Daleep @ Dilip Gupta vs State Of Up And 6 Others

Ashutosh Srivastava, J

Heard Sri Ankit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State Respondents and Sri Sudhir Bharti, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 6.

Considering the nature of the order proposed to be passed notice upon the private respondents is hereby dispensed with.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his Restoration Application dated 12.12.2023 filed in Case No. T202305440106351 (Jawahar Vs. Rajdev), under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006 is pending consideration before the Respondent No. 2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, District Kushinagar, and the purpose of filing present writ petition shall stands served if the appropriate directions are issued to the Respondent No. 2, decide the Restoration Application of the petitioner pending since the year 2023, within the time frame fixed by this Court.

Learned counsel representing the respondents have no objection the aforesaid proposition.

This Court is also of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the writ petition pending and the same is accordingly disposed of by requiring the Respondent No. 2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, District Kushinagar, seized with the Restoration Application dated 12.12.2023 filed in Case No. T202305440106351 (Jawahar Vs. Rajdev), under Section 24 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006, to consider and decide the restoration application expeditiously, preferably within a period of one month or on the next date fixed, from the date of production of certified copy of order of this Court, strictly in accordance with law.

Needless to say that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and it shall be open for the Respondent No. 2, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Padrauna, District Kushinagar, to pass appropriate orders, strictly in accordance with law.