Allahabad High Court
AWADHESH KUMAR TRIPATHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition in 2018 which remained pending for several years. The High Court issued a notice directing that old cases up to 2022 be heard and warned of dismissal if the cause of action no longer existed or counsel failed to appear. Neither the petitioner’s counsel appeared nor was the case marked to show that a cause of action survived. Consequently, the court held the petition to be infructuous and dismissed it, while allowing the petitioner the option to file a recall or restoration application if a cause of action still exists.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition pending for an extended period can be dismissed as infructuous due to non-appearance of counsel and lack of indication that the cause of action survives.
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- non-appearance
- cause of action
- procedural dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 16674 of 2018
Awadhesh Kumar Tripathi
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ajit Kumar Singh Chauhan, Birendra
Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C.
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 2018. 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…