Shiv Shankar vs State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. ...
- Neutral2026:AHC-LKO:32434
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where advocates are engaged in strikes or abstaining from judicial work, thereby creating obstacles to expeditious disposal of cases, a court will not issue directions to subordinate judicial officers to decide cases expeditiously, as the impediment to smooth functioning and speedy resolution lies with the legal profession and not with the judicial officer.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
1. Heard Sri Rakesh Kumar Yadav, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Yogesh Kumar Singh, the learned AGA-I.
2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought issuance of a direction to the learned Sub Divisional Magistrate, District Sultanpur (which appears to be wrongly mentioned in place of Sub Divisional Magistrate Baldirai, District Sultanpur) to decide Case No. 7172/2025, under Section 164 BNSS, 2023 expeditiously.
3. The aforesaid case was instituted by the petitioner by filing an application on 09.10.2026. In paragraph 7 of the petition, it has been stated that a certified copy of the order sheet of Case No. 7172/2025 is being annexed as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition whereas what has been annexed as Annexure No. 3 is a typed copy of the order sheet and the petitioner has filed an application for exemption from filing certified copy of the order sheet of the proceedings before the Sub Divisional Magistrate. A copy of the order sheet reveals that out of 12 dates fixed before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, the advocates were abstaining from judicial work on as many as 8 dates and one date fell on a holiday.
4. Courts cannot be expected to function smoothly and decide the case expeditiously when on most of the cases the advocates are abstaining from judicial work.
5. In these circumstances, when the advocates themselves are creating hurdles in expeditious disposal of the case, it will not be appropriate for this Court to issue any direction to the Sub Divisional Magistrate concerned to decide Case No. 7172/2025 expeditiously in spite of the advocates are going on strike repetitively.
6. Accordingly the petition is dismissed.
(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)
May 6, 2026
Pradeep/-
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free