directions to Bar Council to act against striking counsels.

Smt. Meera Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - B No. - 1894 of 2020

¶3

Petitioner :- Smt. Meera Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhaju Ram Pprasad Sharma,Arvind Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Service report indicates that notices have been served upon the private respondents. However, no vakalatnama on behalf of the private respondents is in the record.

¶6

The petitioner has sought for the following relief in the instant writ petition:

¶7

"To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to respondent No.2 to decide the Appeal No.565 under Section 11(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (Smt. Meera Vs. Rajmati and others) in regard to village Purandarpur, Tappa, Lehara, Pargana Haweli, Tehsil-Farenda, District-Maharajganj."

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the respondents authorities are under an obligation of law to decide the Appeal No.565 (Smt. Meera Vs. Rajmati and others) under Section 11(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 within a reasonable period of time.

¶9

From a perusal of the order-sheet, it is evident that no good cause has been shown for failure to decide the appeal despite its institution in the year 2011. Clearly,

¶10

the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj has neglected to perform his statutory duties.

¶11

The order-sheet discloses that the lawyers in the court of Settlement Officer, Consolidation were on strike for all working days of the year 2019. The system has ground to a halt. The order-sheet contains irrefutable evidence that the process of the courts was impeded by lawyers abstaining from work on account of strike calls. Counsels cannot hold the judicial process to ransom by irresponsibly going on strike and bringing the work in the court to a stand still. Such conduct of the lawyers is in the teeth of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported at (2003) 2 SCC 45 as well as in Krishnakant Tamrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh , reported at AIR 2018 SC 3635 .

¶12

The process of law has to run its course despite any such obstructions. The courts have to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law even when the parties or counsels are not cooperating with the trial proceedings. The court proceedings cannot come to a stand still owing to striking lawyers and lethargic litigants.

¶13

In the wake of preceding discussion, the matter is remitted to the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/

¶14

respondent No.2.

¶15

A writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2, to execute the following directions:

¶16

(1) The learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2 shall decide the appeal registered as Appeal No.565 (Smt. Meera Vs. Rajmati and others) under Section 11(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, within a period of six months from the date of production of a computer generated copy of this order, downloaded from the official website of the High Court Allahabad.

¶17

The computer generated copy of such order shall be self attested by the petitioners (party concerned) along with a self attested identity proof of the said person (preferably Aadhar Card) mentioning the mobile number to which the said Aadhar Card is linked. The Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

¶18

(2) All necessary parties to the lis shall be given an opportunity of hearing before the final order is passed by the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2.

¶19

(3) All necessary parties to the lis are directed to cooperate in the proceedings before the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2.

¶20

(4) In case the party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, DistrictMaharajganj/ respondent No.2, or adopts dilatory tactics, the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2 shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶21

(5) The learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2 shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶22

(6) In case any adjournment is granted in the interest of justice, the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2, shall impose costs not below Rs.5,000/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶23

(7) The learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2 shall proceed on day to day basis, if required, to ensure that the above stipulated time line of six months for deciding the appeal is strictly adhered to.

¶24

(8) In case counsels do not appear on ground of strike, the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2 shall record the names of the striking counsels in the order-sheet. The learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2, shall thereafter direct the parties to appear in person.

¶25

(9) The parties to the lis are directed to cooperate and shall appear in person before the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, DistrictMaharajganj/ respondent No.2 in case their counsels are on strike.

¶26

(10) In case the proceedings before the learned court below are interrupted by strike declared by the counsels, the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2 shall make a report in this regard. The learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2 shall record the names of the counsels in this case, who are on strike as well as the names of the office bearers of the Bar Council who called for the strike, and send their names to the Bar Council of U.P. for taking appropriate action in according with law. The report shall be sent on the day after the strike which impeded the functioning of the court.

¶27

(11) The Bar Council of U.P. shall thereafter enquire into the aforesaid conduct of the counsels for calling unlawful strikes and acting in the teeth of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal (supra ) as well as in Krishnakant Tamrakar (supra) .

¶28

(12) The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh shall take appropriate action against the said counsels within a period of four months from the date of receipt of such complaint from the learned appellate court/Settlement Officer, Consolidation, District-Maharajganj/ respondent No.2.

¶29

(13) The Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh shall give an opportunity of hearing to the concerned counsels.

¶30

(14) The result of the enquiry and the action taken by the Bar Counsel of Uttar Pradesh shall be submitted to the Registrar General of this Court.

¶31

With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition is finally disposed of.

¶32

Order Date :- 5.3.2021 Ashish Tripathi

Smt. Meera v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Meera v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Prasad Singh Vs Radhika Devi and 11 Others

Vinod Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dayashankar Yadav and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Mohammad Haleem Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vimal Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jaya Chaurasiya Vs State of U P and 3 Others