Allahabad High Court
RAMOTARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 7 OTHERS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismiss
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
The writ petition filed by Ramotar in 2014 remained pending for over a decade. The High Court issued a notice directing that old cases up to 2022 be heard and that non‑appearance could lead to dismissal as infructuous. Neither the petitioner’s counsel appeared nor was the petition marked to indicate that the cause of action survived. Consequently, the Court concluded that the petitioner had lost interest or the petition had become infructuous. The Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous, while noting that the petitioner may file a recall or restoration application if a cause of action still exists.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition pending for an extended period can be dismissed as infructuous due to non‑appearance of counsel and lack of indication that the cause of action survives.
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- non‑appearance
- pending case
- procedural dismissal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 41335 of 2014
Ramotar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. 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…