Dismissed

Smt. Kailash Patti @ Kailash Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Allahabad HC17 Sept 2024A227/4428/2024

Download

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Smt. Kailash Patti @ Kailash Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others — Allahabad HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:63916

¶2

Court No. - 19

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4428 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Smt. Kailash Patti @ Kailash Kumari Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kamlesh Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Mohan Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Kamlesh Kumar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Surendra Kumar Singh, the learned State Counsel representing the respondents no.1 and 2, Sri Vimal Gupta, holding brief of Sri Mohan Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.8 - Gram Sabha, Saidpur, Rasidpur, Pargana - Bihar, Tehsil - Alapur, District - Ambedkar Nagar.

¶7

By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the Tehsildar, Alapur, District – Ambedkar Nagar for expeditious disposal of his Restoration application filed in Case No.RST/04168/2019, Computerized Case No.T201904040404168, which was filed on 26.10.2023.

¶8

A perusal of the order sheet of the case pending before the Tehsildar indicates that on 26.10.2023, the advocates were on strike and, therefore, the next date was fixed for 22.08.2024.

¶9

At this stage, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the typed copy of order sheet annexed with the petition is not correct. When the Court asked the learned counsel for the petitioner to point out the correct order from the photo copies of the order sheet annexed with the petition, he stated that he has not annexed a copy of the order dated 26.10.2023.

¶10

From perusal of the order sheet of proceedings pending before the Tahsildar annexed with the petition, only this much appears that the application was filed on 26.10.2023, on which date the advocates were on strike. The next date was fixed on 22.08.2024, on which date again, the advocates were on strike. Therefore, the delay in disposal of the proceedings is being caused because of repetitive strikes of the advocates, and the Tahsildar is not to be blamed for the delay.

¶11

In these circumstances, there is no occasion for this Court to issue any direction to the Tehsildar for expeditious disposal of proceedings, which are being delayed for due to strikes of the advocates.

¶12

In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition is dismissed .

¶13

[Subhash Vidyarthi, J.]

¶14

Order Date :- 17.9.2024 KR

¶15

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

Smt. Kailash Patti @ Kailash Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

What the court decided

Smt. Kailash Patti @ Kailash Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Lt. Col. Baljeet Singh Negi Vs Additional Principal Judge 3 Family Court Lko. and Another

Ajay Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Home Lko.

Sudhakar Shukla and 16 Others vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Ministry of Finance Deptt. of Financial Services and 17 Others

Rita Devi vs Tahsildar Judicial, Ambedkar Nagar and Another

Bansh Bahadur Pal and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Collector, Sultanpur and Others

Smt. Urmila Devi vs Devta Deen and Another