Allahabad High Court
RAM MANOHAR AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 21 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court ordered the Commissioner (respondent No. 2) to decide the pending stay application within eight weeks, thereby granting the writ of mandamus.
Summary
The petitioners, Ram Manohar and another, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court seeking a mandamus directing the Commissioner of Prayagraj district to decide a stay application pending in Revision No. 682/2026 (also referred to as Revision No. 628/2026). The petitioners alleged that despite several dates being fixed, the stay application remained undecided and they requested an expeditious decision. The Court, after hearing counsel, noted that the petition served no useful purpose if left pending and, without addressing the merits of the underlying stay application, ordered the respondent‑2 to decide the stay application within eight weeks of the certified copy of the order, after service and hearing, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments. The direction was issued subject to the absence of any other legal impediment. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of with the specific directive to the Commissioner.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing the Commissioner to decide a pending stay application within a stipulated time frame
Subjects
- Writ of Mandamus
- Stay Application
- Revision Petition
- Expeditious Disposal
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 19265 of 2026
Ram Manohar And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 21 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rituraj Singh, Sheetla Prasad
Shukla, Shri Ram Pandey
Counsel for Respondent(s) : 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 mandamus
directing to the respondent No. 2/The Commissioner District-
Prayagraj to decide the petitioner's stay application pending
before him in Revision No. 682/2026 (Ram Manohar and
others Vs. Shiv Prasad and others) within stipulated period."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid stay
application filed in Revision No. 628 of 2026, is pending
consideration. 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. 19265 of 2026
2
No. 2 to consider and decide the aforementioned stay application,
in accordance with law, expeditiously, preferably within a period
of eight weeks 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.
May 18, 2026 (Manish Kumar Nigam,J.)
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…