The Allahabad High Court criticized a petitioner who challenged the expedited proceedings in a case under the Uttar Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

The petitioner had approached the Court seeking a transfer of the case from the Consolidation Officer's court in Arwa Katra, District Auraiya, to another district court, citing concerns over alleged political and corrupt influence on the Consolidation Officer, who, the petitioner claimed, was ignoring her evidence and hastily fixing hearing dates.

A Bench of Justice JJ Munir observed, “It is indeed ironical that the public at large are seen going wild on all public platforms and social media, criticizing delays in Courts and repeating that courts adjourn cases by fixing 'date after dates' which they repeat ad nauseam, and, yet, when a member of the same body of the public is in Court as a litigant, he objects to the fact, as in this case, that the Court seeks to proceed in the matter with dispatch.”

The Court further noted that, “The petitioner questions the intentions of the Court because the Consolidation Officer has chosen to proceed with the matter at a quick pace. Delivery of quick justice is a virtue; not a vice.”

Advocate Ashok Kumar Singh appeared for the petitioner.

The petitioner had argued that the officer's rapid pace was influenced by external political pressures, but the Court found no evidence to support this claim.

The petitioner’s counsel referred to the order sheet, in which the Consolidation Officer had allegedly acknowledged being under pressure from the opposing party to expedite the case.

However, after reviewing the order sheet, the High Court found that the officer had merely noted that the other party was pushing for an early resolution. The Court also took note of the officer’s use of the term “त्वरित निस्तारण के लिए दबाव बनाया जा रहा है” (Pressure is being created for quick disposal), but did not interpret this as evidence of political influence.

Instead, the Court highlighted that there was no indication in the order sheet that the officer was acting under any undue influence. The Court reprimanded the petitioner for casting doubt on the officer's intentions based solely on the expedited nature of the proceedings.

The High Court ultimately rejected the petition, upholding the decision to continue with the swift proceedings.

Cause Title: Manorma Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors., [2025:AHC:2727]

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates Ashok Kumar Singh, Ram Mangal Singh

Click here to read/download Order


Allahabad High CourtJustice J.J. Munir

Suchita Shukla

Assistant Editor

Suchita Shukla is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum, with a strong foundation in legal research and writing, she brings over 4.5 years of experience to the table, having honed her skills in the dynamic field of law. She covers Supreme Court and High Courts. She completed her BA-LLB (Hons.) 5-year course with specialisation in Intellectual Property rights from Galgotias University. Since 2019, apart from having worked at a legal publishing house she has also ventured into legal journalism.