Allahabad High Court
JYOTIKA SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND 3 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed as not pressed, with liberty to the petitioner to seek relief through appropriate legal means.
Summary
The petitioner, Jyotika Singh, filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the fourth respondent to consider and decide her restoration application within the prescribed time. The respondents contended that the application had already been rejected on 25‑07‑2017, rendering the relief sought untenable. The petitioner’s counsel agreed that the petition could be dismissed as not pressed and suggested that the petitioner could seek relief through appropriate legal channels. The Court held that the writ petition was indeed not pressed and dismissed it, granting the petitioner liberty to pursue the relief in accordance with law. No substantive merits of the restoration application were addressed, and the petition was dismissed without any order on the underlying application.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate disposition of a writ petition that is not pressed because the relief sought has already been denied?
Subjects
- writ petition
- restoration application
- not pressed
- dismissal
- High Court of Allahabad
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 18556 of 2026
Jyotika Singh
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Devansh Misra, Sanjay Kumar Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Anuj Pratap Singh, C.S.C.
Court No. - 21
HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.
1. We have heard Sri Devansh Misra, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Ms. Uttara Bahuguna, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. Sri
S.K. Mishra appears for the the U.P. State Industrial Development
Authority.
2. The instant writ petition is preferred with an innocuous prayer for a
direction commanding the respondent no. 4 to consider and decide the
restoration application preferred by the petitioner well within the
stipulated time.
3. At the outset, Sri S.K. Mishra, on the instructions, submits that no such
relief can be accorded as the representation already stood rejected on
25.07.2017.
4. Confronted with the situation, Sri Devansh Misra, learned counsel for
the petitioner submits that the instant writ petition may be dismissed as
not pressed and leave may be accorded to press the relief in accordance
with law.
5. Accordingly, the instant writ petition dismissed as not pressed with the
aforesaid liberty.
(Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
May 12, 2026
gp
Digitally signed by :-
GANESH PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…