'While Public Going Wild On Social Media Over Court Delays...' : Allahabad HC Slams Litigant Objecting To Speedy Court Proceedings

“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 observed in its order.

Adding that delivery of quick justice is a virtue, not a vice, the Single Judge rebuked the petitioner for questioning the intentions of the Court because the Consolidation Officer had chosen to proceed with her matter at a quick pace.

Essentially, the petitioner moved the HC challenging the rejection of her application by the Additional Commission of Consolidation, UP, wherein she sought the transfer of a Case from the Court of the Consolidation Officer, Arwa Katra, district Auraiya, to some other district before the Court of Competent Jurisdiction.

It was the case of the petitioner that the Consolidation Officer in question was proceeding under the political and corrupt influence of the other side, as a result of which he was ignoring the petitioner's evidence and was fixing quick dates.

The counsel for the petitioner also referred to the order sheet of the proceedings wherein the Consolidation Officer himself acknowledged the fact that he was under pressure from the other side.

Perusing the order sheet, the High Court, however, found that contrary to the submission of the petitioner, the order sheet showed the other side was pressing the matter for an early decision in the matter.

For context, in the order sheet, the Consolidation Officer had observed thus:

“त्वरित निस्तारण के लिए दबाव बनाया जा रहा है” (Pressure is being created for quick disposal).

Taking into account the 'crude' words used by the officer in question, the single judge observed that nothing in the order-sheet showed that the Consolidation Officer was under any influence from the other side.

In fact, the Court reproved the petitioner for questioning the intentions of the Consolidation Officer merely because he chose to proceed with the matter quickly. With this, the Court rejected the petition.