# Gurudeen v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 509
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-28
- **Case number:** Writ C No. 23781 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gurudeen-v-state-of-u-p-ors-46360
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Mutation case - Praying for
its disposal within stipulated time, Writ of
Mandamus sought for - Absence of
lawyers from works - Effect - Held, the
poor litigant, in such matters, particularly,
at the lower level on the revenue side, is
charged fees for pursuing his grievance,
however, in such pursuation litigant/
petitioner is not getting any relief on
merits of his claim - Further held, now the
time has come to take cognizance of all
such matters where meaningless litigation
is
being
generated
due
to
lawyers
abstaining from work and as already
observed in Prafull Kumar, is not serving
any substantial cause of the litigant or of
the society at large - High Court directed
the authority to decide the case as
expeditiously as possible in case parties
are
present
in-
person
before
the
Presiding Officer. (Para 16, 17 and 19)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

10 All. Gurudeen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
509
principles of natural justice and cannot be
sustained and hereby quashed with liberty
to the respondents to pass fresh order in
accordance with law within four weeks
from the date of communication of the
instant order.

11. The application for renewal of
registration of the sonography facility of
the petitioner's hospital shall be considered
in the light of the decision that would be
taken by the respondents in pursuance of
the impugned order.

12. Liberty is reserved in favour of
the petitioners to move fresh application in
that regard. It is clarified that until
petitioners get a fresh registration under the
Act, they shall not carry on any activity
relating to sonography or any other kind of
scanning which is prohibited under the Act
without a valid registration.

13. The petition stands allowed to the
extent indicated above.
----------
(2021)10ILR A509
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ C No. 23781 of 2021

Gurudeen ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sanjeev Kumar Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Mutation case - Praying for
its disposal within stipulated time, Writ of
Mandamus sought for - Absence of
lawyers from works - Effect - Held, the
poor litigant, in such matters, particularly,
at the lower level on the revenue side, is
charged fees for pursuing his grievance,
however, in such pursuation litigant/
petitioner is not getting any relief on
merits of his claim - Further held, now the
time has come to take cognizance of all
such matters where meaningless litigation
is
being
generated
due
to
lawyers
abstaining from work and as already
observed in Prafull Kumar, is not serving
any substantial cause of the litigant or of
the society at large - High Court directed
the authority to decide the case as
expeditiously as possible in case parties
are
present
in-
person
before
the
Presiding Officer. (Para 16, 17 and 19)
Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Chadra Bali Vs Additional Commissioner &
ors. 2012 (4) ADJ 13
2. Radha Devi Vs St. of U.P. & ors. 2016 (6) ADJ
753
3. Prafull Kumar Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2021 (7)
ADJ 443

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri Rituraj Singh, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the State
respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed for
commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide
the mutation case no. 920 of 2018,
(Gurudeen vs. Rajbahadur), Computer Case
No. 201814360300920 under Section 34 of
U.P. Land Revenue Act, within stipulated
period.
510 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

3. Earlier petitioner for the same
cause of action has approached this Court
by way of filing Writ- C No. 17160 of
2019 (Gurudeen vs. State of U.P. And
2019), which was disposed of vide order
dated 20.5.2019, the said order is quoted as
under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner.

This writ petition has been filed
seeking the following relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding to the respondent no. 2 i.e.
Tehsildar,
Tehsil-Machhalishahar,
District-Jaunpur to decide the mutation
case bearing no. 00920 of 2018 Computer
Case no. T201814360300920 (Gurudeen
Vs. Ram Bahadur), Under section 34 of
U.P. Land Revenue Act, pending in the
court of respondent no. 2 since 05.03.2018,
within stipulated period fix by this Hon'ble
Court."

It is submitted that a mutation
case filed by the petitioner is pending
consideration since March 2018.

The writ petition is therefore
disposed of directing the respondent no. 2
to decide the pending proceedings as
expeditiously as possible without granting
any unnecessary adjournment to any of the
parties.

It
shall
however
afford
precedence to matters of a similar nature
which have remained pending for a greater
period of time."

4. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that several dates were
fixed but the court below has not decided
the case by complying the order of this
Court. The above quoted order indicates
that direction was issued to decide the
proceedings as expeditiously as possible
without
granting
any
unnecessary
adjournment to any of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
further submitted that the Presiding Officer
was not present on several dates, as such,
the disposal of the case is being delayed
hence a direction to dispose of the case
within a time bound period be issued.

6. Allegations are being raised against
the Presiding Officer, whereas perusal of
the order-sheet indicates that a clear reason
for being not present in the Court has been
given that the Presiding Officer is busy due
to administrative reason. It is of common
knowledge that the officers presiding over
such courts are at times, required to attend
various tasks by remaining present on the
spot or being present in the office of the
superior authorities etc, in other words, by
physically remaining out of their offices or
busy for administrative reasons. Hence, the
reason that Presiding Officer is busy due to
administrative
reason
is
broadly
understandable, though it cannot be a
ground for intentionally adjourning the
matter.

7. Now the time has come that before
issuing direction or even notice to the
Presiding Officer, the order-sheet should be
looked into to ascertain as to whether
substantial cause of delay is on the part of
the lawyers or not.

8. Perusal of the order-sheet clearly
indicates that after passing of aforesaid
order dated 20.5.2019 by this Court, on 37
dates, the lawyers were not working and it
10 All. Gurudeen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
511
is only on few dates they were present and
proceedings were undertaken. For certain
period courts were not functioning due to
Covid-19 Pandemic.

9. On the earlier occasion also I have
considered the question of issuing writ of
mandamus in case of disposal of mutation
cases after considering the judgment of this
Court in case of Chadra Bali vs.
Additional Commissioner And Others
2012 (4) ADJ 13, wherein general
mandamus was issued to decide certain
nature of cases within a time bound period
as well as the Government Order dated
16.5.2012 issued by the State Government,
whereon a circular dated 17.5.2012 was
issued by the Commissioner Board of
Revenue, Lucknow and provisions of U.P.
Janhit Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2011.

10. After taking note of the provisions
of the U.P. Janhit Guarantee Adhiniyam,
2011 following observations were made by
this Court in paragraph nos. 8, 9 and 10 in
the case of Radha Devi Vs. State of U.P.
And Others 2016 (6) ADJ 753.

"8. A notification dated 15.1.2011
was
issued
notifying
the
services,
designated officers, first appeal officers,
second appellate authority and stipulated
time limits.

9. Uncontested mutation of land
is included as one of the services and time
period provided is 45 working days. The
designated officer is Tehsildar and in case
he does not decide within the stipulated
limit first appeallate officer is Sub Division
Magistrate and the stipulated time of
disposing of first appeal is 30 working day.
The second appellate authority is District
Magistrate in such matters. Section 4
provides right to obtain service within
stipulated time limits, Section 5 provides
for services of stipulated time limit; Section
6 provides for appeal; Section 7 provides
for penalty in case the service is not
provided by the designated officer or the
first appeal officer as the case may be
within stipulated time without sufficient and
reasonable cause. The second appellate
authority even has power to recommend
disciplinary action if he is satisfied that the
designated officer or the first appeal officer
has failed to discharge the duties assigned
to him under this Act.

As such the aforesaid Act No. 3 of
2011 provides complete remedy where such
cases are not decided within the stipulated
time.

10. Therefore, in view of the
aforesaid no directions are required to be
passed and the petitioner may approach the
competent
authority
in
view of
the
observations made hereinabove, who is
under obligation to consider any such
application if filed by the petitioner. "
 (Emphasis Supplied)

11. I have considered the question for
granting mandamus in such cases from a
different view point also in the case of
Prafull Kumar vs. State of U.P. and
another, 2021 (7) ADJ 443, paragraph nos.
4, 5, 6 and 7 of the same are quoted as
under:-

"4. A perusal of the order-sheet
right from the year 2014 reflects that
except on few dates almost throughout the
lawyers were abstaining from work. Once
the appeal was dismissed for want of
prosecution also. It is also pertinent to note
that in fact, the lawyers are so regularly
abstaining from work that a rubber stamp
is being used on the order-sheet that the
512 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
lawyers are abstaining from work. This
position is continuing since the year 2014
itself till date except the period during
which the Court was not functioning due to
Covid-19 Pandemic.

