Disposed

Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Singh v. Addl. Commissioner. (Administration,) Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Allahabad HC25 Sept 2024A227/4576/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition under Article 227 prayed for expeditious disposal of a petition pending before the respondent Commissioner. The Court directed the Commissioner to dispose of the appeal without granting any unjustified adjournment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to furnish undertaking; Respondent Commissioner directed to decide pending appeal expeditiously without unnecessary adjournments.

Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Singh vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:66394

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4576 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- Addl. Commissioner. (Administration,) Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Baljeet Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pankaj Gupta

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 5 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel. Shri Pankaj Gupta, learned counsel has accepted notice on behalf of the respondent No.4.

¶7

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.2 and 3 is dispensed with.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of his Appeal No.01418/2019, Computerized Case No.C201908000001418, pending before the respondent No.1.

¶9

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

¶10

Learned standing counsel has drawn the attention of the Court to the extract of the order-sheet and has pointed out that in majority of the dates, the proceedings before the respondent No.1 could not advance on account of the resolution passed by the Members of the Bar abstaining from judicial work.

¶11

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is ready to furnish an undertaking that the petitioner will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall also cooperate in the early disposal of the aforesaid case.

¶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 pending Appeal No.01418/2019, Computerized Case No.C201908000001418 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any

¶13

unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably as expeditiously as possible.

¶14

The petitioner shall also furnish an undertaking, as mentioned above, along with a copy of this order. In case, if the petitioner does not furnish the aforesaid undertaking, then the petitioner shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.

¶15

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the respondent No.1 shall decide the appeal of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶16

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶17

Order Date :- 25.9.2024 Rakesh/-

¶18

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

Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Singh v. Addl. Commissioner. (Administration,) Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Singh v. Addl. Commissioner. (Administration,) Devi Patan Mandal, Gonda and 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

Smt. Susheela Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy., Revenue Deptt., Lucknow and Others

Mohd. Arif Vs Board of Revenue, U.P., Lucknow Thru. Chairman and Others

Smt. Anita Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Rani vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Revenue, Lucknow and Others

Ram Shankar vs Settlement Officer of Consolidation, Barabanki and Another

Hari Ram (Dead) Thru 1/1 Vijay Amrit Raj and Ors. vs Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tarabganj, Gonda and Others