Allahabad High Court
DHIRENDRA SINGH CHAUHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The court directed the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Kanpur Nagar to decide the pending proceeding expeditiously, preferably within two months, without expressing any opinion on the merits.
Summary
The petitioner, Dhirendra Singh Chauhan, filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus directing the Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Kanpur Nagar to decide a pending proceeding (Case No.1292 of 2025) under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, which had been pending since 2024. The petitioner alleged undue delay and submitted the order sheet to demonstrate the lack of expeditious progress. The High Court, after hearing both sides, declined to opine on the merits of the underlying revenue matter but ordered the magistrate to decide the case within two months of the certified copy of the order, without unnecessary adjournments. The direction was issued to ensure compliance with the law and to prevent further delay. The petition was consequently disposed of with the mandated direction.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing a judicial officer to decide a pending proceeding within a specified time frame.
- Whether the delay in adjudicating the proceeding under Section 30(2) of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 warrants court intervention.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 — s. 30(2)
Subjects
- mandamus
- writ petition
- expeditious disposal
- U.P. Revenue Code
- administrative law
- judicial delay
- Section 30(2)
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 32484 of 2026
Dhirendra Singh Chauhan
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Bhushan Yadav, Vibhuti
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Hari Narayan Singh
Court No. - 37
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Counsel for the petitioner is permitted to implead Additional District
Magistrate (Judicial) Kanpur Nagar as respondent no.6 in the writ
petition during course of the day.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing
Counsel for the State respondents.
3. The instant writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-
" Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing
the Ld Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Kanpur Nagar to decide
the Case No.1292 of 2025 Dhirendra Singh Chauhan Vs. State of U.P.
and on day to day basis and to decide the same within a period of two
months or within the time period as fixed by this Hon'ble High Court."
4. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that proceeding under Section
30 (2) of U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending before respondent
no.6, Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Kanpur Nagar since
2024. He further placed the order sheet of the pending proceeding in
order to demonstrate that matter is not proceeding expeditiously.
5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the issue, the present petition
stands disposed of finally with a direction to respondent No.6,
Additional District Magistrate (Judicial) Kanpur Nagar to consider and
decide the aforementioned proceeding in accordance with law
expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from the
WRIC No. 32484 of 2026
2
date of production of certified copy of this order after giving
opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned and without granting
unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
September 11, 2026
Vandana Y.
Digitally signed by :-
VANDANA YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…