Allahabad High Court
SMT. ANITA DEVI AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution due to the absence of petitioner's counsel.
Summary
The petitioners, Smt. Anita Devi and another, filed Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 5480 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners despite being listed in the cause list, and the petitioners themselves were absent. The respondents' counsel, including the learned A.G.A., were present, but the counsel for the first informant‑respondent also did not appear. The Court observed that the petition could not be pressed forward without representation for the petitioners. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution and vacated any interim orders that may have been in force.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition may be dismissed for want of prosecution when the petitioner's counsel fails to appear?
Subjects
- writ petition
- procedural dismissal
- want of prosecution
- high court
- criminal miscellaneous petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 5480 of 2026
Smt. Anita Devi And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Upendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Brijesh Singh, G.A., Sushil Kumar
Shukla
Court No. - 49
HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.
1. Case called out in revised list.
2. No one appears on behalf of petitioners to press this writ petition.
3. Even though, the name of Mr. Upendra Kumar Singh is duly published
in the cause list as counsel for petitioners but neither he nor any one on
his behalf is present to press this writ petition, even in revised call.
4. Learned A.G.A. representing State-respondents 1, 2 & 3 is present.
5. Though, names of Mr. Brijesh Singh and Mr. Sushil Kumar Shukla, the
learned counsel representing first informant-respndnet-4 is duly published
in the cause list, however, neither they nor any one on their behalf is
present to oppose this writ petition, even in revised call.
6. As no one appears on behalf of petitioners to press this writ petition,
even in revised call, it is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution.
7. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
May 12, 2026
Vinay
(Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINAY KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…