Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Misc. Petition No. 8706 of 1988
IN
Special Leave Petition No. 5765 of 1986.
IN
Special Leave Petition No. 5765 of 1986.
Petitioner: Mahesh Chandra Sharma & Ors.
Respondent: State of U.P. & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Misc. Petition No. 8706 of 1988
IN
Special Leave Petition No. 5765 of 1986.
IN
Special Leave Petition No. 5765 of 1986.
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & MURARI MOHON DUTT, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Apr 27, 1988
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Court’s direction to the High Court to dispose of the matter within three months – Over one year and 8 months passed but the High Court did not hear the writ petition – Fresh directions issued for an early disposal.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. On August 18, 1986 this Court passed the following order :-
“In the circumstances of the case we think that the only appropriate order that should be made is to set aside the order of the High Court and remand the writ petition for fresh disposal along with writ petition No. 13325 of 1983, now pending in the High Court. The High Court is requested to dispose of these Writ Petitions within three months. Special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.”
2. One year and 8 months have passed since the order was made but petitioners allege that the High Court has not heard the writ petitions. Though this Court put in its order that the disposal within three months was requested, it was not intended that the High Court would not give effect to it. We are surprised that there has been no response on the part of the High Court to act upto what was indeed a direction. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the two writ petitions require early disposal. There shall be a direction to the High Court now to dispose of the writ petitions within three months from today. This has been done on account of the fact that summer vacation would intervene. The Registry should have a compliance report from the Registrar of the High Court. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.
1. On August 18, 1986 this Court passed the following order :-
“In the circumstances of the case we think that the only appropriate order that should be made is to set aside the order of the High Court and remand the writ petition for fresh disposal along with writ petition No. 13325 of 1983, now pending in the High Court. The High Court is requested to dispose of these Writ Petitions within three months. Special leave petition is disposed of accordingly.”
2. One year and 8 months have passed since the order was made but petitioners allege that the High Court has not heard the writ petitions. Though this Court put in its order that the disposal within three months was requested, it was not intended that the High Court would not give effect to it. We are surprised that there has been no response on the part of the High Court to act upto what was indeed a direction. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are satisfied that the two writ petitions require early disposal. There shall be a direction to the High Court now to dispose of the writ petitions within three months from today. This has been done on account of the fact that summer vacation would intervene. The Registry should have a compliance report from the Registrar of the High Court. The Civil Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly.
