Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4489 of 2010 Petitioner :- Chhabi Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Kamlesh Narayan Pandey Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Petitioner in this writ petition has prayed for issuance of a
direction in the nature of mandamus commanding respondent no.1,
Board of Revenue to decide appeal No.6 of 2007-08 Chabi Nath
Vs. Munna Lal within a time bound period.
No doubt all suits or proceedings including appeals are supposed
to be decided expeditiously but such a direction, as prayed for,
cannot be issued in a casual manner as it is not the case of the
petitioner that respondent no.1 is deliberately avoiding decision of
the appeal or that the other side is adopting delaying tactics.
Moreover, in the absence of necessary pleadings, this Court is not
aware of the pendency of other old cases before respondent no.1
who is ceased with the present appeal. Any direction for time
bound disposal of this appeal would in fact amount to giving
priority to the above appeal over and above other cases which may
be pending before respondent no.1 since before institution of the
appeal in question. A Division Bench of this Court in Km. Shobha
Bose Vs. Judge Small Causes and others 2010 (1) ADJ 531 (DB)
has laid down as under:
“We are of the opinion that power to direct expeditious disposal of
suit or for that matter any lis which, in sum and substance, means
out of turn disposal is to be exercised sparingly in extraordinary
circumstances and not in a routine manner. It is fit to be exercised
only when the Court comes to the conclusion that delay would
cause gross injustice. However, while deciding this issue, the
Court would bear in mind that it does not cause injustice to other
litigants, who are waiting for justice from before because the very
nature of order delays cases filed earlier. It causes resentment and
dissatisfaction to those who are waiting for justice from before. It
should be exercised only when it comes to the notice of this Court
that Judge in seisin of the case is purposely avoiding to dispose of
the suit for any oblique motive, which may defeat the justice. An
order for expeditious disposal in a routine manner can not be
countenanced.”
In view of aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere in the matter
and to issue any positive direction to respondent no.1 for time
bound disposal of the appeal concerned.
However, it is open to the petitioner to approach the authority
concerned for early disposal of the appeal and if it is done, the
authority concerned shall consider the same and pass appropriate
order for early disposal of the appeal or may ensure its speedy
disposal.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 2.2.2010
BK