Disposed¶6

Gopi Nath Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. 22 Others

Allahabad HC7 Feb 2025WRIC/3502/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad HC, WRIT - C No. 3502 of 2025 (2025:AHC:18148), Vikram D. Chauhan J., order dated 7.2.2025: mandamus sought for disposal of Suit No. 732 of 2017 (Gopinath Pandey and another Vs. Ram Sajivan and others) before SDM Soraon, Allahabad; refused because advocates' strikes were paralysing the court below and contravened the Supreme Court's declared prohibition on advocates' strikes; writ petition disposed of with liberty to lodge a complaint under the Advocates' Act. Themes: advocates' strike; judicial paralysis; time-bound disposal; mandamus; SDM Soraon; Advocates Act complaint.

What did the court decide?

None; the requested mandamus for time-bound disposal of Suit No. 732 of 2017 was not issued. The petitioner was left free to lodge a complaint under the Advocates' Act if his own advocate is going on strike. ¶6

Gopi Nath Pandey and Another vs State of U.P. 22 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶6

Issue for consideration

Mandamus sought commanding the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Soraon, Allahabad to decide Suit No. 732 of 2017 (Gopinath Pandey and another Vs. Ram Sajivan and others) within a stipulated period fixed by the Court. +1 more

¶1

Court's answer

The petitioner is left free to lodge a complaint under the Advocates' Act if his own advocate is going on strike; accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.

¶6

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of the order sheet of the court below shows that most of the time the Advocates are on strike; the strike by the Advocates is paralyzing the judicial process and litigants are suffering.

¶2

Key takeaways

If directions are issued for decision of the case while lawyers are not permitting the court concerned to function, there may be a delay in disposal of the cases.ratio¶3
Advocates are creating hurdle in the judicial process in violation of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court declaring that strikes by Advocates would not be permitted; Advocates, being professionals, are required to work in the best interest of their clients, which is missing.ratio¶4

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ (C) No. 3502 of 2025, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:18148), order dated 7.2.2025 by Vikram D. Chauhan, J. Petitioners Gopi Nath Pandey and another sought mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Soraon, Allahabad to decide Suit No. 732 of 2017 (Gopinath Pandey and another Vs. Ram Sajivan and others) within a stipulated period. From the order sheet the Court found the Advocates mostly on strike, paralyzing the judicial process and causing delay, in violation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's declared position that strikes by Advocates would not be permitted; it held that directions for decision of the case in a time bound manner cannot issue while lawyers are on strike. The writ petition was disposed of, the petitioner being left free to lodge a complaint under the Advocates' Act if his own advocate goes on strike.

Gopi Nath Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. 22 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gopi Nath Pandey and Another v. State of U.P. 22 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Singh vs State of U.P. and 6 Other

Atma Ram vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Lalji and 4 Other vs State of U.P. and 3 Other

Shish Kumar vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Shamshad vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Meena Devi vs State of U.P. and 4 Others