# Sri N.P. Agarwal v. The Prescribed Authority and another

- **Citation:** (2001) 2 ILRA 9
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2001
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sri-n-p-agarwal-v-the-prescribed-authority-and-another-39758
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

2All] Sri N.P. Agarwal V. The Prescribed Authority and another

matters connected therewith." There can
be no doubt that the State Government
having been satisfied that the petitioner
was engaged in transporting, concealing,
keeping or dealing in smuggled goods and
in order to achieve the object of the Act
namely,
prevention
of
smuggling
activities, passed the impugned detention
order. Thus, it cannot be held that the
order has been passed for a wrong
purpose.

9. The contention that if a long
period has elapsed between the offending
activity and passing of a detention order
the same would be for a wrong purpose is,
in our opinion, wholly fallacious. It has
been held in Sheikh Serajul Versus State
of West Bengal, 1975 Vol. II SCC 78
and Ravindra Kumar Versus West
Bengal, AIR 1975 SC 1408 that where
there is delay in passing the detention
order it is the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining authority which gets vitiated
rendering the detention order invalid. The
delay cannot lead to the inference that the
detention order has been passed for a
wrong purpose.

10. It is important to emphasise that
there is no inflexible rule that whenever
there is a delay in passing a detention
order it must necessarily be held that the
satisfaction of the detaining authority was
vitiated rendering the detention order
invalid. It will depend upon the facts and
circumstances of each case and if there is
satisfactory explanation for passing the
order, the same cannot be held to be
illegal or invalid. This view has been
taken in Rajendra Kumar Natwar Lal
Shah Versus State of Gujrat, AIR 1988
SC 1255, Yogendra Morari Versus
State of U.P., AIR 1988 SC 1935 and K.
Aruna Kumari Versus Government of
Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1988 SC 227. A
conspectus of the authorities cited above
would show that if there is a delay in
passing the detention order and the same
has not been satisfactory explained, it will
vitiate the subjective satisfaction of the
detaining
authority
rendering
the
detention order invalid but the delay alone
cannot lead to the inference that the order
has been passed for a wrong purpose. The
submission that the impugned detention
order has been passed for a wrong
purpose being based solely upon the
alleged delay in passing thereof, has thus
no merit and is liable to be rejected.

11. Having given our careful
consideration to the submission made by
the learned counsel for the petitioner, we
are clearly of the opinion that the
petitioner has not been able to make out
any
ground,
which
may
justify
interference with the detention order at
the pre-execution stage.

12. The writ petition lacks merit and
is accordingly dismissed.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -
7+( +21·%/( $. <2* -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

6UL 13 $JDUZDO
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
7KH 3UHVFULEHG $XWKRULW\
DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL 5DPD *RHO
6KUL 5DMHVK 7DQGRQ
10 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
&RXQVHO IRU 5HVSRQGHQW
6&

83
8UEDQ
%XLOGLQJ
5HJXODWLRQ
RI
/HWWLQJ 5HQW DQG (YLFWLRQ $FW ±
5XOH DQG IUDPHG XQGHU VHFWLRQ
 D WHQDQW±ODQGORUG GLVSXWH EH
GHFLGHG
ZLWK
XWPRVW
H[SHGLHQF\

$GMRXUQPHQWV LQ WKH SUHVHQW μ-XGLFLDO
GHOLYHU\ 6\VWHP¶ DUH OLNH ILUH±%\ DOORZLQJ
DGMRXUQPHQWV
OLJKWO\
XQVFUXSXORXV
OLWLJDQW LV HQFRXUDJHG ZKLOH FRXUW IDLOV LQ
LWV GXW\ WR SURWHFW WKH RWKHU VLGH IURP
H[SORLWDWLRQ DYRLGDEOH KDUDVVPHQW DQG
IUXVWUDWLRQ +HOG LQ SDUD
&RXUWV PXVW QRW VXFFXPE WR GHOD\LQJ
WDFWLFV
E\
JUDQWLQJ
DGMRXUQPHQWV
LQ
OLJKWHU YHLQ %\ DVNLQJ IRU DGMRXUQPHQW
IRU WKH VDNH RI DGMRXUQPHQW DQG WKH
MXGJH JUDQWLQJ WKHP YHU\ OLJKWO\ ERWK
EHFDPH SDUW RI YHU\ YLFLRXV FLUFOH 7KH
%DU
KDV
WR
FRQWULEXWH
LWV
PLJKW
$GMRXUQPHQW
ZKHUH
LW
EHFRPHV
XQDYRLGDEOH PD\ EH VRXJKW EXW QRW IRU
WKH VDNH RI LW QRW DW WKH GURS RI D KDW