5. Almost everyday large number
of petitions are coming before this Court
with similar prayers that proceedings may
be decided within a time bound period and
in most of the cases order sheet of the case
reflects the same state of affairs with only
very few exception.

6. This speaks a lot about sorry
states of affairs in the courts below,
particularly on revenue side.

7. Under such circumstances, this
Court refuses to grant the relief as prayed
for in this writ petition. Lawyers cannot
take working of the Court for granted as on
one hand, obviously the lawyers must have
charged
their
professional
fee
and
thereafter, they are abstaining from work
and on the other hand, they are seeking a
direction to the Court concerned to decide
the case within a specific period. It is a
sheer wastage of time of the Court concern
and ultimately of resources, financial or
otherwise, of the litigants as well of the tax
payers, as daily cost of running a Court is
huge but is not serving any purpose,
neither of the litigants nor of the society at
large. Further, again on one hand, lawyers
are not working, on the other hand, if such
directions and/or mandamus is issued, the
Court/Authority is put under the threat of
Contempt of Court, if case is not decided.
This again generate litigation creating
unnecessary burden on the Court. Again
the big question mark is there, for whose
benefit? May be the same lawyer who is
abstaining from work is generating this
litigation, which in fact, is not serving as
substantial counsel of the litigant or of the
society at large. "
 (Emphasis supplied)

12. Therefore, it is clear that such
matters are liable to be decided as
expeditiously as possible and in a time
bound manner. However, when the lawyers
are abstaining from the work, the words
"working days' assumes importance. In the
present
case
itself
it
is
clear
that
apprehension of this Court as expressed in
the case of Prafull Kumar (Supra) was
not baseless as it is clear from the facts of
the
present
case
where
even
after
mandamus was issued by this Court, the
lawyers
were
abstaining
from
work,
therefore, clearly, "working days" are not
available
with
the
court/
authority
concerned
due
to
reason
''lawyers
abstaining from work', however, again for
this reason only interest of justice should
not suffer and court/ authority should
proceed if litigant/ litigants is/ are present
in person.

13. In such view of the matter, I do
not find any good ground to entertain the
present petition to grant the prayer for
which
the
petitioner
has
already
approached this Court wherein, direction
was
issued
to
decide
the
case,
expeditiously, although, no direction was
issued to decide the case within time bound
manner. This is a glaring example of non
functioning of the lawyers at the revenue
side in particular, which I have already
noted in Prafull Kumar (Supra).

14. At the cost of repetition it may be
highlighted that this is a case where even
after obtaining the order from this Court,
lawyers were abstaining from work and
thereafter, again they approach this Court
seeking for further direction. At times
10 All. Gurudeen Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
513
contempt
proceedings
are
initiated.
Usually, experience of this Court in such
matters is that initially the contempt
petitions are also disposed of by giving one
more opportunity to opposite party to
decide the case/ comply the order of this
Court. At times, again lawyers do not
appear and second contempt petition is
filed, whereon usually notices to Presiding
Officers are issued. In such manner, the
Advocates on the one hand, charge their
professional fees and on the other hand,
even after direction of this Court to argue
the matter, they do not appear to argue the
case on the ground of call for strike or
resolution of the concerned Bar Association
to refrain from work for any reason
whatsoever. Hence, meaningless litigation
is generated before this Court without there
being any fruitful relief granted to the
litigant.

15. This speaks a lot about sorry
states of affairs in the courts below,
particularly on revenue side. Clearly,
apprehension of this Court as expressed in
Prafull Kumar (Supra) was not without
basis.

16. The poor litigant, in such matters,
particularly, at the lower level on the
revenue side, is charged fees for pursuing
his grievance, however, in such pursuation
litigant/ petitioner is not getting any relief
on merits of his claim and grievance on the
procedural side of the matter remains that
the court is not proceeding to decide and/
or pass orders and that the court be directed
to proceed to decide the case within a time
bound manner.

