Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

KANEEZ TAHIRA RIZVIversusSTATE OF U.P.THROUGH PRIN SECY REVENUE AND 3 ORS

Decided
Disposal
Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits/Granted

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as it has become infructuous due to inaction and lapse of time.

Summary

The petitioner, Kaneez Tahira Rizvi, filed a writ petition (Writ A No. 3002 of 2005) before the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench, challenging actions of the State of U.P. Through Principal Secretary Revenue and others. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and the matter had been pending since 2005. The court observed that the petitioner had lost interest in pursuing the case and, due to the passage of time, the petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and any interim orders were vacated. The court, however, allowed the petitioner the option to file a recall application if the cause of action still existed.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition pending for an extended period without active pursuit becomes infructuous and liable to dismissal

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • infructuous
  • delay
  • procedural law
  • high court

Judgment

                                                                               Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:20335

                                         Court No. - 28

                                         Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3002 of 2005

                                         Petitioner :- Kaneez Tahira Rizvi
                                         Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prin Secy Revenue And 3 Ors
                                         Counsel for Petitioner :- M.A.Siddiqui
                                         Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

                                         Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.
                                         1. Case called out in revised list.

                                         2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to
                                         press this writ petition. However, learned Standing Counsel is
                                         present.

                                         3. The matter pertains to the year 2005 and since then it has
                                         remained pending. It appears that petitioner has lost his interest
                                         to pursue his case. Apart from it, by efflux of time, writ petition
                                         has become infructuous.

                                         4. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed as having become
                                         infructuous. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

                                         5. However, it is open for the petitioner move a recall
                                         application if the cause still survives.

                                         .
                                                                                            (Brij Raj Singh, J.)
                                         Order Date :- 10.4.2025
                                         Rao/-




Digitally signed by :-
CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench


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.