Allahabad High Court
TRIVENI DUTT SHARMAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous because of the lapse of time.
Summary
Petitioner Triveni Dutt Sharma filed a writ petition challenging a show‑cause notice dated 19‑Mar‑2008 issued by the Commandant of 47‑Battalion, P.A.C., Ghaziabad, which led to his termination on the ground that his appointment documents were forged. The petition sought to quash the notice and the termination order dated 19‑May‑2008. The High Court observed that the final termination order had already been passed in 2008 and the petition had remained pending for many years without any interim relief. Owing to the considerable lapse of time, the Court held that the petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition seeking to quash a show‑cause notice and termination order is maintainable after the final order has been passed and a long delay has occurred
- Whether the petition is infructuous due to the passage of time
Subjects
- show cause notice
- termination of service
- infructuous petition
- administrative law
- delay
- quash petition
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 18933 of 2008
Triveni Dutt Sharma
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arvind Singh, B.K.Singh Raghuvanshi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
(Sl. No. 33)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. List revised. None appears for the petitioner to press the instant
petition. Sri Manish Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the State is
present.
2. The instant petition was filed seeking quashing of the show cause
notice dated 19.3.2008 issued by the Commandant 47-Battalion, P.A.C.
Ghaziabad. By filing counter affidavit, the order dated 19.5.2008 was
brought on record, thereby pursuant to the aforesaid show cause notice,
the services of the petitioner were terminated having found the
documents submitted by the petitioner at the time of his appointment
forged.
3. Since the final order was already passed on 19.5.2008 and this matter
is pending since the year 2008 and no interim order was ever passed in
favour of the petitioner. In such view of the matter, due to passage of
time,the instant petition has become infructuous.
4. In such view of the matter, the instant petition is dismissed as
infructuous.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
May 7, 2026
n.u.
Digitally signed by :-
NASEEM UDDIN
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…