Allahabad High Court
RAM NEVAS AND ANOTHERversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 20 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous because the underlying case has been finally decided.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition challenging two orders dated 16 October 2025 and 5 February 2026 issued by the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Case No. 0988 of 2023, which allowed an amendment by respondent No.3 and rejected the petitioners' application to recall the first order. Respondent No.3 argued that the underlying case had been finally decided on 24 August 2026, rendering the writ petition moot. The Court examined whether a petition remains maintainable after the substantive matter is finally resolved. Finding that the final decision on the underlying case extinguished the relief sought, the Court held the writ petition to be infructuous. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition becomes infructuous when the substantive matter underlying it is finally decided.
- Whether the Court should entertain a petition seeking recall of an order after the main case has been concluded.
Subjects
- writ petition
- infructuous
- final decision
- recall of order
- jurisdiction
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 2899 of 2026
Ram Nevas And Another
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 20 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Shashi Bhushan
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Kartikey Pandey
Court No. - 40
HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.
The list of fresh cases has been revised. None is present on behalf of the
petitioners.
Learned Standing Counsel for the State respondent nos. 1 and 2 and Sri B.S.
Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Kartikey Pandey, learned counsel for
the respondent no.3 is present.
The present writ petition arises out of the order dated 16.10.2025 passed by
the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Case No. 0988 of 2023, by means of
which the application for amendment filed by respondent no. 3 was allowed
and the subsequent order dated 05.02.2026, by means of which the
application for recall of the order dated 16.10.2025 filed by the petitioner
was rejected.
It is contended by the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 that the Case No.
0988 of 2023, in which the impugned orders dated 16.10.2025 and
05.02.2026 have been passed has now been finally decided on 24.08.2026.
Hence, the present writ petition has become infructuous. The writ petition is,
accordingly, dismissed as infructuous.
September 23, 2026
Gaurav
(Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
GAURAV PATEL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…