Binod Kumar Roy, Raj Kumar Mahajan, JJ. - (1.) THE petitioner has come up with a prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to open the lock of the main gate of its building and allow entry and exit of the students, staff and other connected persons in it. The entire cause of action has been founded on a fact that even though the petitioner had filed suit No. 262 of 1998 in the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Etawah in which an ad -interim injunction on its prayer was also granted, during operativeness of which the defendants -respondents had put in a lock on the main gate and thereby a further application was filed for opening the lock but that application is not being disposed of by the Civil Judge concerned and hence this Writ Petition.
(2.) IN order to examine the correctness of the allegations made by the petitioner against the Civil Judge concerned we asked Sri A.K. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner to place the various orders passed by the learned Civil Judge concerned. Sri Tiwari read out the order -sheet containing orders passed from 6.5.98 to 30.5.98. The order sheet shows that the petitioner filed an application on 21.5.98 for opening the lock and its main gate which was seriously opposed by the defendants and the said application was ordered to be put up on the date fixed from before. The date fixed from before was 25.5.98. On 25.5.98 the Presiding Officer was on leave. The records were directed to be put up on 27.5.98. The interim injunction granted earlier was continued to be operative. On 27.5.98 the case was adjourned to 29.5.98 on account of paucity of time. The temporary injunction granted earlier was continued to be in effect. On 29.5.98 both sides filed documents in support of their respective cases. The learned counsel were on strike. The case was adjourned to the next day i.e. 30.5.98. On 30.5.98 the learned Advocates refrained themselves from discharging their professional duties. The case was called out. On behalf of the petitioner an application was filed that since the court is going to be closed for a month, an order be passed for opening the lock even in the absence of the defendants. On behalf of the defendants their learned counsel appeared and stated that since the Advocates have refrained from discharging their professional duties and that the ex -parte interim orders have already been passed in favour of the plaintiff and in the month of June the schools are closed and hence the matter is not of urgency and hence it will be proper to adjourn the hearing of all the petitions 37/G, 35/G and 36/G which are required to be heard. On this prayer the Civil Judge concerned adjourned the matter to 2.7.98 making the interim injunction order operative till then.
(3.) SRI Tiwari fails to satisfy us that in the facts and circumstances apparent from the order sheet there will be any justification for issuance of a high prerogative writ of mandamus when he failed to show as to what provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure the learned Civil Judge had allegedly violated. It is a settled law that mandamus can be issued to compel the authority concerned to perform his statutory duties. We cannot dub the orders passed in case to be even unfair and/or arbitrary.;