Allahabad High Court
KUNDAN SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ANISH KUMAR GUPTA
Holding
The petition is dismissed as infructuous because the sole petitioner died during its pendency.
Summary
Petitioner Kundan Singh filed a writ petition seeking (a) a certiorari to quash an order dated 10 June 2010 and (b) a mandamus directing that he be allowed to continue in a Class III post with salary until the petition is decided. The petition was filed in the Allahabad High Court. During the pendency of the petition, the sole petitioner died. The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the death rendered the petition infructuous. The Court held that a petition becomes infructuous upon the death of the sole petitioner and therefore cannot be entertained. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the death of the sole petitioner on the continuance of a writ petition?
Subjects
- writ petition
- certiorari
- mandamus
- infructuous petition
- death of petitioner
- high court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 38876 of 2010
Kundan Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Anupam Kumar, Harishchandra Dubey,
Pavan Kumar, Shatrughan Sonwal,
Shivendu Ojha
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C.
Court No. - 34
(SN.27)
HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.
1. Heard Sri Shravan Kumar Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri
Harishchandra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek
Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
2. The instant petition was filed with the following prayers:
"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned order dated 10.6.2010 passed by the respondent no. 3
(Annexure no. 1)
b) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing the
concerned respondents that the petitioner who has not been relieved till
date from the said post may be allowed to continue on the said Class III
post till pendency of this writ petition and the applicable salary may be
paid to the petitioner month to month."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole petitioner has
now expired during the pendency of the instant petition. In such view of
the matter, the instant petition has become infructuous.
4. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
May 5, 2026
Shubham Arya
Digitally signed by :-
SHUBHAM ARYA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…