Dismissed

Samia Siddiqui and Another v. Passport Officer and 3 Others

Allahabad HC24 Oct 2024A227/11072/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition was filed seeking a direction from the High Court to the Civil Judge (S.D.) Ghaziabad to decide a pending suit within a stipulated time. Relying on a Division Bench judgment establishing that High Courts should not issue such directions under Article 227 or 226, the petition was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Prayer for direction to decide the suit within a stipulated time was dismissed.

Samia Siddiqui and Another vs Passport… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:171134

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 11072 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Samia Siddiqui And Another Respondent :- Passport Officer And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rohit Nandan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

¶7

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a direction to the Civil Judge (S.D.), Ghaziabad to decide the Case No. 260/2023, Samia Siddiqui and another Vs. Passport Officer and others within the time framed by this Hon'ble court, and/ or pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."

¶8

From the perusal of the record, it transpires that the petitioner has prayed for early disposal of Case No.260 of 2023 pending before the court below.

¶9

The Division Bench of this Court in case of Ali Shad Usmani vs. Ali Isteba, 2015 (2) ADJ 250 (DB) has held that no direction can be issued to the sub-ordinate courts for deciding the suit within stipulated period. Relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereasunder:-

¶10

"We are not inclined to issue a direction for the expeditious hearing of a Civil Suit which is pending before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), DistrictAzamgarh. It would be most inappropriate to Court to entertain a writ petition under Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of the Constitution simply for the purpose of expediting the hearing of a suit. Such orders, if granted, place a class of litigants, who move the court in a separate and preferential category whereas other cases which may be of similar or greater antiquity and urgency are left to be decided in the normal channel. Hence, any such direction may be issued with the greatest care and circumspection by the High Court otherwise the Civil Courts will be overburdened only with requests for expeditious disposal of suits, which have been expedited by the High Court. Most of the litigants cannot afford the expense of moving the High court and would not, therefore, be in a position to have the benefit of such an order.

¶11

Ultimately, it must be left to the judicious exercise of discretion of the concerned Court to determine whether a ground for urgency has been made out. We emphasize that there may be other cases such as involving senior citizens, those who are differently abled or people suffering from a particular disablilty socio-economic or otherwise which may prime cause of urgent

¶12

disposal. It is for the learned Trial Judge in each case to apply his or her mind and decide whether the hearing of the suit to be expedited.

¶13

For these reasons, we are not inclined to entertain the petition. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost."

¶14

In view of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ali Shad Usmani (supra), this Court declines to grant the relief as prayed for.

¶15

The writ petition is dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 24.10.2024 Kushal

¶17

Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Samia Siddiqui and Another v. Passport Officer and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samia Siddiqui and Another v. Passport Officer and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anand Kumar Sinha vs Ramendra Kumar Sinha and Another

Dinesh Chand Mishra vs Rajesh Yadav and 13 Others

Rashmee Sharma vs Mr Surendra Kumar Tiwari, Secretary, U.P. Basic Education Board

Ramesh Chandra Mishra vs Suresh Chandra Mishra and 3 Others

Mahesh Kumar and Another vs Smt Madhu Singh and Another

Cholamandalam Investment Finance Company vs Shri Suresh Pal Singh and 3 Others