Allahabad High Court
SMT. REKHA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR II
Holding
The application for a time‑bound disposal direction is refused as no exceptional circumstance was established.
Summary
The applicant, Rekha Devi, filed an application under Section 529 of the B.N.S.S. seeking a direction that the lower court expedite the disposal of a pending case (Case No. 1235 of 2024). The State's Additional Government Advocate raised no objection, but the High Court examined precedent that time‑bound schedules are to be imposed only in extraordinary circumstances. Citing the Supreme Court decisions in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain v. State of Maharashtra and High Court Bar Association, Allahabad v. State of U.P., the Court held that the applicant failed to demonstrate any such exceptional circumstance. Consequently, the request for a mandatory time‑bound disposal was refused. However, the Court permitted the applicant to move a fresh application before the lower court, outlining facts for expeditious disposal, with a six‑week deadline for the lower court to decide if such a direction is warranted.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can, under Section 529 of the B.N.S.S., direct a lower court to dispose of a pending case within a fixed time‑frame.
- Whether the applicant has shown any exceptional circumstance justifying a time‑bound schedule for disposal.
Legislation cited
- B.N.S.S. — s. 144, 529
Subjects
- time-bound disposal
- exceptional circumstances
- pendency of cases
- Section 529
- B.N.S.S.
- expeditious disposal
- High Court application
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4156 of 2026
Smt. Rekha Devi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Babu Lal Ram, Gyanendra Kumar
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and
perused the record.
2. The present application under Section 529 of BNSS has been filed by the
applicants with a prayer to direct the concerned Court to decide the
proceeding of Case No. 1235 of 2024 (Rekha and another vs. Santosh and
Guddu) under Section 144 B.N.S.S., Police Station Baksa, District Jaunpur,
expeditiously as possible as within short stipulated period.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings before the
Court concerned be directed to be concluded in a time-bound manner. It is
submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, an
application under Section 144 BNSS was filed before the learned Court
below, which is still pending and has not been decided till date. Therefore,
he requested that a direction to learned Court below be issued to decide the
aforesaid case within a stipulated period of time.
4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard if the Court below is not
already overloaded with huge pendency of such cases.
5. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023 has observed
that every High Court and every Court in the country has a huge pendency,
the constitutional Court should avoid temptation of fixing a time bound
schedule for disposal of any case before any Court unless the situation is
extraordinary.
6. Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs.
State of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in paragraph 42,
which is reproduced as under:-
NA529 No. 4156 of 2026
2
"Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of
cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases
pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the
grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore,
the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the
concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should
be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary
situations."
7. Thus, law as far as issuance of a direction for time-bound/expeditious
disposal has already been well settled that only when an exceptional
circumstance is made out, a direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of
such a case can be issued not otherwise.
8. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out any exceptional
circumstance to issue direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of case,
at this stage. Accordingly, the relief sought by way of present application is
hereby refused.
9. Considering the nature of prayer made by learned counsel for the
applicant, the interest of justice would be served, in the event, the applicant
applies before the Court concerned for expeditious disposal of above
mentioned case as well as their interim maintenance application. Therefore,
the applicant is given liberty to move appropriate application before Court
concerned for bringing out all such facts, which are necessary for
expeditious disposal of her case, within two weeks from today and in case,
such an application is moved, the Court concerned shall decide the same
within six weeks from the date of filing of such application. If, Court
concerned comes to the conclusion that the case for expeditious disposal is
made out, then in that eventuality, it shall decide the same as expeditiously
as possible within a reasonable period.
10. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment before
the Court concerned in disposal of the case, then the Court concerned shall
pass an appropriate order disclosing the legal impediment as to why the
proceedings of the above mentioned case cannot be proceeded with.
11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the present application is
disposed of.
September 9, 2026
Monika
(Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
MONIKA KESARWANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…