Disposed¶12

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC22 Jan 2024/280/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition; expedition/expediting of pending appeal; delay in hearing and decision by respondent No.2 (Revenue Department, U.P.); direction to appellate authority with three-month timeline; no unnecessary adjournments; full opportunity of hearing; merits not examined; petition disposed of; Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P.; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:6080; Order Date 22.1.2024.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 to decide the pending appeal of private-respondent No.5 expeditiously, with full opportunity of hearing, without unnecessary adjournments, preferably within three months of a certified copy of the order being placed before respondent No.2. ¶12

Rajeev Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶12

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2 should be directed to hear and decide the pending appeal preferred by private-respondent No.5 expeditiously, within a stipulated period.

¶9

Court's answer

The Court directed respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending appeal preferred by private-respondent No.5 as expeditiously as possible, after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either side.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

The decision of the appeal was to be made preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is placed before respondent No.2.

¶10

Key takeaways

The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the case of either party on merits, and respondent No.2 must decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.ratio¶11

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench (Jaspreet Singh, J.), MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 280 of 2024, decided 22.1.2024: Petitioner Rajeev Kumar approached the Court only to seek expedition of an appeal filed by private-respondent No.5 before respondent No.2, where parties had appeared and the record was available, but the matter was being repeatedly listed for arguments without being heard or decided. Without entering into merits, the Court disposed of the petition by directing respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending appeal as expeditiously as possible, after affording full opportunity of hearing and without unnecessary adjournments, preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of the order is placed before respondent No.2, the matter to be decided strictly in accordance with law.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6080

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 280 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Rajeev Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Revenue Lko. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anil Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 to 4 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent No.5 is dispensed with.

¶8

The petitioner has approached this Court with limited prayer that an appeal has been filed by the private-respondent No.5 before the respondent No.2 wherein the parties have put in appearance and the record is also available, yet the matter is being listed repeatedly for arguments but the same has not yet been heard and the matter has not yet been decided.

¶9

It is in the aforesaid circumstances, it is prayed that the appeal preferred by the private-respondent No.5 be expedited.

¶10

Having considered the aforesaid submissions and from the perusal of the material on record, this Court finds that no gainful purpose will be served in keeping the aforesaid petition pending rather ends of justice can be served by directing the respondent No.2 to consider and decide the pending appeal preferred by the private-respondent No.5 as expeditiously as possible after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondent No.2.

¶11

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.2 shall decide the matter strictly in accordance with law.

¶12

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶13

Order Date :- 22.1.2024 Rakesh/-

¶14

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

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeev Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Krishna Kant Vs Competent Authority/Principal Secy. Deptt. of Urban Housing and Planning,Lko. and 4 Others

Ram Nayak Alias Ram Nayak Tiwari and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 9 Others

Amarjeet Kaur and 2 Others Vs Civil Judge Senior Division Malihabad Lko. and Another

Vijay Bahadur Maurya vs Civil Judge (Junior Division) South Court No. 24 Sultanpur and Others

Masood Ashraf and 2 Others vs Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambedkar Nagar and 3 Others

Vajid Ali vs Fast Track Court (Junior Division) Sultanpur and 5 Others