Court No. - 28
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 2276 of 2011
Petitioner :- Ram Naresh Singh
Respondent :- Lal Singh And Another
Petitioner Counsel :- Ajeet Kumar Singh Solanki,Satyender Kumar Singh
Hon'ble Sanjay Misra,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his prayer for a direction to the Court below to decide the matter pending before it within a fixed time frame. Upon going through the record it appears that the matter is pending before the Court below and has not yet been decided. Insofar as the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner to issue a direction to the Court below to decide the matter within fixed time frame is concerned, no such direction needs to be given in these proceedings for the reason that the Courts below are already flooded with cases and a prayer for expeditious disposal of the matter requires to be made to the Court concerned itself. The Court concerned is in a better position to assess its own roaster for the purpose of giving precedence to cases on the basis of its pendency. Definitely, the older cases require to be given precedence over recently filed cases and this Court in the absence of sufficient details cannot identify the roaster before the Court below in this writ petition. Moreover, passing of a order to decide the matter by the Court below within a fixed time frame could also result in the older cases being put at the back and newer cases would involve time of the Court below under orders passed by the High Court. Such direction, therefore, cannot be issued in isolated cases when this Court has no material before it to determine the pendency of cases before the Court below or even the urgency of the case in hand with the urgency in other cases.
Therefore, such assessment of giving precedence to cases on the facts and circumstances involved is better judged by the Court where the matter is pending so that there can be uniformity in disposal of cases by the Court below without giving precedence to a case which is not more urgent over other urgent cases. Such assessment can be made by the Court concerned and, therefore, it would be appropriate that the petitioner should file an appropriate application before the Court concerned in the case itself praying for expeditious disposal and give reasons for the same. It is for the Court below to consider such application and the reasons given therein for being given precedence over the other older cases and pass an order in accordance with law. It goes without saying that in cases where the statute provides for a time frame to decide the proceeding the Court below should make endeavour to keep time.
It is made clear that this Court has not passed any order for expeditious disposal of the case or disposal of the case within a fixed time frame for the reasons that there is no material on record of this writ petition regarding the pendency of cases before the Court below or even for assessment of urgency in relation to other pending cases.
Therefore, the relief claimed and as prayed by learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition cannot be granted in this writ petition, however, the petitioner is always at liberty to approach the Court concerned for expeditious disposal of the matter or application or objection as the case may be by giving cogent reasons and it is for the Court concerned to consider such application in accordance with law and in view of the observations made above.
The writ petition stands finally disposed of.
No order is passed as to costs.
