UDAI NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) S. N. Srivastava, J. These three writ petitions have been conjoined for being heard as a composite case as the reliefs claimed therein are common i. e. by means of these three petitions, the common relief sought is to direct the respondent concerned to decide cases pending before them (in writ petition No. 63740 of 2005) since the year 1989, (in writ petition No. 64545 of 2005 and writ petition No. 64896 of 2005) since the year 2002.

(2.) IN the course of hearing of these petitions, learned Standing Counsel was called upon to seek instructions in relation to judicial working of the Collectors and the Commissioners and other officers performing functions under the Land Revenue Act and U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act. IN this connection, he was also enjoined to produce copy of circular or Government orders if any issued by the Government. Today Sri Sanjai Goswami apprised the Court that no such circular or Government order is stated to have been issued prescribing fixed hours or days of the working of the revenue Courts at par with regular Courts of law. IN view of above statement, it is essential to evaluate the working of the authorities who have been conferred power of performing judicial function under various Acts inasmuch as such way-ward manner of working while exercising judicial functions, is fraught with serious consequences and cannot be overlooked merely on the premises that such authorities are also charged with more urgent and pressing administrative duties which they have to perform as a justification to their neglecting or relegating statutory judicial duties or a secondary position. IN my considered view, this wanton performance of judicial functions treating the same as a secondary function by these administrative authorities is a matter of grave concern inasmuch as it reflects upon the faith of litigant public in the efficacy of judicial system of the country and impoverish the poor litigants further who have to commute on various dates for seeking resolution/obviation of their disputes. It is very inequitable situation that the very object of a statute enacted for speedier and quicker redressal of grievance and dispute of the poor village people eking out their livelihood by sweating out on their meager holding for precarious existence, is being trivialized and the cases which according to the very object of the Statute ought to have been disposed of speedily and quickly, can be seen suffering adjournments for years together putting paid to common-men's hope of quick redressal and resolution of disputes. The inequitable situation cannot be appreciated that poor village people having meager holding have invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution just for seeking the relief of a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to take their cases to finality which according to one of the petition, has been pending since the year 1989. It is in this perspective that the Court is compelled to go deeper into the manner of working of these Courts.

(3.) THE third writ petition i. e. writ petition No. 64896 of 2005, the relief sought is to issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 i. e. consolidation officer Pindara District Varanasi to decide case No. 807 of 2004-2005, Balwant v. Babu Nandan & Ors. , pending before him expeditiously which came to him on remand from Deputy Director Consolidation Varanasi attended with the direction to the parties to appear before the Consolidation Officer on 3-5-2002 following by direction to dispose of the matter at the earliest.