Disposed

Kamla Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 Apr 2023WRIC/10528/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking expeditious disposal of the pending underlying case due to prejudice caused by the continuous non-attendance of lawyers. The Court directed the concerned authorities to conclude proceedings within six months or permit personal appearance of parties.

What did the court decide?

Direction to conclude proceedings within six months upon production of certified copy, setting aside prosecutions if no lawyer cooperation.

Kamla Prasad and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 52

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10528 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Kamla Prasad And 2 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sandeep Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

1.Heard Sri Sandeep Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Anit Kumar Shukla, learned Standing Counsel representing the State-respondents.

¶6

2.This writ petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of Case No. 11322/2021 (Computerized Case No. T202105200111322) within stipulated period.

¶7

3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pendency of the aforesaid case is causing serious prejudice to the rights of the petitioner and therefore this Court should issue a direction for expeditious disposal of the case.

¶8

4.Learned Standing Counsel has no serious objection to the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

5.Perusal of order-sheet indicates that for the last several months, the lawyers are continuously not attending the court on account of abstainment from judicial work.

¶10

6.In view of the above, having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, this petition is disposed off with a direction to the concerned court to conclude the proceedings of the aforesaid case expeditiously, preferably, within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him, after giving full opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned.

¶11

7.In case, the lawyers do not cooperate with the proceedings either on account of abstainment from work or otherwise, the court concerned shall permit personal appearance of the parties to address it on the merits of the aforesaid case.

¶12

8.However, the authority/court concerned shall take special care of the fact that the property rights of the parties may not be adversely affected only on account of non-cooperation of the lawyers and the aforesaid matter shall be disposed of strictly in accordance with

¶13

law, taking care of the statutory provisions and after making critical analysis of the material available on record.

¶14

Order Date :- 17.4.2023 pks

¶15

Digitally signed by :- PANKAJ KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kamla Prasad and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kamla Prasad and 2 Others 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Jaitunnisha Vs State of U.P. and Another

Babu Nandan Vs State of U.P. and 25 Others

Hira Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Vasudev Prasad Vs Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi and 6 Others

Vinay Kumar and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 15 Others

Ram Dhani Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others