Allahabad High Court
VINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 17 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA
Holding
The stay application must be decided by the Sub‑Divisional Officer within one month, and the petitioner may appear personally if lawyers are on strike.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking speedy disposal of a stay application filed in Appeal No. 553 of 2025. The stay application and the appeal were delayed due to repeated lawyers' strikes and the presiding officer’s administrative commitments, as well as a pending substitution application that was only allowed on 15 June 2026. The court observed that a litigant should not suffer because of such strikes or officer unavailability. Accordingly, the court ordered the Sub‑Divisional Officer to decide the stay application within one month of the order, and if lawyers remain on strike, the petitioner may appear personally to argue. The petition was disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the stay application pending in Appeal No. 553 of 2025 should be decided expeditiously despite lawyers' strikes and officer unavailability.
Subjects
- stay application
- lawyer strike
- expeditious disposal
- administrative delay
- Sub‑Divisional Officer
- civil procedure
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 38489 of 2026
Vinod Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 17 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Satya Prakash Shukla, Shivam Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Pradeep Singh
Court No. - 4
HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.
1. This petition has been filed seeking expeditious disposal of stay
application dated 18.02.2025 filed by the petitioner in Appeal No. 553 of
2025 (Computerized Case No. T202516660300553).
2. The order sheet indicates that the appeal along with stay application
was filed in February-March, 2025. Thereafter, on most of the dates,
lawyers remained on strike and on remaining dates, either the Presiding
Officer was busy in administrative work or the matter remained posted for
consideration of substitution application.
3. Substitution application having been allowed on 15.06.2026,
whereafter again the lawyers have gone on strike and/or the Presiding
Officer was busy in other administrative work, the stay application is not
being decided.
4. A litigant cannot suffer on account of strike by lawyers or non-
availability of the officer concerned.
5. The petition is disposed of directing the Sub-Divisional Officer
concerned to positively decide the stay application within a period of one
month from the date a copy of this order is produced before it strictly in
accordance with law.
6. In case the lawyers remain on strike, the officer concerned shall permit
the appellant-petitioner to appear in person and argue the matter and
WRIC No. 38489 of 2026
2
based upon the record position, the application shall be decided, as
directed above.
(Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
September 23, 2026
AKShukla/-
Digitally signed by :-
ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…