Allahabad High Court
GIRJA PRASADversusD.D.C AND OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- MANJU RANI CHAUHAN
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution due to lack of representation.
Summary
Girja Prasad filed a writ petition (No. 3018 of 1980) before the Allahabad High Court against the D.D.C. and others. The petitioner's counsel list erroneously included Mr. Rakesh Pathak, who was actually counsel for the respondents. The respondents pointed out this mistake, and no counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner during the hearing. The Court noted the procedural irregularity and the absence of any representation for the petitioner. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution, without addressing any substantive merits.
Issues considered
- Whether the writ petition can proceed when the petitioner is not represented before the Court
- Whether the procedural error of mislisting counsel warrants dismissal of the petition
Subjects
- writ petition
- non-prosecution
- procedural defect
- legal representation
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - B No. - 3018 of 1980
Girja Prasad
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
D.D.C And Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : R.N.Singh, Rakesh Pathak
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Dinesh Pathak
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
List revised. None appears on behalf of the petitioner.
Mr. Surya Prakash Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Rakesh
Pathak, learned counsel for the respondents, submits that name of
Mr. Rakesh Pathak, learned counsel, has wrongly been shown on
behalf of the petitioner.
The matter is of the year 1980.
In view above, the writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
March 19, 2026
Rahul.
Digitally signed by :-
RAHUL GOSWAMI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…