Disposed

Smt. Veena Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Distt, Lko. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC27 Nov 2025/6932/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Under Article 227, the Court directed the Respondent to dispose of a pending tenancy case expeditiously. The Court cautioned Rent Tribunals to promptly sign order-sheets so certified copies can be issued, ensuring fair procedure without examining the merits of the instant petition.

What did the court decide?

Notice to private respondents dispensed; direction to decide pending case expeditiously.

Smt. Veena Chandra Vs State of U.P. Thru… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6932 of 2025

Smt. Veena Chandra

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Collector Distt, Lko. And 4 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Ravindra Nath Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶9

Court No. - 6

¶10

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶11

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Notice on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2 has been accepted by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel.

¶12

In view of the order proposed to be passed by this Court, notice to the private-respondents No.3 to 5 is dispensed with.

¶13

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of Case No.D202210460002442 (Smt. Veena Chendra v. M/s. Shree Shine Systech Private Limited and others), under Section 21(1) of the U.P. Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021, pending before the respondent No.2.

¶14

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

¶15

Learned standing counsel submits that he has no objection in case an expedite order is passed.

¶16

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.2 to consider and decide the pending Case No.D202210460002442 (Smt. Veena Chendra v. M/s. Shree Shine Systech Private Limited and

¶17

A227 No. 6932 of 2025

¶18

¶19

others) 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.

¶20

Despite the fact that the Court expedited the proceedings, it is also to be noticed that in Para-9 of the writ petition, the petitioner has specifically averred that several dates have been fixed but since the order-sheets have not been signed by the Presiding Officer of the Court concerned, hence, the certified copies could not made available.

¶21

The Presiding Officer of all the Rent Tribunal concerned must ensure that the order-sheets are promptly signed and this cannot be taken as a ground for depriving a person from obtaining a certified copy. The respondent No.2 is cautioned that in case if any issue of this nature arises in future, the Court may take a serious view.

¶22

Let a copy of this order be placed before the District Magistrate concerned also to ensure that the work done by the Rent Tribunals are done in accordance with law following the fair procedure.

¶23

It is made clear that the Court has not examined the case of either of the parties on merits and the Court concerned shall consider and decide the case of the petitioner strictly in accordance with law.

¶24

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶25

(Jaspreet Singh,J.)

¶26

November 27, 2025

¶27

Rakesh/-

¶28

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

Smt. Veena Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Distt, Lko. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Veena Chandra v. State of U.P. Thru. Collector Distt, Lko. and 4 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

Vivek Dixit Vs Smt. Swati Dixit @ Swati Porwal

Indrasen Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 4 Others

Mantosh Nigam Vs Akash Kumar Nigam and 7 Others

The Commissioner State Tax Lko vs Sarvashree Shri Sheetaldas Enterprises Thru. Auth. Sign. Sunil Kumar

Asheesh Kumar Rai and 3 Others vs Shahab Construction, through its Proprietor, Mohammad Shahab Siddiqui and Another

M/S S.V. Electronics, Lko. Thru. Authorized Representative, Shiv Kumar Yadav vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Tax and Registration, Lko. and 3 Others