Allahabad High Court
BACHCHERAM @ BACHCHELAL YADAVversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 6 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The court directed the respondent to decide the pending revision expeditiously, preferably within six months, by issuing a mandamus.
Summary
The petitioner, Bachcheram @ Bachchelal Yadav, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing the second respondent, a lower court, to decide Revision No. 4181/2025, which has been pending since 2025 despite several fixed dates. The petitioner argued that the delay was unjustified and requested an expeditious decision. The court examined the petition and noted that no substantive merits of the revision were at issue, only the procedural delay. It held that a mandamus was appropriate to compel the lower court to act within a reasonable time. Consequently, the petition was disposed with an order directing the respondent to decide the revision within six months, without unnecessary adjournments, after service of the order.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel a lower court to decide a pending revision within a stipulated period
Subjects
- mandamus
- revision
- writ petition
- court delay
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16397 of 2026
Bachcheram @ Bachchelal Yadav
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shubham Kumar Dwiwedee,
Vivek Kumar Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Bhupendra Kumar Tripathi,
C.S.C.
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing
Counsel for the State and perused the record.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:
"Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS
to direct the Resp. No.2 to decide the Revision No. 4181/2025
(Computerized Case No. C202514000004181, Bachcheram
@ Bachchelal Yadav Vs Ateesh Kumar Yadav & Others)
within stipulated period of time."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid
revision is pending since 2025. It is further contended that several
dates have been fixed but the same has not been decided yet. He
prayed that the same may be decided, expeditiously.
4. No useful purpose would be served in keeping this petition
pending.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present
petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent
WRIC No. 16397 of 2026
2
No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned revision, in
accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period of
six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this
order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties and
giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and
without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the
parties provided that there is no other legal impediment.
(Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
May 6, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…