Disposed

Ram Lakhan Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Oct 2021WRIC/27910/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Tehsildar to decide a pending restoration application within two months. It ordered strict timelines, mandating notice to all parties, prohibition of unnecessary adjournments, and imposition of costs for adjournments granted only in the interest of justice.

What did the court decide?

Directing Tehsildar to decide restoration application within two months, notice all parties, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and impose costs of Rs. 500 for necessary adjournments.

Ram Lakhan Jaiswal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 27910 of 2021

¶3

Petitioner :- Ram Lakhan Jaiswal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Kumar Gupta,Kamlesh Kumar Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶5

Heard Sri Shiv Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶6

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the restoration application filed by the petitioner in Case No.05398/2019 Computerized Case No. T201902030405398 (Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs. Suresh Chandra), has not been decided till date and the same is pending before respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj.

¶7

The only prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the restoration application may be decided within a stipulated period of time.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel submits that the courts below are under an obligation of law to decide the proceedings within the stipulated period of

¶9

time. However he submits that while deciding the restoration application it is necessary that all parties to the lis are duly noticed by the court below.

¶10

Interests of justice will be subserved by disposing of the writ petition with the following directions:

¶11

(1) The respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj shall notice all parties to the lis and record his satisfaction on service of notice before proceeding with the matter on merits.

¶12

(2) The respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj, shall decide the restoration application filed in Case No.05398/2019 Computerized Case No. T201902030405398 (Ashok Kumar Shukla Vs. Suresh Chandra) in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶13

(3) The respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj shall hear all parties to the lis before passing any order.

¶14

(4) All parties are directed to cooperate with the

¶15

respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj to ensure the conclusion of the proceedings in the above stipulated period of time.

¶16

(5) In case any party does not cooperate in the proceedings before the respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj or adopts dilatory tactics, the respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj, shall record a finding to this effect and proceed in accordance with law.

¶17

(6) The respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj shall give short dates in the suit proceedings.

¶18

(7) The respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj, shall not grant any unnecessary adjournment to the parties.

¶19

(8) In case an adjournment is granted in the paramount interest of justice, respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj, shall impose costs not below Rs.500/- for each adjournment upon the party seeking adjournment.

¶20

(9) If necessary, the respondent No. 3/ Tehsildar, Tehsil Handia, District Prayagraj, shall proceed on day to day basis to ensure that the above timeline of two months to decide the restoration application is strictly adhered to.

¶21

The Court has not gone into the veracity of the assertions made in the writ petition nor has the claim of the petitioner been judged on merits. It is for the competent authority to do so after independent application of mind in accordance with law.

¶22

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶23

Order Date :- 27.10.2021 Nadeem

Ram Lakhan Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Lakhan Jaiswal v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Triveni Engineering and Industries Limited Vs State of U.P. and Others

Laxmiratan Cotton Mills Vs P.O. Labour Court-I Kanpur and Others

M/S. British India Corporation Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and Others

M/S Dhampur Sugar Mills Ltd. and Others Vs Prescribed Authority Unver Payment and Anr.

Chaudhari Charan Singh University Vs Presiding Officer and 2 Others

Vinod Kumar Pande Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others