Disposed

Radhey Shyam Mishra v. Commissioner , Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya and 2 Others

Allahabad HC1 May 2024A227/2161/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Article 227 matter, the High Court directed the Commissioner of Ayodhya Mandal to decide a pending Arms Act appeal within three months, citing delays caused by lawyer abstention and office busy-ness.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner to make endeavor to decide the pending Arms Act appeal expeditiously within three months upon receipt of a specific urgent application by the petitioner.

Radhey Shyam Mishra vs Commissioner , Ayodhya… — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:56162

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2161 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Radhey Shyam Mishra Respondent :- Commissioner , Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Avadhesh Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record bringing on record the ordersheets.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appeal under the Arms Act is pending since 4th July, 2024 i.e. more than on year has been passed and there is threat for the safety of the petitioner and his family. He further states that the petitioner undertakes to appear in person before the Commissioner in person if the lawyers are abstaining from judicial work and requested for issuing some direction to the Commissioner to decide the appeal within a period of three months.

¶8

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that mostly due to the reason that the lawyers are abstaining from the judicial work, the appeal could not be decided and also stated that the period may be extended as prayed by the petitioner for disposal of the appeal.

¶9

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case, the ordersheets reveal that on most of the dates the lawyers were abstaining from the judicial work due to which the appeal filed before the Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya could not be heard and on few dates the matter was adjourned as the Presiding Officer was shown to be busy and on few dates in the ordersheet it has been indicated that due to paucity of time the matter could not be taken up.

¶10

The petitioner may make appropriate application before the Commissioner, Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya indicating the urgency therein and about his undertaking before the court that he will appear in person in case the lawyers are abstaining from judicial work. If any such application is preferred by the petitioner, the

¶11

Commissioner Ayodhya Mandal, Ayodhya i.e. Respondent No.1 is expected to make endaovor to decide the same expeditiously.

¶12

The writ petition is disposed of.

¶13

Order Date :- 14.8.2024 S. Kumar

¶14

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

Radhey Shyam Mishra v. Commissioner , Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Radhey Shyam Mishra v. Commissioner , Ayodhya Mandal Ayodhya and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Shiv Sagar Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Hardoi and Others

Jumman Khan Vs Deputy Direcor of Consolidation and Ohters

Janki Prasad Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation, Gonda and 12 Others

Chandra Bali and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Ram Shankar and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others

Ram Achal and Others Vs Deputy Director of Consolidation Faizabad and Others