IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that expediting one case without compelling reasons can disrupt judicial efficiency and is not warranted.

JUDGMENT :

(Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) :

By means of this writ petition, petitioner seeks to issue a direction to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun to decide the appeal no.836 of 2020 Billoo vs. Nagar Palika Parishad Mussorie as early as possible preferably on the next date fixed in the suit.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is in peaceful possession of the property area 20.91 sq. mt. situated at Maisanik Lauz Bus Stand Mussoorie where the petitioner is running a small tea stall; that, the petitioner received a notice/order on 21.10.2020 issued by the respondent/Nagar Palika Parishad Mussoorie u/s 211 of Nagar Palika Act, 1916; that, against the said notice petitioner has filed an appeal before the court of learned C.J.M, Dehradun, which is pending adjudication.

3. Learned counsel would submit that the appeal was filed on 26.10.2020 and since then more than three years have elapsed but the appeal is still pending disposal.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the interim injunction application filed by the petitioner along with the appeal has already been dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2021 and consequent thereto the respondent has taken the possession of the area that had been encroached upon by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner could not make out any case for issuing directions to the court concerned for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

6. Perusal of order sheet shows that on many occasions the petitioner/appellant had not appeared and sought adjournments in the trial court.

7. This Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that there is huge pendency and backlog of cases in civil courts and any direction for expeditious disposal will further overburden the court below. By issuing direction for expeditious disposal, one case cannot be prioritized over others. If such direction is issued by this Court in a routine and cursory manner, this Court will be flooded with such type of petitions which ultimately will disturb the calendar and schedule of the civil courts.

8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in re M. Gopalakrishnan and others vs. Pasumpon Muthuramalingam and another, 2022 SCC Online Sc 1968, has observed as under:-

“4. Looking to the nature of the order passed by the High Court, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal in this matter but feel impelled to observed that ordinarily, before passing any such order for expeditious proceedings in a particular case (which might appear to be rather of innocuous nature), it would be appropriate for the higher court to appreciate any such order for one case, without cogent and extremely compelling reasons, might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate court; might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending that Court; and progression of such other cases might suffer for no reason and none of the faults of the litigants involved therein.”

9. Of late, Hon’ble Supreme Court in re Ganpat @ Ganatpat vs. State of Uttar Pradesh in Writ Petition(s) Criminal) No(s).75/2024 has observed as under:-

“2. …. Accepting the prayer of the petitioner and issuing any direction, as prayed, would amount to inappropriate exercise of discretionary jurisdiction showing disrespect to another constitutional court; hence, no such direction, as prayed by the petitioner, can be issued.

3. That part, assuming that an extraordinary case requires a nudge from this Court for early hearing of a long pending criminal appeal, it is only a request ought ot be made to the High Court to such effect in appropriate proceedings, care being taken to ensure that the proceeding before this Court is otherwise maintainable……”

10. Learned counsel for the respondent would submit that Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranbir Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. in SLP (C) No.4498/2024 has imposed a cost of Rs.1.00 lakh for filing frivolous petition and observed that filing