# Ali Shad Usmani & Ors v. Ali Isteba & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 127
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-07-10
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68168 of 2006
- **Bench:** Dr. Dhananjaya Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J. Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ali-shad-usmani-ors-v-ali-isteba-ors-43076
- **Pages:** 2

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226/227Direction for expeditious disposal of suitshould be issued with very care and
circumspection-other wise Civil Court will
128
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be over burdened
-with such casesexception
for
Senior
Citizen-people
suffering from particular disability-such
consideration should be left to the concern
Court itself-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-3
Ultimately, it must be left to the
judicious exercise of discretion of the
concerned Court to determine whether a
ground for urgency has been made out.
We emphasize that there may be other
cases such as involving senior citizens,
those who are differently abled or people
suffering from a particular disablilty
socio-economic or otherwise which may
prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for
the learned Trial Judge in each case to
apply his or her mind and decide
whether the hearing of the suit to be
expedited.

## Text

1 All] Ali Shad Usmani & Ors. Vs. Ali Isteba & Ors.
127
Order has been issued by the Principal
Secretary on 18.11.2014 asking the
Divisional Commissioners to settle the
vacant shop as early as possible. He
further submitted that Division Bench of
this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar Vs.
State of U.P. and others, reported in 2014
(8) ADJ, 1 has observed that it is open to
the State, pending disposal of an appeal,
to make suitable alternate arrangements
either by attaching the card holders to an
existing fair price shop or by allotting the
fair price shop to a new licencee subject
to the result of the appeal. Therefore, in
view of the aforesaid decision of the
Division Bench of this Court, the order of
Sub
Divisional
Magistrate
is
not
sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
5.
Learned
Standing
Counsel
submitted that let the respondent no.3, Sub
Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil Machhali
Shahar, district Jaunpur be directed to pass a
fresh order in the light of the Government
Order dated 18.11.2014 and the Division
Bench decision of this Court in the case of
Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others
(Supra).
6.

We
have
considered
the
submissions and perused the record.
7. We find that the Government
Order
dated
10.07.2014
was
only
applicable in a case where the appeal was
pending. In the present case, the appeal
has already been decided and, therefore,
this Government Order is not applicable
in the present case. Further the Division
Bench of this Court, in the case of Vinod
Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others
(Supra), has held that it is open to the
State, pending disposal of an appeal, to
make suitable alternate arrangements,
either by attaching the card holders to an
existing fair price shop or by allotting the
fair price shop to a new licencee, subject
to the result of the appeal. Therefore,
there is no impediment now in settling the
fair price shop in favour of the petitioner
in pursuance of the resolution passed by
the Gram Panchayat on 07.08.2013.
8. In view of the above, the writ
petition
is
allowed.
Order
dated
29.10.2014 passed by the respondent
no.3, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Tehsil
Machhali Shahar, district Jaunpur is set
aside and the matter is relegated to the
respondent no.3 to consider the claim of
the petitioner, expeditiously, preferably
within a period of two weeks from the
date of presentation of the certified copy
of this order, in the light of the
observation and direction given above, in
accordance to law.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DHANANJAYA YESHWANT
CHANDRACHUD, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH
BAGHEL, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 68168 of 2006
Ali Shad Usmani & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
Ali Isteba & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jamil Ahmad Azmi
Counsel for the Respondents:
---
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226/227Direction for expeditious disposal of suitshould be issued with very care and
circumspection-other wise Civil Court will
128
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
be over burdened
-with such casesexception
for
Senior
Citizen-people
suffering from particular disability-such
consideration should be left to the concern
Court itself-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-3
Ultimately, it must be left to the
judicious exercise of discretion of the
concerned Court to determine whether a
ground for urgency has been made out.
We emphasize that there may be other
cases such as involving senior citizens,
those who are differently abled or people
suffering from a particular disablilty
socio-economic or otherwise which may
prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for
the learned Trial Judge in each case to
apply his or her mind and decide
whether the hearing of the suit to be
expedited.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Dhananjaya
Yeshwant Chandrachud, C.J.)
1. The only relief which is sought in
this proceeding is in the following terms:
"i) a writ, order or direction in the
nature
of
mandamus
directing
the
respondent no.6 to expedite the hearing of
the Suit No. 271 of 2005 Ali Shad and
others Vs. Ali Isteba and others.
ii) a writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent no.6 to decide the suit within
the stipulated period granted by this
Hon'ble Court."
2. We are not inclined to issue a
direction for the expeditious hearing of a
Civil Suit which is pending before the
Civil Judge (Junior Division), DistrictAzamgarh. It would be most inappropriate
to Court to entertain a writ petition under
Article 226 and/or under Article 227 of
the Constitution simply for the purpose of
expediting the hearing of a suit. Such
orders, if granted, place a class of
litigants, who move the court in a separate
and preferential category whereas other
cases which may be of similar or greater
antiquity and urgency are left to be
decided in the normal channel. Hence,
any such direction may be issued with the
greatest care and circumspection by the
High Court otherwise the Civil Courts
will be overburdened only with requests
for expeditious disposal of suits, which
have been expedited by the High Court.
Most of the litigants cannot afford the
expense of moving the High court and
would not, therefore, be in a position to
have the benefit of such an order.
3. Ultimately, it must be left to the
judicious exercise of discretion of the
concerned Court to determine whether a
ground for urgency has been made out.
We emphasize that there may be other
cases such as involving senior citizens,
those who are differently abled or people
suffering from a particular disablilty
socio-economic or otherwise which may
prime cause of urgent disposal. It is for
the learned Trial Judge in each case to
apply his or her mind and decide whether
the hearing of the suit to be expedited.
4. For these reasons, we are not
inclined to entertain the petition. The
petition is, accordingly, dismissed. There
shall be no order as to cost.
--------