Allahabad High Court
GULZARversusD.D.C. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The petitioner, Gulzar, filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court but failed to appear before the court and did not file a vakalatnama authorizing counsel. The court issued a notice for the petitioner to engage another counsel, but no response was received. The standing counsel for the respondents was present, while the petitioner was absent. The court noted that the petition lacked prosecution and that no representation was on record. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
Issues considered
- What is the effect of the petitioner’s failure to file a vakalatnama and appear before the court on the continuation of a writ petition?
- Can a writ petition be dismissed for want of prosecution due to lack of representation?
Subjects
- writ petition
- procedural default
- vakalatnama
- representation
- dismissal for want of prosecution
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 11083 of 1980
Gulzar
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
D.D.C. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : S.C. Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : H.R. Mishra, Jagdish Mishra, S.C., S.D.
Pathak, S.R. Mishra
Court No. - 54
HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.
1. Cases listed under heading of "oldest pending cases for priority
hearing" are being revised.
2. Notice was issued to the petitioner to engage another counsel.
3. As per office report, no vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of the
petitioner.
4. No one is present to press this writ petition.
5. Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents is present.
6.The instant writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
(Chandra Kumar Rai,J.)
April 23, 2026
PS*
Digitally signed by :-
PRITI SHARMA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…