17. In such view of the matter, I do find
any good ground to grant any such relief as
prayed for in this petition. Now the time has
come to take cognizance of all such matters
where
meaningless
litigation
is
being
generated due to lawyers abstaining from
work and as already observed in Prafull
Kumar (Supra), is not serving any
substantial cause of the litigant or of the
society at large and is not in the interest of
justice as huge time of the Courts and
therefore, huge public money is wasted in
attending such meaningless litigation.

18. As noticed in Radha Devi (Supra)
the petitioner should also press the provisions
of Janhit Guarantee Adhiniyam, 2011 into
service before the Court/ authority concerned
in such matters.

19. However, in the interest of justice,
as the litigants should not suffer for any
reason, it is provided that in case parties are
present in- person before the Presiding
Officer, the Presiding Officer/ authority
concerned shall make all efforts to decided
the case as expeditiously as possible as
already directed by this Court.

20. Learned Standing Counsel as well
as the Registry of this Court is directed to
send a copy of this order to the concerned Bar
Association within a period of 15 days from
today so that the Bar Association and learned
members of the concerned Bar Association
may be sensitized about the working of the
court and plight of the litigants from whom
they have charged their professional fees.

21. The registry is further directed to
forward a copy of this order to all the
District Judges and Commissioners of the
region and Board of Revenue for being
forwarded to all the Bar Associations for
the purpose of sensitizing the lawyers on
this issue.

22. Time has come when Bar Council
of the State as well as Bar Council of India
514 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
should also deliberate on this issue and pass
appropriate
resolution/
guidelines.
Therefore, Registry is further directed to
send copy of this order to U.P. Bar Council
and Bar Council of India also for
consideration and doing the needful.

23. Accordingly, present petition
stands
dismissed,
however,
with
the
observations as made above.
----------
(2021)10ILR A514
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD15.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ C No. 28821 of 2018

Nar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Umesh Prasad Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Arms licence - Cancellation
on the ground of apprehension - No
finding to the effect that continuance of
arms licence is harmful for public peace or
safety - No criminal history of licence
holder - No allegation of obtaining the
licence by means of fraud - Validity
challenged - Held, the cancellation of the
arms licence only on the ground of
apprehension is bad and not sustainable in
the eye of law. (Para 11)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Satyendra Bahadur Singh @ Guddu Singh Vs
St. of U.P. & ors.; 2016 0 Supreme (All) 358
2. Hiramani Singh Vs St. of U.P. & anr.; 2010
LawSuit (All) 3030
3. Rajendra Singh Vs Commissioner, Lucknow
Division, Lucknow & ors.; 2011 LawSuit(All)
2876
4. Mulayam Singh Vs St. of U.P. & ors.; 2012
LawSuit(all) 1651
(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that petitioner was issued arms
licence of pistol by the District Magistrate,
Gorakhpur vide order dated 14.6.2013 and
accordingly, he purchased the pistol. He
next submitted that District Magistrate,
Gorakhpur-respondent no. 3 issued show
cause notice under Section 17(3) of the
Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as
the Act, 1959) to the petitioner on
12.10.2015 as to why his licence may not
be cancelled, against which petitioner filed
reply on 9.3.2016. Ultimately respondent
no. 3 vide impugned order dated 10.5.2016
cancelled the arms licence of the petitioner
only on the ground of apprehension.
Petitioner is a law abiding person and
during course of Panchayat Election, 2015,
he deposited his pistol in the Malkhana of
Police Station Gagaha. He next submitted
that in the impugned order, it has been
observed that in an incident, petitioner
himself has received injury, but contrary to
that, his arms licence has been cancelled on
the ground of apprehension only. Against
the said order, petitioner preferred an
appeal under Section17 (3) of the Act, 1959
which was also dismissed by the Divisional
Commissioner vide order dated 17.02.2018
affirming the order of the respondent no. 3.
He next submitted that petitioner is having
no criminal case except challan under