Allahabad High Court
UDAY PRATAP SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- DINESH PATHAK
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner’s failure to appear.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 227 (No. 4775 of 2023) before the Allahabad High Court. The petition was listed as likely to be infructuous. No representative of the petitioner appeared to argue that the cause of action still survived. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition as infructuous. The Court clarified that if the cause of action still exists, the petitioner may file an appropriate application within the limitation period.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition survives and can be entertained despite the petitioner’s non‑appearance
Subjects
- Article 227
- writ petition
- infructuous
- procedural dismissal
- High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4775 of 2023
Uday Pratap Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aditya Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anil Kumar Singh, C.S.C.
Court No. - 32
HON'BLE DINESH PATHAK, J.
1. Instant writ petition has been listed under the heading of "Likely to be
Infructuous" cases.
2. However, none has appeared on behalf of the petitioner to point out the
survival of the instant writ petition. Therefore, the instant writ petition is
dismissed as infructuous.
3. It is clarified that if the cause of action still survives to maintain the
instant writ petition, the petitioner shall be at liberty to move an appropriate
application within limitation against the order of the date.
September 9, 2026
vinay
(Dinesh Pathak,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…