Allahabad High Court
YOGENDRA KUMAR SRIVASTAVAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Summary
The writ petition filed by Yogendra Kumar Srivastava in 2017 remained pending for several years. The High Court issued a notice directing that old cases up to 2022 be heard and warned of dismissal if parties failed to appear or indicate that the cause of action survived. Neither the petitioner’s counsel appeared nor was any indication made that the cause of action persisted. Consequently, the Court held that the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it, while noting that the petitioner could file a recall or restoration application if a cause of action still existed.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition pending for an extended period can be dismissed as infructuous due to non-appearance of the petitioner’s counsel and lack of indication that the cause of action survives.
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- non-appearance
- pending case
- cause of action
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - A No. - 4404 of 2017
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : , Amit Kumar Srivastava, M.M. Sahai,
M.M.Sahai
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Tej Bhan Singh, C.S.C., Mrigraj 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 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 2017. 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…