Allahabad High Court
RAMESH CHANDRAversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU SECY. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismiss
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner's non‑appearance and failure to show a surviving cause of action.
Summary
The writ petition filed by Ramesh Chandra in 2014 remained pending for several years without any appearance by the petitioner’s counsel. The High Court had issued a notice directing that old cases up to 2022 be taken up and that non‑appearance could lead to dismissal as infructuous. Despite these notices, the petitioner’s counsel did not appear nor mark the case to show that a cause of action survived. The Court observed that the petitioner appeared to have lost interest or that the cause of action had become infructuous. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, while allowing the petitioner the liberty to file a recall or restoration application if a cause of action still exists.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence of a petitioner's failure to appear and to indicate that a cause of action still survives in an old pending writ petition?
Subjects
- writ petition
- non‑appearance
- infructuous
- procedural dismissal
- old pending case
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 40253 of 2014
Ramesh Chandra
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And 7 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : S.K. Upadhyay, V.K. Upadhyay
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., R.C. Singh
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 is also placed in the cause list 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. A notice in this regard has
also been affixed on the notice board.
This matter is pending since the year 2014. 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.)
September 15, 2026
Jitendra/-
Digitally signed by :-
JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…