Allahabad High Court
SMT SUNITA DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
Sunita Devi filed a criminal miscellaneous writ petition (No. 23021 of 2026) before the Allahabad High Court challenging actions of the State of Uttar Pradesh and four other respondents. The petition was listed for hearing, but no counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner to address the court. The learned Additional Government Advocate for the State was present. In the absence of any representation for the petitioner, the court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution. Consequently, any interim relief that had been granted earlier was vacated. The judgment was delivered by Hon'ble Justices Chandra Dhari Singh and Tarun Saxena on September 23, 2026.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate course of action when a petitioner fails to appear or prosecute a filed writ petition?
Subjects
- writ petition
- dismissal
- want of prosecution
- interim order vacated
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 23021 of 2026
Smt Sunita Devi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Chandra Mohan Saran Yadav, Preetam
Kumar Bharti
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 48
HON'BLE CHANDRA DHARI SINGH, J.
HON'BLE TARUN SAXENA, J.
1. Case called out in the revised list. None appeared on behalf of the
petitioner to address the Court, however, learned A.G.A. for the State
is present.
2. In view of the above, the instant writ petition is dismissed for want
of prosecution.
3. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Tarun Saxena,J.) (Chandra Dhari Singh,J.)
September 23, 2026
Saurabh
Digitally signed by :-
SAURABH KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…