JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Rituraj Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed for commanding the respondent no. 3 to decide the mutation case no. 920 of 2018, (Gurudeen vs. Rajbahadur), Computer Case No. 201814360300920 under Section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, within stipulated period.

3. Earlier petitioner for the same cause of action has approached this Court by way of filing Writ-C No. 17160 of 2019 (Gurudeen vs. State of U.P. And 2019), which was disposed of vide order dated 20.5.2019, the said order is quoted as under:-

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This writ petition has been filed seeking the following relief:-

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding to the respondent no. 2 i.e. Tehsildar, Tehsil-Machhalishahar, District-Jaunpur to decide the mutation case bearing no. 00920 of 2018 Computer Case no. T201814360300920 (Gurudeen Vs. Ram Bahadur), Under section 34 of U.P. Land Revenue Act, pending in the court of respondent no. 2 since 05.03.2018, within stipulated period fix by this Hon'ble Court."

It is submitted that a mutation case filed by the petitioner is pending consideration since March 2018.

The writ petition is therefore disposed of directing the respondent no. 2 to decide the pending proceedings as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

It shall however afford precedence to matters of a similar nature which have remained pending for a greater period of time."

4. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that several dates were fixed but the court below has not decided the case by complying the order of this Court. The above quoted order indicates that direction was issued to decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the Presiding Officer was not present on several dates, as such, the disposal of the case is being delayed hence a direction to dispose of the case within a time bound period be issued.

6. Allegations are being raised against the Presiding Officer, whereas perusal of the order-sheet indicates that a clear reason for being not present in the Court has been given that the Presiding Officer is busy due to administrative reason. It is of common knowledge that the officers presiding over such courts are at times, required to attend various tasks by remaining present on the spot or being present in the office of the superior authorities etc, in other words, by physically remaining out of their offices or busy for administrative reasons. Hence, the reason that Presiding Officer is busy due to administrative reason is broadly understandable, though it cannot be a ground for intentionally adjourning the matter.

7. Now the time has come that before issuing direction or even notice to the Presiding Officer, the order-sheet should be looked into to ascertain as to whether substantial cause of delay is on the part of the lawyers or not.

8. Perusal of the order-sheet clearly indicates that after passing of aforesaid order dated 20.5.2019 by this Court, on 37 dates, the lawyers were not working and it is only on few dates they were present and proceedings were undertaken. For certain period courts were not functioning due to Covid-19 Pandemic.

9. On the earlier occasion also I have considered the question of issuing writ of mandamus in case of disposal of mutation cases after considering the judgment of this Court in case of Chadra Bali vs. Additional Commissioner And Others 2012 (4) ADJ 13, wherein general mandamus was issued to decide certain nature of cases within a time bound period as well as the Government Order dated 16.5.2012 issued by the State Government, whereon a circular dated 17.5.2012 was issued by the Commissioner Board of Revenue, Lucknow and provisions of U.P. Janhit