Disposed

Mukesh Kumar Pandey v. Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil Rudauli, Ayodhya and Another

Allahabad HC6 Jan 2025A227/5740/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court exercised supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 to direct the Respondent No. 1 to decide the petitioner's pending revenue case expeditiously, ensuring no unnecessary adjournments are granted while preserving the merit-based decision-making authority of the lower forum.

What did the court decide?

Direction issued to Respondent No. 1 to decide pending Case No. 3294/2022 expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments.

Mukesh Kumar Pandey Vs Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:679

¶2

Court No. - 8

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 5740 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Mukesh Kumar Pandey Respondent :- Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil Rudauli, Ayodhya And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶6

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

¶7

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

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of his Case No.3294/2022, Computerized Case No.T-2022042303294, under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 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 matter 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 Case No.3294/2022, Computerized Case No.T2022042303294 most expeditiously, affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties, but without granting any unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties as expeditiously as possible.

¶13

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.

¶14

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.

¶15

With the aforesaid, the petition is disposed of .

¶16

Order Date :- 6.1.2025 Rakesh/-

¶17

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

Mukesh Kumar Pandey v. Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil Rudauli, Ayodhya and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh Kumar Pandey v. Tehsildar Judicial, Tehsil Rudauli, Ayodhya and Another

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