Disposed¶14

Jaiwanti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Another

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2024/3170/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedite / time-bound disposal direction; recall application; Section 34 U.P. Revenue Code, 2006; Computerized Case No.T201904230301243; Matters Under Article 227; decision preferably within three months; full opportunity of hearing; no unnecessary adjournments; merits left open; State of U.P. through Principal Secretary Revenue; Lucknow Bench; Jaspreet Singh, J.; order dated 11.7.2024; neutral citation 2024:AHC-LKO:47008; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.1 to decide the recall application in Computerized Case No.T201904230301243 most expeditiously, preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of the order is placed before the Court concerned, affording full opportunity of hearing and without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either party. ¶14

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the High Court should direct respondent No.1 to decide the petitioner's pending recall application (Computerized Case No.T201904230301243, under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006) expeditiously.

¶9

Court's answer

The Court directed respondent No.1 to consider and decide the recall application in Computerized Case No.T201904230301243 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either party, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of the order is placed before the Court concerned.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The Court clarified that it had not examined the case of either party on merits, and the Court concerned shall consider and decide the recall application strictly in accordance with law.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Matters Under Article 227 No. 3170 of 2024 (High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench; Jaspreet Singh, J.; order dated 11.7.2024; Neutral Citation 2024:AHC-LKO:47008): The petitioner sought expeditious disposal of a recall application moved in Case bearing Computerized Case No.T201904230301243, under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending before respondent No.1 (State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Revenue). Though a large number of dates had been fixed, the recall application had not been decided for reasons beyond control. Learned standing counsel raised no objection to an expedite order. The Court held that no gainful purpose would be served in keeping the petition pending and directed respondent No.1 to consider and decide the recall application most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournment, preferably within three months from the date a certified copy of the order is placed before the Court concerned. The Court expressly clarified that it had not examined the case of either party on merits and that the decision must be strictly in accordance with law. Petition disposed of.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47008

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 3170 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Jaiwanti Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Another

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ghanshyam Verma,Subhanshu Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

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

¶8

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶9

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of recall application moved in Case bearing Computerized Case No.T201904230301243, under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 pending before the respondent No.1.

¶10

It is submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the recall application has not yet been decided.

¶11

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion 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.1 to consider and decide the recall application in Computerized Case No.T201904230301243 most expeditiously, 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 Court concerned.

¶13

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Court concerned shall consider and decide the recall application of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶14

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶15

Order Date :- 11.7.2024 Rakesh/-

¶16

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

Jaiwanti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jaiwanti v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Another

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

Baliram Vs State of Up Thru. Prin. Secy., Revenue and others

Rajesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Saif Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Poonam Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Lko. and 7 Others

Nidhi Lata vs Shri Pramod Nigam

Rooplal vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi, and 3 Others