By the Court

1. This is a landlord petition praying
to this court for issuing a writ of
mandamus
directing
opposite
no.1/Prescribed
Authority
for
quick
disposal
of
the
Release
application
(release case no. 129 of 1999) filed under
Section 21 (1) (a) of U.P. Urban
Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent
and Eviction) Act, 1972, U.P. Act No.
XIII of 1972 (for short called 'the Act').
Petitioner who is owner of the House no.
111/428, Ashok Nagar, Kanpur and is
landlord vis a vis his tenant Sardar
Harbhajan Singh, Respondent no.2, who
occupies a portion of the said house
described in the release application. The
release application has been filed on the
ground that he was aged about 65 years
and resides along with his wife aged
about 62 years on the first floor of the
said house. The landlord claimed to be the
Consultant Civil Engineer and submitted
it was very inconvenient and caused
physical hardship in climbing stairs for
meeting his client (para 4 of the release
application (Annexure-1 to the Writ
Petition).

2. Petitioner has annexed photocopy
of order sheet of the case Perusal of the
order sheet indicates that proceedings are
being taken leisurely. It is natural that
tenant, who is sought to be vacated will
not be keen to have to proceedings go
swiftly and it is natural tendency to ensure
delay in the disposal of the case. This
court is conscious of the fact that the
Lower courts are awfully occupied and
working under great stress. The factors
are many folds but this does not justify
grant of adjournments lightly and even of
the drop of hat.

3. Rule 7 (7), framed under section
10, 18 and 22 of the Act, read: -
"As far as possible, a revision under
Section 18 shall be decided within one
month, an appeal or revision under
Section 10 shall be decided within two
months, and an appeal under Section 22
shall be decided within six months from
the date of its presentation."

4. Rule 15 (1) and (3), framed under
Section 21 (1) (a) of the Act read: -

(1) Every application referred to in subrule (1) shall, as far as possible, be
decided within two months from the
date of its presentation. Disposal of
release application filed by Landlord,
it is statutory obligation of the Court.
(2) ............................
2All] Sri N.P. Agarwal V. The Prescribed Authority and another

(3) Every application referred to in subrule (1) shall, as far as possible, be
decided within two months from the
date of its presentation.

5. Hon'ble Dr. A.S. Anand, Chief
Justice of India, in his letter dated
December 22, 1998 addressed to all the
Chief Justices of the High Courts, referred
to 'laws delay' - and noted "we should
take every possible step for early disposal
of old cases so that the agony of the
litigants is brought to an end .......
Conveying unequivocally to the parties
that such old matters cannot be allowed to
remain pending indefinitely and bring
disrepute to the courts. No party to the
litigation can be permitted have any
vested right in slow motion justice ......
Let 1999 be an "YEAR OFACTION"
towards disposal of old cases." He
advised old cases to be decided on day-today basis.

6. In another letter dated April 22 of
1999, the Chief Justice of India with
reference to "International Year of Older
Persons" noted "In India, there is high
incidence
of
litigation
concerning
property and inheritance, two of the most
common issues in which elderly persons
are generally involved apart from landlord
- tenant disputes. Besides property and
inheritance matters, service matters, such
as pension and retrial benefits also
concern older people ......".

