The High Court, under Article 227 directed the respondent judicial officer to dispose of a pending case expeditiously while recording the petitioner's undertaking against unnecessary adjournments, without examining the merits.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:81044
Court No. - 8
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5831 of 2024
Petitioner :- Khurshed Ahmad And 3 Others Respondent :- Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Maya Ram Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 5 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.
In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.2 to 4 is dispensed with.
By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Case No.234 (Khurshed Ahmad & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) which is pending before the respondent No.1.
It is submitted that though a large number of dates have been fixed, however, for the reasons beyond control, the matter has not yet been decided.
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.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are ready to furnish an undertaking that the petitioners will not seek any unnecessary adjournment and shall also cooperate in the early disposal of the aforesaid case.
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 Case No.234 (Khurshed Ahmad & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.) most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties preferably as expeditiously
as possible.
The petitioners shall also furnish an undertaking, as mentioned above, along with a copy of this order. In case, if the petitioners do not furnish the aforesaid undertaking, then the petitioners shall not be entitled to the benefit of this order.
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 matter strictly in accordance with law.
With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .
Order Date :- 5.12.2024 Rakesh/-
Digitally signed by :- RAKESH PRAJAPAT High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Khurshed Ahmad
Deputy Director Of Consolidation, Gonda
Jaspreet Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
