Ravi S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) In an appeal in pursuance of Section 22 under U.P. Act No. XIII of 1972 the 4th Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur had occasion to reflect upon the order of the Prescribed Authority while dealing with the application of the landlord seeking release of the premises. The learned District Judge, aforesaid, assessed the decision of the Prescribed Authority dated 19th December, 1984 and came to the conclusion that this decision was indeed not judicious and the matter had been carelessly dealt with and what was supposed to be a decision was far from a judgment. The learned District Judge, rightly remanded the matter back to the court of the Prescribed Authority with his observations and guidelines and directed the prescribed Authority to decide the matter afresh and in accordance with law.
(2.) This decision of the learned District Judge is of 10th September, 1986 delivered in Matadin Bhalotia and others v. Laxmi Ram Shiv Prasad, Appeal No. 16 of 1985 . The proceedings in remand before the prescribed Authority were stalled by the petitioner. The petitioner moved a review application before the District Judge and sought a recall of the order of remand dated 10th September, 1986. The proceedings before the Prescribed Authority, who was to consider the matter afresh, remained suspended. The review application was ultimately considered on 25th March, 1987 by the successor of the IV Additional District Judge who delivered the order in appeal on 10th September, 1986. On 25th March, 1987 the District Judge aforesaid, placed on record that it was unfortunate that the review application has occasioned the suspension of the proceedings before the prescribed Authority. The review application was rejected, and the learned Additional District Judge required the parties to appear before the prescribed Authority on 2nd April, 1987.
(3.) Against this direction of the learned Additional District Judge and also the order in appeal dated 10th September, 1986 by which the matter was remanded to the court of the prescribed Authority, the petitioner-tenant has moved this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Should this petition be entertained the result would be the same, that, the prescribed Authority would be unable to proceed with the matter which he has been otherwise required to examine de novo. The petitioner-tenant ought to have accepted the order of the learned Additional District Judge that the proceedings in remand before the prescribed Authority ought not to be delayed further. As it is, but for the review application and the stay of proceedings obtained in pursuance of it, the prescribed Authority could not proceed since September, 1986. The matter has been delayed at the behest of the petitioner-tenant for seven months. In effect, the course of justice has been delayed during this period without any reasonable cause.;