"The problem gets compounded by
the inordinate delay in disposing of the
matters of older persons in the courts and
in
many
matters
the
litigants
unfortunately dies even before the case is
finally settled. You will appreciate that
the elderly people deserve to be attended
by the legal system of the country
somewhat on priority basis. Therefore,
there is a need to envolve a system which
may ensure timely disposal of their
matters pending in the court .......".

7. Adjournments in the present
'Judicial delivery system' are like fire. If
we sit with our back towards it, then for
sure, in future we shall be sitting on our
blisters, - Bible says: "Do not let evil
conquer you, but overcome evil with
good".

Mohammad Ali said: "It is poor
statesmanship to slur over inconvenient
realities". Court should not over look or
ignore realities, if it desires the public to
continue to have faith in the system.

8. This court would not like to
believe that sensitivity to human hardship
in our judicial system has been lost. No
court can dispense justice unless it is alive
and sensitive to human sufferings and
takes note of realities.

9. From the scheme contemplated
under the Act and the rules quoted above,
it is abundantly clear that legislature did
mandate that tenant-landlord dispute be
decided with utmost expediency.

10. Expression "as far as possible"
and "so far as possible" in aforequoted
rules, do imply that court must decide the
cases referred therein within the time
prescribed
by
the legislature unless
otherwise not possible.

11. Expression "as far as possible"
came for interpretation in AIR 1977 S.C.
251 (Para 26) N.K. Chauhan Versus
State of Gujarat; 1997 (3) SLJ 199(SC),
Usmania
University
Versus
Muthu
Rangam; to must unless otherwise not
12 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2001
permissible.
Expression
"so
far
as
possible" in Rule 8 (2) of Act, has been
interpreted by this Court in the case of
1980 AWC 186 (Para 9 and 10), Mohd.
Naseem Versus A.R.O/R.C. and E.O
Agra and others and held that the
statutory requirement is essential and
must unless for reasons to be recorded, it
is not possible to act or comply with the
same.

12.

When
a
court
grants
adjournment, it is expected that it shall
record reasons, in brief, to indicate that
adjournment
was imminent and not
avoidable.

13. By allowing adjournments
lightly,
unscrupulous
litigant
is
encouraged while court fails in its duty to
protect the other side from exploitation,
avoidable harassment and frustration.

14. In view of the above, it is
desired that all the subordinate courts,
dealing with Rent Control matters, be
required to bear in mind the aforesaid
observations.

15. This Court is not inclined to
issue a Writ of mandamus to command
court below to decide a case within a
specified period inasmuch as court below
dealing with the cases of Landlord and
Tenant is the best judge of its diary and
conscious of other circumstances/situation
under which it has to deal with its docket
but, while granting adjournment it must
justify its order.

16. Courts must not succumb to
delaying tactics by granting adjournments
in lighter vein. By asking for adjournment
for the sake of adjournment and the judge
granting them very lightly, both became
part of very vicious circle. The Bar has to
contribute its might. Adjournment, where
it becomes unavoidable may be sought,
but not for the sake of it not at the drop of
hat. Look at the plight of the poor litigant.
What happens to him. Who pays for loss
of time so far as he concerned? We must
avoid all unnecessary adjournments.

17.

One
way
to
check
frivolous/manipulated adjournment is to
impose real and adequate costs; so that
concerned party should take up the case
with all seriousness at its command give
priority to such cases.

18. Writ petition dismissed in limine
subject to the observations made above.
Petition Dismissed.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( '6 6,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( '6 6,1+$ -
7+( +21·%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -
7+( +21·%/( %+$*:$1 ',1 -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

'U 6PW 3UHPODWD 3DQGH\ «3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU «5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU 3HWLWLRQHU
6KUL $PEULVK .XPDU 6KDUPD
6KUL $. *DXU
&RXQVHO IRU 5HVSRQGHQW
6UL 9LQ\D 0DOYL\D
6&

&RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD ± $UWLFOH DQG
GHQLDO
RI
WKH
EHQHILW
RI
SHUVRQDO
SURPRWLRQ WR WKH SRVW RI 5HDGHU DQG LWV
SD\VFDOH WR WKH SHWLWLRQHU RQ WKH JURXQG