Allahabad High Court
NEERAJ KUMARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
The petitioner Neeraj Kumar filed a writ petition in 2016 before the Allahabad High Court. The case remained pending for several years and was listed among the oldest cases for priority hearing. The court issued a notice directing that old cases up to 2022 be taken up and warned that non‑appearance could lead to dismissal as infructuous. Neither the petitioner’s counsel nor the petitioner appeared, and the case was not marked to indicate that the cause of action still survived. Considering the prolonged inactivity, the court held that the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it, while allowing the petitioner the liberty to file a recall or restoration application if any cause of action remains.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition pending for several years can be dismissed as infructuous due to non‑appearance of the petitioner or his counsel.
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- non‑appearance
- pending case
- procedural dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 31627 of 2016
Neeraj Kumar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Siddharth Khare, Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Hemendra Kumar, Kailash
Singh Kushwaha, Prem Prakash Yadav
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Case is called out. None appears for the petitioner(s). Learned Standing
Counsel for the State is present.
Record goes to show that 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(s) has appeared nor has the case been
marked to indicate that the cause of action still survives.
This matter is pending since the year 2016. It appears that either the
petitioner(s) has/have 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(s) shall be at liberty to file
recall/restoration application in case any cause of action still survives.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
May 5, 2026
Jitendra/-
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…