Gayasuddin v. Shahid Ali

Allahabad HC10 Nov 2025A227/6522/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expedite order refused; Article 227; Gayasuddin v. Shahid Ali; M.A. No. 6522 of 2025; Case No.764/2025 / D202504040000764; Additional District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar; petition filed 23.06.2025; respondent appearance 02.09.2025; listed 17.09.2025; no order-sheet showing cause of delay; subjective satisfaction; disposed of 10.11.2025; Jaspreet Singh, J.; liberty to move application before Court concerned; dismissal not to prejudice future expedition.

What did the court decide?

No expedite order passed; petition disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to seek expedition by application before the Court concerned. ¶¶17

Gayasuddin Vs Shahid Ali — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6522 of 2025

Gayasuddin

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

Shahid Ali	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Aman Yadav, Aakash Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s)	:

¶7

Court No. - 6

¶8

HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

¶9

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner seeks expeditious disposal of a petition bearing Case No.764/2025 (Computerized Case No.D202504040000764) filed by the petitioner, pending in the Court of Additional District Magistrate, Ambedkar Nagar.

¶11

Having considered the aforesaid and also noticing the extracts of the order-sheets, which have been brought on record at running Page 34, it indicates that the petition was filed on 23.06.2025. The respondent had put in appearance only on 02.09.2025 whereafter the matter was fixed on 17.09.2025, but since then there is no order-sheet brought on record to indicate as to what is the cause of delay to enable this Court to form a subjective satisfaction as to whether an expedite order is required to be passed especially when the petition was filed on 23.06.2025.

¶12

In absence of the aforesaid material, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition and to pass an expedite order relating to a petition of the year 2025 leaving it open for the petitioner to move an appropriate application before the Court concerned, needless to say, in case, such an application is moved, the Court concerned shall consider and decide the same strictly in accordance with law.

¶13