Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

DHAVENDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner, Dhavendra, filed Criminal Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8587 of 2026 before the Allahabad High Court. The petitioner's counsel, Jitendra Kumar Yadav, was listed in the cause list but did not appear before the Court, nor was any other representative present to press the petition. The State of U.P. and two other respondents were represented by learned Additional Government Advocate. The Court observed that without any representation for the petitioner, the petition could not be prosecuted. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution and vacated any interim orders that may have been in force. No substantive merits of the petition were considered.

Issues considered

  • Can a writ petition be proceeded with in the absence of the petitioner or his counsel?

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • dismissal
  • want of prosecution
  • procedural default
  • Allahabad High Court

Judgment

                                                HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                 CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 8587 of 2026

                                    Dhavendra
                                                                                                 .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                        Versus

                                    State Of U.P. And 2 Others
                                                                                               .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)                    :   Jitendra Kumar Yadav
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)                    :   G.A.

                                    Court No. - 49
                                                     HON'BLE RAJEEV MISRA, J.
                                                     HON'BLE PADAM NARAIN MISHRA, J.

                                    1. Case called out in the revised list.

                                    2. Even though, the name of Mr. Jitendra Kumar Yadav is duly published
                                    in the cause list as counsel for petitioner but neither he nor anyone on his
                                    behalf is present before this Court to press the present writ petition.

                                    3. Learned AGA representing the State-respondents 1 & 2 is present.

                                    4. As no one appears on behalf of the present petitioner to press the
                                    present writ petition even in revised call, it is accordingly, dismissed for
                                    want of prosecution.

                                    5. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.



                                                                 (Padam Narain Mishra,J.) (Rajeev Misra,J.)
                                    May 6, 2026
                                    Rama Kant




Digitally signed by :-
RAMA KANT
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.