Allahabad High Court
RAJARAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANISH KUMAR NIGAM
Holding
The Court disposed of the writ petition, directing Respondent No.3 to decide the pending restoration application expeditiously within twelve weeks, without expressing any opinion on its merits.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus directing Respondent No.3 to trace and decide a pending restoration application (No. 38 of 2021) filed against an order dated 31‑10‑2019. The petitioner alleged that despite several dates being fixed, the restoration application remained undecided since 2021. The Court, after hearing counsel, noted that keeping the writ petition pending would serve no useful purpose. Without expressing any view on the merits of the restoration application, the Court disposed of the writ petition and ordered Respondent No.3 to decide the application expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks of the certified copy of the order, after service and hearing, and to avoid unnecessary adjournments. The order was signed on 18 May 2026.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to compel a court/authority to decide a pending restoration application within a specified time
Subjects
- writ of mandamus
- restoration application
- court procedure
- expeditious disposal
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 19324 of 2026
Rajaram
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Raj Kumar Singh, Vipan Kumar
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 of mandamus directing to
the respondent no.3 shall trace out and decide the restoration application
no. 38 of 2021 filed against the order dated 31.10.2019 in Case No.
324/2017 computerized case no. T201715959061857, (Rajaram Vs.
Chabila) within stipulated period and further prayed that if the
restoration application not being trace the office copy of the petitioner
may be kept on record and decide the restoration application accordance
with law in time fixed manner."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the aforesaid restoration
application is pending since 2021. 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 No. 3 to consider and decide the
aforementioned application, in accordance with law, expeditiously,
preferably within a period of twelve weeks from the date of production of a
WRIC No. 19324 of 2026
2
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 18, 2026
Ved Prakash
Digitally signed by :-
VED PRAKASH SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…