Allahabad High Court
MRITYUNJAY TIWARIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The petitioner, Mrityunjay Tiwari, filed a writ petition (Writ‑C No. 11579 of 2025) before the Allahabad High Court. During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel was absent while the respondents’ counsel and the standing counsel were present. The court noted the non‑appearance of the petitioner’s counsel and, on that basis, dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. Consequently, any interim relief that had been granted was discharged. The order was pronounced on 6 May 2026 by Judges Ajit Kumar and Indrajeet Shukla.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate course of action when the petitioner’s counsel is absent and the petition is not being prosecuted?
Subjects
- writ petition
- want of prosecution
- procedural dismissal
- interim order discharge
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 11579 of 2025
Mrityunjay Tiwari
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 4 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh Chaubey, Vikas Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ghan Shyam Maurya
Court No. - 1
HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
1. Case has been called out upon mention being made on behalf of the
petitioner, however counsel for the petitioner is not present, although Sri
Ghan Shyam Maurya, learned counsel for the respondents and Sri Mukul
Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel are present.
2. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
3. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
May 6, 2026
Pratima
(Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
PRATIMA AGRAHARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…