Disposed

Pramila v. Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad and Others

Allahabad HC24 Jul 2024/6259/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition seeking direction to decide a pending revision and interim application, the court did not intervene as the matter was already listed. The petition was disposed of without examining merits or granting specific directive.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed without examination on merits; no specific order granted to dispose of pending revision; outcome left to lower court.

Pramila Vs Commissioner (Judicial)… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:49958

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 6259 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Pramila Respondent :- Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Udai Pratap Lal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No. 5 and 6 is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner prays for the main following reliefs:-

¶9

"(i) issue a writ, order or direction, in the nature of Mandamus thereby commanding to the opposite party no. 1 to decide interim injunction application (contained in Annexure No. 4) of the petitioner pending in the revision in the court of opposite party no. 1 as early as possible, in the interest of justice."

¶10

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has filed a revision under Section 210 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 which is pending before the Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad.

¶11

It is further urged that the petitioner had also moved an application for interim relief along with the said revision, however, no orders have been passed nor the said application has been entertained.

¶12

It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the Court had required the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions and as per his telephonic instructions available with him, it has been informed to the Court that the revision of the petitioner has already been registered as bearing No. 1267 of 2024. Since on the last two occasions, the members of the Bar were abstaining from judicial work, hence, no hearing could take place.

¶13

It has also been pointed that the next date fixed is 05.08.2024 and the private respondents is also appearing on caveat.

¶14

Having considered the aforesaid and noticing that the matter is already listed on 05.08.2024, accordingly, at this stage, this Court does not deem it appropriate to intervene leaving it open for the petitioner to press his revision as well as his application for interim relief for admission before the court concerned on the next date fixed and in case if the same is done, the court concerned shall consider and pass appropriate orders after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned but without granting any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶15

It is further made clear that in case if the same is not possible on the next date then at least the issue of admission and the application for interim relief shall be considered preferrably within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶16

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the court concerned shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

¶17

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 24.7.2024 Asheesh

¶19

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

Pramila v. Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramila v. Commissioner (Judicial), Faizabad Mandal, Faizabad and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Adesh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Anil Kumar and Another Vs Consolidation Officer, Sadar, Barabanki and Another

Bheem Sen and Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Others

Arunesh Chandra Vs Judicial Member of the Board of Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Doodh Nath and 5 Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Sultanpur and 7 Others

Mool Chand and Others vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Bahraich and Others