Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

RAJESH AND 5 OTHERSversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The High Court may direct the respondent to decide the pending revision within a specified time to prevent undue delay.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent to decide Revision No.2981 of 2019, which had been pending since 2019 and repeatedly adjourned. The petitioners argued that the delay was unnecessary and prejudicial. The High Court examined whether it could intervene to compel the respondent to dispose of the pending revision. Finding that the prolonged delay warranted judicial intervention, the Court directed the respondent to pass an appropriate order after hearing the parties within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order. The petition was consequently disposed with the said direction.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can issue a direction to a respondent to decide a pending revision expeditiously due to undue delay

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • revision
  • delay
  • court direction
  • expeditious disposal

Judgment

                                             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                            WRIT - B No. - 1682 of 2026

                                    Rajesh And 5 Others
                                                                                               .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                      Versus

                                    State Of U.P. And 3 Others
                                                                                             .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Hariom Upadhyay, Santosh Kumar
                                                                     Chaubey
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)      : C.S.C.

                                    Court No. - 55
                                                          HON'BLE ARUN KUMAR, J.

                                    1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel
                                    for the respondent nos.1 and 2.

                                    2. The present writ petition has been filed for a direction upon respondent
                                    no.2 to decide the Revision No.2981 of 2019, expeditiously.

                                    3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the revision
                                    filed before respondent no.2 is pending since 2019, which is being
                                    unnecessarily adjourned in a routine manner.

                                    4. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition stands disposed of with a
                                    direction upon the respondent no.2 to decide the pending revision, as
                                    noticed above, by passing appropriate order, in accordance with law, after
                                    affording opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned, within a period
                                    of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this
                                    order.



                                                                                             (Arun Kumar,J.)
                                    April 20, 2026
                                    Anil




Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.