Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SHAILENDRA KUMAR ATTversusSTATE OF U.P. THRU PRIN. SECY. BASIC EDUCATION and 3 ORS.

Decided
Disposal
Allowed/Partly Allowed on merits/Granted

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

Summary

The petitioner, Shailendra Kumar, filed a writ petition (WRIT-A No. 6786 of 2006) before the Allahabad High Court seeking relief against the State of U.P. and others. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and the standing counsel for the respondent was the only party present. The court observed that the petition had remained pending since 2006 and the petitioner appeared to have lost interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the court held that the writ petition had become infructuous due to the passage of time and lack of prosecution. The petition was dismissed and any interim orders were vacated.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition pending for an extended period without any appearance can be declared infructuous and dismissed

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • infructuous
  • lapse of time
  • procedural default
  • High Court

Judgment

                                                                               Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:23142




                                         Court No. - 28

                                         Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6786 of 2006

                                         Petitioner :- Shailendra Kumar Att
                                         Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Basic Education And 3 Ors.
                                         Counsel for Petitioner :- Subhas Chandra Pandey
                                         Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,A.M. Tripathi,Jyotinjay Verma

                                         Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.

                                         1. Case called out in revised list.

                                         2. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to
                                         press this writ petition. However, learned Standing Counsel is
                                         present.

                                         3. The matter pertains to the year 2006 and since then it has
                                         remained pending. It appears that petitioner has lost his interest
                                         to pursue his case. Apart from it, by efflux of time, writ petition
                                         has become infructuous.

                                         4. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed as having become
                                         infructuous. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

                                         .

                                                                                            (Brij Raj Singh, J.)

                                         Order Date :- 23.4.2025
                                         Rao/-




Digitally signed by :-
CHEBROLU SRINIVASA RAO
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.