Bajrang vs Ayukut Prayagraj Mandal Prayagraj and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Bajrang vs Ayukut Prayagraj Mandal Prayagraj and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of with consent of counsel, without adverting to merits, via a time-bound direction to the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decide Revision No.31 of 2024, Computerized Case No. C202402000000031, strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned order on merit after affording opportunity of hearing, expeditiously and preferably within six months from receipt of a certified copy of the order unless there is any legal impediment, with no unnecessary adjournments and adjournments only in exceptional circumstances.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Court should issue a mandamus directing respondent no.1 to decide Revision No.31 of 2024, Computerized Case No. C202402000000031, within a stipulated period.

Court's answer

Under Rule 183(4) of the U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 there is a clear legislative mandate that appellate or revisional proceedings be concluded within the stipulated period, failing which reasons for the non-conclusion must be recorded.

Ratio / Principle

With consent of counsel, the Court disposed of the writ petition without adverting to merits, directing the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decide Revision No.31 of 2024, Computerized Case No. C202402000000031, strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned order on merit after affording opportunity of hearing.

Key takeaways

The revision is to be decided expeditiously and preferably within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order, unless there is any legal impediment.ratio¶¶15
It was further directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to either of the parties; an adjournment, if prayed for, may be granted only in exceptional circumstances.ratio¶¶15

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (WRIT - C No. 5156 of 2025; neutral citation 2025:AHC:33798; Order Date 7.3.2025; Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi, J.) disposed of, with consent of counsel and without adverting to merits, a petition by Bajrang seeking mandamus for timely disposal of Revision No.31 of 2024, Computerized Case No. C202402000000031, pending before respondent no.1. Invoking the legislative mandate in Sub Rule 4 of Rule 183 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 (six-month endeavour to decide appeals/revisions, failing which reasons must be recorded), the Court directed the Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj to decide the revision strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned order on merit after affording opportunity of hearing, expeditiously and preferably within six months from receipt of a certified copy of the order unless there is any legal impediment, and further directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted, adjournments being permissible only in exceptional circumstances.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:33798

Court No. - 37

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5156 of 2025

Petitioner :- Bajrang Respondent :- Ayukut Prayagraj Mandal Prayagraj And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- Azad Rai,C.S.C.

Hon'ble Syed Qamar Hasan Rizvi,J.

Heard Sri Sudhir Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Jitendra Narayain Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents and perused the record.

The instant writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.1 to decide the Revision No.31 of 2024, Computerized Case No. C202402000000031 pending before him within a stipulated period as directed by this Court."

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that aforesaid Revision bearing Case No.31 of 2024, Computerized Case No. C202402000000031 is pending for disposal and no final order has been passed in the said case.

Sub Rule 4 of Rule 183 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016 provides as under:

"The appellate or the revisional Court shall, endeavour to finally decide the appeal or revision, as the case may be, within a period of six months from the date of filing the appeal or revision and if the appeal or revision is not decided within the aforesaid period, the reason for the same shall be recorded."

There is a clear legislative mandate that if proceedings are not concluded within stipulated period of time as provided under the aforesaid provision, reasons for the same shall be recorded.

Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel submits that he has no objection to the extent that a direction is issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of the case within stipulated period as to be fixed by this Court.

Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that no useful purpose would be served in keeping this writ petition pending.

Accordingly, without adverting on merits of the case and with the consent of the learned counsels present before the Court, this Court deems it appropriate to finally dispose of the present writ petition with a direction to Commissioner, Prayagraj Division, Prayagraj before whom the aforementioned matter is pending for disposal, to decide the Revision No.31 of 2024, Computerized Case No. C202402000000031, strictly in accordance with law, by a reasoned order on merit after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, expeditiously and preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, unless there is any legal impediment. It is further directed that no unnecessary adjournments be granted to either of the parties and the adjournment, if prayed for, it may be granted only in exceptional circumstances.

With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition is disposed of .

Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Jitendra

Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad