Allahabad High Court
SUBHASH PANDEYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 2 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition.
Summary
Petitioner Subhash Pandey filed a writ petition in the Allahabad High Court but later expressed that he no longer wishes to pursue the petition. The petitioner’s counsel requested that the petition be dismissed as not pressed, allowing him to file a fresh petition if desired. The State respondents and the intervenor had no objection to such dismissal, though the intervenor sought that any fresh petition be served on Mr. Tarun Sanwla. The Court accepted the petitioner's request and dismissed the writ petition as not pressed, granting liberty to file a fresh petition in the future.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate procedure when a petitioner seeks to withdraw a writ petition?
- Can the Court dismiss a writ petition as not pressed and grant liberty to file a fresh petition?
Subjects
- writ petition
- withdrawal
- not pressed
- fresh petition
- procedural law
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 16228 of 2026
Subhash Pandey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aniruddh Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anand Prakash Paul, C.S.C., Harsh
Vardhan Gupta
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. Heard Sri Aniruddh Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri
Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State
respondents, Sri Anand Prakash Paul, learned counsel representing
Prayagraj Development Authority and Sri Udayan Nandan, learned
counsel appearing through intervention application.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does
not want to press the present writ petition and the same may be dismissed as
not pressed with the liberty to file a fresh petition.
3. Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the
State respondents, Sri Anand Prakash Paul, learned counsel representing
Prayagraj Development Authority and Sri Udayan Nandan, learned
counsel for the intervenor have no objection in case the writ petition is
dismissed as not pressed. However, learned counsel for the intervenor has
requested that whenever the fresh writ petition is filed, notice be served
upon to Mr. Tarun Sanwla-intervenor.
4. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed as not pressed with the
aforesaid liberty.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 6, 2026
Sumit S
Digitally signed by :-
SUMIT SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…