Smt. Mamita Devi v. State Of U.P. And 2 Others

Court No. - 44 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 5507 of 2025 Petitioner :- Smt. Mamita Devi Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Tripathi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra,J.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

This writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus commanding respondent No.2/Tehsildar, Tehsil-Tamkuhiraj, District-Kushinagar to decide the mutation in Case No. 00819/2020 (Computerized Case No. T202005440300819 (Smt. Mamita Devi Vs. Shankar) under Section 35 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, 2006.

A perusal of order sheet reveals that lawyers are abstaining from work since long.

It is well settled that a writ of mandamus can be issued only in a case where there is a statutory obligation cast upon the officer concerned and he has failed to discharge the said obligation but, at the same time, the party seeking a writ of mandamus compelling the authorities to do something, must establish before the Court that he himself has discharged the duty cast upon him before asking the authority to perform statutory obligation cast upon the latter. Reference can be made to the following authorities in this regard:- (i) Oriental Bank of Commerce Vs. Sunder Lal Jain and another, (2008) 2 SCC 280; (ii) Bihar Eastern Gangetic fishermen Cooperative Society Ltd. Vs. Sipahi Singh, (1977) 4 SCC 145; (iii) Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalwani Vs. N.M. Shah, AIR 1966 SC 334; and (iv) Dr. Uma Kant Saran Vs. State of Bihar, 1973 (1) SCC 485

As regards strike of the lawyers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the cases of Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal vs. Union of India and another, AIR, 2003 SC 736; Supreme Court Bar Association v. Union of India, (1998) 4 SCC 409; Krishnakant Tamrakar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2018 (17) SCC 27 and Hussain v. Union of India, (2017) 5 SCC 702, has already settled that it is unprofessional as well as unbecoming for a lawyer, who has accepted a brief, to refuse to attend the Court even in pursuance of a call for strike or boycott by the Bar Association or the Bar Council.

Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of High Court Bar Association Allahabad vs. The State of U.P. and others: 2024 (3) ADJ 295 (SC), has observed that no direction to dispose of cases in a time bound manner be issued by the Constitutional Courts, except in exceptional circumstances. Relevant paragraph of the aforesaid judgment is quoted as under:- "37. ...... a. ....... b. ....... c. Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending; and" (emphasis supplied)"

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the law referred to herein above, once it is well established on record that the lawyers are not inclined to perform their duty of appearing before the court of law and are regularly abstaining themselves from judicial work, the petitioner, who is represented by his Advocate, cannot pray for a writ of mandamus for time bound disposal of his case.

The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to persuade his lawyer to appear before the authority concerned and argue the matter.

If lawyers are not discharging their duty to appear before the Court, the Court/ Authority concerned may allow parties to appear in person and press their case. Order Date :- 20.3.2025/Virendra VIRENDRA KUMAR BHARTEEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad