NARESH JAIN Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY, MEERUT AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner prays for issuance of a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to decide the release application (P.A. Case No. 73 of 1998, Naresh fain v. Sultan and another) within a reasonable time. The grievance of the petitioner is that it was on 10.8.1998 that an application under Section 21(1)(a) of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 (U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972), for short the Act, was filed by him before the Prescribed Authority, the respondent No. 1, which was registered as P.A. Case No. 73 of 1998, Naresh Jain v. Sultan and another, on which notices were issued to the respondents No. 2 and 3. On receipt of the notices, the said respondents filed their written statement but thereafter they have not permitted the Prescribed Authority to proceed further and to decide the case. It has been stated that the case was fixed for hearing on 10.8.1998, 17.5.1999, 4.6.1999, 24.6.1999, 5.7.1999, 17.4.2000, 27.4.2000, 8.5.2000, 22.5.2000, 12.6.2000 and 12.7.2000 but on the said dates, the hearing of the case used to be adjourned on the applications filed by the respondents No. 2 and 3. It has also been stated in the supplementary affidavit that the petitioner has made several requests for early decision of the case but of no consequence and till date case has not been decided, consequently petitioner had no option but to approach this Court and file the present petition for the abovementioned relief.

(2.) I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and also perused the record.

(3.) FROM the facts stated above, it is evident that the release application was filed on 10.8.1998. Since then about two years have already elapsed but the said application has not been decided. In view of the aforesaid Rule, the release application was liable to be decided expeditiously. I do not find any justification for the respondent No. 1 to keep the matter pending. In view of the aforesaid facts, this petition is disposed of finally with the direction to the respondent No. 1 to decide the release application filed by the petitioner (P.A. Case No. 73 of 1998, Naresh Jain v. Sultan and another) expeditiously preferably within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is communicated to him.