Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

MULCHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is disposed with a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide the pending case expeditiously within twelve weeks.

Summary

The petitioner, Mulchandra, filed a writ petition under Section 144 of the Uttar Pradesh Revenue Code, 2006, seeking a mandamus directing the Sub Divisional Magistrate of Mandal Chitrakootdham to expedite the disposal of case No. RST/7867/2025, which had been pending since 2025. The petitioner argued that despite several dates being fixed, the case remained undecided, causing undue delay. The Court examined the petition and found that the relief sought was appropriate to prevent further unnecessary postponement. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition but issued a direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate to decide the pending case within twelve weeks, without granting further adjournments, subject to any legal impediment. The order was signed on May 6, 2026, and the petition was finally disposed.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate judicial remedy when a subordinate administrative case remains unduly delayed?
  • Can a High Court issue a mandamus under Section 144 of the U.P. Revenue Code to compel expeditious disposal of a pending case?

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • mandamus
  • expeditious disposal
  • U.P. Revenue Code
  • Section 144
  • Sub Divisional Magistrate
  • administrative law

Judgment

                                                   HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                                                                 WRIT - C No. - 17603 of 2026

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

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)                                    :      Puneet Kumar
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)                                    :      C.S.C.

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

                                    1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

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

                                    "1. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and
                                    expedite the Case No. RST/7867/2025 (Kalua substituted Mulchandra and others VS
                                    State of U.P and others) computerized case no. T202507110107867, under section
                                    144 Act, U.P Revenue Code 2006, pending in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate,
                                    Mandal Chitrakootdham, District Banda."

                                    3. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that aforementioned case is
                                    pending since 2025 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 petition
                                    pending.

                                    5. Accordingly, the present petition stands disposed of finally with a direction to Sub
                                    Divisional Magistrate, Mandal Chitrakootdham, District Banda to consider and decide
                                    the aforementioned case, in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a
                                    period of twelve 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.



                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Nitika Sri.
                                                                                                 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)




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.