Disposed¶15

Shiv Prakash Giri v. State of U.P. and 14 Others

Allahabad HC15 May 2025WRIC/7263/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Expeditious disposal mandamus; restoration application under Section 209(h) U.P. Revenue Code 2006; SDM Ballia as respondent No.2; two-month time-bound direction; underlying Section 20 U.P. Revenue Code case (Phulpatiya vs. Ram Parvesh); no adjudication on merits; writ disposed; petitioner Shiv Prakash Giri; Allahabad High Court; 2025:AHC:80133; order dated 15.5.2025.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondent No.2 (Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ballia) to decide Restoration Application Case No.4186/2022 (Sangeeta vs. Phoolpatiya) expeditiously, preferably within two months from production of a certified copy of the order; writ petition disposed of with the aforesaid observation/direction. ¶15

Shiv Prakash Giri vs State of U.P. and 14 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should be issued directing respondent No.2 to decide Restoration Application Case No.4186/2022 (Sangeeta vs. Phoolpatiya) under Section 209(h) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, pending before him, within a stipulated time.

¶9

Court's answer

The Court directed that Restoration Application Case No.4186/2022 (Computerized No.T202215090304186) (Sangeeta vs. Phoolpatiya), pending before respondent No.2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, be decided expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

The Court clarified that it had not decided the issue on merits; the authorities concerned shall independently apply their mind and pass orders in accordance with law.

¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 7263 of 2025, Neutral Citation 2025:AHC:80133) by Shiv Prakash Giri against the State of U.P. and 14 others, before Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan, J. (Allahabad High Court, Court No. 7). The petitioner sought mandamus directing respondent No.2, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, to decide Restoration Application Case No.4186/2022 (Computerized No.T202215090304186) (Sangeeta vs. Phoolpatiya) under Section 209(h) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 - an application filed by respondent No.14 in underlying Case No.5309 of 2016 (Phulpatiya vs. Ram Parvesh) under Section 20 of the Code, Mauza Vaina, Pargana Ballia - within a month. Learned Standing Counsel undertook time-bound disposal. The Court directed expeditious decision of the restoration application, preferably within two months from production of a certified copy of the order, clarified that it had not decided the issue on merits, and required the authorities to independently apply their minds and pass orders in accordance with law. Writ petition disposed of. Order dated 15.5.2025.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80133

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7263 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Shiv Prakash Giri Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 14 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Arvind Kumar Maurya,Om Prakash Verma

¶5

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rameshwar Prasad Shukla

¶6

Hon'ble Vikram D. Chauhan,J.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶8

The present writ petition is filed with the following prayer:

¶9

"i. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to decide the restoration application case No.4186/2022 (Computerized No.T202215090304186) (Sangeeta vs. Phoolpatiya) under Section 209(h) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 filed by the respondent no.14 in Case No.5309 of 2016 (Computerized case No.T201615959035309) Phulpatiya vs. Ram Parvesh under Section 20 of U.P. Revenue Code Mauza Vaina, Pargana Ballia, Tahsil and District Ballia within a month."

¶10

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that restoration application filed by respondent no.14 is pending consideration before the respondent no.2. The direction may be issued for expeditious disposal of the same.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel submits that restoration application would be decided in a time bound manner.

¶12

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is hereby directed that the restoration application case No.4186/2022 (Computerized No.T202215090304186) (Sangeeta vs. Phoolpatiya) pending before respondent No.2-Sub Divisional Magistrate, Ballia, be decided expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.

¶13

It is clarified that this Court has not decided the issue on merits and the authorities concerned shall independently apply its mind

¶14

and pass order in accordance with law.

¶15

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 15.5.2025 S.Prakash

¶17

Digitally signed by :- SHASHI PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shiv Prakash Giri v. State of U.P. and 14 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Prakash Giri v. State of U.P. and 14 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Bhuti @ Bahoti and 4 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Kusum Devi vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 5 Other

Manoj Kumar Mishra vs the State of U.P. and 4 Others

Ravi Shankar Alias Guddu and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Shivendra Kumar Rai vs State of U.P. and 5 Others

Brajesh Kumar Pandey vs State of Up and 6 Others