Ramapati Vs State of U.P. through Principal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

Ramapati Vs State of U.P. through Principal… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Prayer for a time-bound direction rejected; liberty granted to move an urgency application before the revisional court within two weeks, to be considered and decided expeditiously (within three weeks thereafter), with suitable direction if the court concerned is prima facie satisfied that a case for interference is made out.

Issue for consideration

Whether a direction should be issued to the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Gonda, District Gonda to decide Civil Revision No.35/2024 (Ramapti Vs. Sunita and others), filed under Section 12 (Ga) (6) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1947, within a specified time frame.

Court's answer

The direction sought — expeditious, time-bound disposal of Civil Revision No.35/2024 — cannot be granted: considering the heavy pendency before the trial/revisional courts, such a direction requires extraordinary circumstances, none of which were shown.

Ratio / Principle

No urgency was made out; no direction could be issued to the court concerned for expediting the revision in the manner prayed, and the petitioner's prayer was rejected.

Key takeaways

Liberty given to the petitioner to move an appropriate application detailing urgency for expeditious disposal of the revision before the revisional court; if such application is moved within two weeks, the court concerned shall consider and decide it expeditiously, say within three weeks thereafter, and if prima facie satisfied that a case for interference is made out, pass suitable direction thereon.ratio¶¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Petition under Article 227 seeking a direction to the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Gonda to decide Civil Revision No.35/2024 (Ramapti Vs. Sunita and others), filed under Section 12 (Ga) (6) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1947 against dismissal of the petitioner's election petition, within a specified time frame. The Court held that, the revision having been filed only in 2024 and considering heavy pendency before trial/revisional courts, no expedition direction could be issued absent extraordinary circumstances; no urgency was made out and the prayer was rejected. Liberty was however granted to move an application detailing urgency before the revisional court within two weeks, which the court concerned was to consider and decide expeditiously (say within three weeks thereafter), passing suitable direction if prima facie satisfied. Petition disposed of (Alok Mathur, J.; order dated 25.5.2024).

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39876

Court No. - 7

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2591 of 2024

Petitioner :- Ramapati

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj, Lucknow And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Angrej Nath Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

Heard Sri Angrej Nath Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner.

By means of the present petition under Article 227 prayer has been made for a direction to the Additional District Judge, Court No.3, Gonda, District Gonda to decide Civil Revision No.35/2024 (Ramapti Vs. Sunita and others) filed under Section 12 (Ga) (6) of U.P. Panchayat Raj Adhiniyam, 1947 within a specified time fame.

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has filed aforesaid revision against dismissal of his election petition in which next date fixed is 14.5.2024. Prayer has been made for deciding the revision expeditiously.

It is noticed that the revision has been filed only in 2024 and considering the heavy pendency before the trial/revisional courts, the direction as sought by the petitioner cannot be granted without there being some extraordinary circumstances. As such, no urgency is made out nor any such direction can be issued to the court concerned for expediting the revision in the manner as prayed by the petitioner and accordingly, prayer made by the petitioner is rejected.

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

With aforesaid observation and direction the petition stands disposed of.

(Alok Mathur, J.)

Order Date :- 25.5.2024 RKM.

Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench