The Madhya Pradesh High Court has emphasized the necessity of expedited case disposal in revenue courts. Justice G.S. Ahluwalia extended the Supreme Court's guidelines, originally intended for High Courts and District Courts, to include revenue courts. This decision was made in response to a writ petition filed by Smt. Kanwaljeet Kaur, seeking prompt resolution of her pending appeal.
Case Background:
The petitioner, Kanwaljeet Kaur, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to resolve her appeal within 30 days. The appeal, filed on April 22, 2021, had been pending before the Board of Revenue without substantial progress.
Petitioner's Argument:
Kanwaljeet Kaur's counsel highlighted the significant delay in resolving the appeal, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of UP and others. The counsel argued that such prolonged pendency necessitated judicial intervention for early disposal. They noted that arguments on the question of admission were heard on September 15, 2022, and the case was reserved for orders, yet no order had been passed since then.
Court's Observation:
Justice Ahluwalia acknowledged the delay and emphasized the need for timely disposal of cases. He referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Anil Rai vs. State of Bihar, which provided guidelines to avoid undue delays in pronouncing judgments. These guidelines included ensuring judgments mention the date of reserving and pronouncing them, and requiring Court officers to provide monthly lists of cases with reserved judgments that remain unpronounced within the month.
Relevance to Revenue Courts:
Although these guidelines were primarily intended for High Courts and District Courts, Justice Ahluwalia opined that they are equally relevant for revenue courts due to the critical need for prompt case resolutions. He stated that early disposal is essential, as delays can impact the memory of the presiding judge and create negative impressions among litigants.
Court's Directions:
Justice Ahluwalia disposed of the petition with specific directions to ensure the swift resolution of the pending appeal. The Board of Revenue must immediately take up the matter upon filing an application for an urgent hearing. If the presiding officer who heard the initial arguments is no longer posted at the Board of Revenue, the case should be reassigned to another member.
Conclusion:
The Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision to extend the Supreme Court's guidelines to revenue courts underscores the importance of timely case disposal across all judicial forums. This move aims to enhance efficiency and maintain the integrity of the judicial process, ensuring litigants receive prompt resolutions to their cases.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.