Allahabad High Court
VINOD KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
Non‑appearance of the petitioner’s counsel and failure to indicate a surviving cause of action render the writ petition infructuous, justifying its dismissal.
Summary
A writ petition filed in 2016 by Vinod Kumar against the State of U.P. and three others remained pending for several years. The High Court listed the matter among the oldest pending cases and issued a notice requiring the petitioner’s counsel to appear or to mark that the cause of action still survived. Neither the petitioner’s counsel appeared nor was the case marked as having a surviving cause of action. The court inferred that the petitioner had either lost interest or that the cause of action had become dead. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with the petitioner permitted to file a recall or restoration application if any cause of action still exists.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition pending for an extended period and lacking the petitioner’s appearance can be deemed infructuous.
- Whether dismissal is appropriate in the absence of a declaration that the cause of action survives.
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- non‑appearance
- case management
- old pending cases
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16055 of 2016
Vinod Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Meena Mishra, Vinit Mishra, Yogesh
Kumar Saxena
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ram Sajivan, Sanjay Kumar
Singh, Shruti Malviya, Siddharth Khare
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Case is called out. None appears for the parties.
The case is listed in the category of oldest pending cases in the cause list, for
priority hearing.
A notice has been placed on the notice board specifically, mentioning that
"old cases up to the year 2022 shall be taken up in the first round itself. In
case of non-appearance, matter shall be dismissed as infructuous or
otherwise, and in the cases, where the cause of action still survives, the
concerned advocates are expected to mark them accordingly in the cause list.
Failure to do so, may result in its dismissal as infructuous" but, neither the
counsel for the petitioner has appeared nor has the case been marked to
indicate that the cause of action still survives.
Record shows that the matter is pending since the year 2016. It appears that
either the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter or it has become
infructuous.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file recall/restoration
application in case any cause of action still survives.
March 18, 2026
Vinod.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)
Digitally signed by :-
VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…