Allowed

Hari Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Feb 2023WRIC/4657/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the Additional District Magistrate, Judicial, Kushinagar, to decide a pending criminal case (Case No. 435 of 2015) involving the petitioner expeditiously, preferably within six months, while affording due hearing opportunity to all parties and avoiding unnecessary adjournments.

What did the court decide?

Directs A.D.M. (Judicial), Kushinagar to decide pending Case No. 435 of 2015 expeditiously within six months after notice and hearing.

Hari Lal Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 43

¶2

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4657 of 2023

¶3

Petitioner :- Hari Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Omkar Nath Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sudhir Bharti

¶4

Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Omkar Nath Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents and Shri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 Land Management Committee.

¶6

The instant writ petition has been filed with the prayer for mandamus commanding respondent no. 2, Additional District Magistrate, (Judicial) Kushinagar to consider and decide the Case No. 435 of 2015 Computerized Case No. D2015054400435 (Ram Naresh vs Hari Lal), under section 198(4) of U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 within stipulated period.

¶7

From the perusal of record, it appears that the petitioner is one of the opposite parties. The memo of the aforesaid case has been brought on record as annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. The proceedings of the aforesaid case are pending since 16.11.2007, and therefore, the prayer for expeditious disposal is accepted.

¶8

Learned counsel for respondents have no objections to the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶9

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence available on record and having heard the argument advanced by learned counsel for the parties, respondent no. 2, Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Kushinagar is directed to decide the aforesaid case, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving notice and affording due opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties.

¶10

With the above directions, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶11

Order Date :- 9.2.2023 Sazia

¶12

Digitally signed by :- SAZIA AQUIL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hari Lal v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Lal 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Yashpal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shankar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dayashankar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Virendra Kumar Rai Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Leellu Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Ruchi Rani Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others