Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

BIHARI LALversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 13 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The Court directed the Sub‑Divisional Officer to decide the pending application within three weeks, thereby granting the writ of mandamus.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking mandamus directing the Sub‑Divisional Officer/Deputy Collector (respondent No.3) to decide a pending application dated 15‑04‑2026, to decide a restoration application of respondent No.12 dated 04‑04‑2026, and to restrain construction on certain land during the pendency of those applications. The petitioner argued that the SDO had failed to decide the application despite several dates being fixed, causing undue delay. The Court found that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petition pending and ordered the SDO to decide the petitioner's application expeditiously. The order directed the SDO to render a decision within three weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order, after giving a hearing and without unnecessary adjournments, provided no other legal impediment exists. The petition was therefore disposed of with the specified directions.

Issues considered

  • Whether the High Court can issue a mandamus directing the Sub‑Divisional Officer to decide a pending application within a stipulated period.
  • Whether the Court can restrain a third party from undertaking construction on specified land during the pendency of restoration and other applications.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • mandamus
  • administrative delay
  • restoration application
  • construction restraining order
  • expeditious decision

Judgment

          HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                         WRIT - C No. - 17576 of 2026

Bihari Lal
                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                     Versus

State Of U.P. And 13 Others
                                                              .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)                :    Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent(s)                :    C.S.C., Krishna Pal Verma

Court No. - 36
                 HON'BLE MANISH KUMAR NIGAM, J.

1. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Krishna Pal Verma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 and
perused the record.

2. The instant writ petition has been filed for following relief:

"1. Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus direct the
respondent no.3- Sub Divisional Officer/ Deputy Collector, tehsil-Bhadohi,
District-Bhadohi to decide the application of petitioner dated 15.04.2026,
pending before him within stipulated period.
II. Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus direct the
respondent no.3 to decide the restoration application dated 04.04.2026 of
respondent no.12 within specific period.
iii. Issue, a writ, order or direction, in the nature of mandamus direct the
respondent authorities to restrain the respondent no.12 for rosining
construction over arazi no.14, 15,16, 17 situated in village-Shahababad,
Tehsil & Pargana-Bhadohi, District-Bhadohi, during pendency of
restoration application dated 04.04.2026 of respondent no.12 as well as
application of petitioners dated 15.04.2026."

3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that application
dated 15.04.2026 filed by the petitioner is pending consideration and the
same has not been decided despite several dates have been fixed. He prayed
that the same may be decided, expeditiously.

4. In view of above, no useful purpose would be served in keeping this
                                                                                            WRIC No. 17576 of 2026
                                                                    2


                                    petition pending.

                                    5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a
                                    direction to respondent No. 3 to consider and decide the stay application
                                    dated 15.04.2026, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a
                                    period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this
                                    order after ensuring service upon all the opposite parties, 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
                                    Nitika Sri.




Digitally signed by :-
NITIKA SRIVASTAVA
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.