Allahabad High Court
KAMTA SINGHversusD.D.C. AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- CHANDRA KUMAR RAI
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to appear and lack of a vakalatnama.
Summary
The petitioner, Kamta Singh, filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The court noted that the case was listed for priority hearing but the petitioner failed to appear and had not filed a vakalatnama authorizing counsel. A notice was issued to the petitioner to engage another counsel, which went unheeded. The standing counsel for the State respondents was present, but no one represented the petitioner. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution, as there was no party to press the petition.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate course of action when a petitioner fails to appear and does not file a vakalatnama in a writ petition?
Subjects
- writ petition
- dismissal
- want of prosecution
- vaklatnama
- court procedure
- representation
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 12397 of 1981
Kamta Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
D.D.C. And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : A.N. Singh
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Krishan Mohan
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…