Court No. 7
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48210 Of 2010
Ram Gopal Sharma..................................................................Petitioner
Versus
Satya Narayan.....................................................................Respondent
Hon. Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
The petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus
commanding the trial court i.e. Civil Judge/Prescribed Authority,
Hathras to decide and conclude pending P.A. no. 30/2007, Smt. Mohini
Devi and another Vs. Satya Narayan, under section 21(1)(A) of U.P.
Act No. 13 of 1972, expeditiously within a stipulated period.
This Court while rendering judgment in Manju Devi (Smt.) Vs.
Additional District Judge VIII, Allahabad and others ( 2007(3)
A.R.C.-128), has held that cases are to be decided by the authority
concerned within the time prescribed under the Statute i.e. U.P.
(Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction ) Act, 1972 and the Rules
framed thereunder and failure on their part to do so, amounts to
serious misconduct calling for action against the authority concerned.
Perusal of the petition indicates that without filing any application
before the Prescribed authority for expeditious disposal of his
pending application, the petitioner has directly rushed to the High
Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for the relief stated above.
It is settled that a writ of mandamus cannot be issued until and
unless the person aggrieved has represented his matter and taken all
pleas before the authority concerned against whom writ of mandamus
is claimed.
The writ petition is therefore premature and is accordingly
dismissed with observation that petitioner may move application
before the authority concerned for expeditious disposal of the case in
view of decision in Manju Devi case (supra). No order as to costs.
Dt/-11.8.2010
SNT/