Allahabad High Court
A227/7289/2025 of MADHURI PANDEY Vs STATE OF U.P. THRU. NAYAB TEHSILDAR BARAUSA, TEHSIL JAISINGHPUR, SULTANPUR AND ANOTHER on 17 December 2025
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7289 of 2025 Court No. - 5 HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent No.1. 2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents are
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 7289 of 2025
Court No. - 5
HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent No.1.
2. In view of the proposed order notice to private respondents are hereby dispensed with.
3. Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for direction to the respondent No. 1/Nayab Twhsildar Barausa, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur to decide case No.1143/2023 "Madhuri Pandey vs. Ram Chander", computerized case No.T202304680701143 under Section 34 of U.P. Revenue Code, expeditiously.
4. It has been submitted by learned Standing counsel that the said case is pending since 2023 and the order-sheet annexed by the petitioner indicates that no proceedings could take place due to call for boycott of the local bar association. The facts which are evident from the order-sheet indicates that there is frequent call for boycott by the local bar association which, in fact, is deprecated by this Court considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ex-Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another reported in 2003 (2) SCC 45 and it is noticed that even the application for mutation are not being considered and decided because of the call for boycott.
5. Such an action of the local bar association may amount to criminal contempt being a direct conflict with the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court leave it open for the petitioner to invoke the said jurisdiction in case they are so legally advised.
6. The present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1/Nayab Twhsildar Barausa, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, District Sultanpur to decide case No.1143/2023 "Madhuri Pandey vs. Ram Chander", computerized case No.T202304680701143 under Section of U.P. Revenue Code, expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him in case there is no legal impediment and subject to cooperation of the petitioner.
Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anurag Mishra Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Madhuri Pandey .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Nayab Tehsildar Barausa, Tehsil Jaisinghpur, Sultanpur And Another .....Respondent(s)
7. Learned counsel for petitioner undertakes that petitioner shall appear on all the dates fixed before concerned authority irrespective of the call for boycott and in case any person creates impediment in appearance this Court grants him liberty to file an application for criminal contempt.
8. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
9. The petitioner shall serve a copy of this order to the President and Secretary of local bar association for their compliance. December 17, 2025 RKM. A227 No. 7289 of 2025
(Alok Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench