Dismissed

Hausila Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2024/2527/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court rejected a petition under Article 227 seeking directions for expeditious disposal of a 2017 pending Motor Accident Claim Tribunal case. Relying on existing administrative directions for zero pendency, the court refused judicial intervention but granted liberty to file an urgent application to the Tribunal with a stipulated timeline for disposal.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for expeditious disposal rejected. Liberty to file urgent application granted.

Hausila Yadav and Another Vs State of U.P… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39561

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2527 of 2024 Petitioner :- Hausila Yadav And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others

¶4

Counsel for Petitioner :- Tauseef Ali Ansari,Haroon Rasheed,K.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶6

In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents is dispensed with.

¶7

By means of the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India a prayer has been made for expeditious disposal of Complaint No. 166 of 2017 (Hausila Yadav & another Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh & another) pending before Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Faizabad/Ayodhya since 2017.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that grievance of the petition would be sufficiently met in case Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Faizabad/Ayodhya, considers and decides the aforesaid case in the time bound manner.

¶9

In this regard, it is noteworthy, that this Court on administrative side has already issued directions to the Courts below to obtain zero pendency of cases which are more than five years old. In view of directions already issued on administrative side, this Court is not inclined to pass any further order on judicial side. Hence, the prayer is rejected.

¶10

However, liberty is given to the petitioner to move appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditiously disposal of the suit before the trial court. In case, such application is moved within two weeks from today the Tribunal shall consider and decide the same expeditiously, say, within three weeks thereafter. In case, the Tribunal is prima facie satisfied that a case for urgency is made out it shall pass suitable order thereon.

¶11

With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of.

¶12

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶13

Order Date :- 24.5.2024/Ravi/

¶14

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hausila Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hausila Yadav and Another v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Fakira Vs Deputy Driector of Consolidation Sitapur and Others

Smt. Ram Dulari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Ganesh Shankar Mishra Vs Virendra Chaturvedi and Another

Ashok Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue U.P. and Ors.

Ram Shankar Vs Board of Revenue Thru. Its Chairman Lko. and 3 Others

Harishchandra Vs Civil Judge (Avar Khand) Southern Room No 24 Sultanpur and 3 Others