Allahabad High Court
RINKU KUMAR GAUTAMversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
A writ petition (Writ C No. 22952 of 2026) was filed by Rinku Kumar Gautam against the State of U.P. and others. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner, and the petition was not prosecuted. The High Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution and ordered the petitioner to pay costs of Rs. 2,000. The order stipulated that the cost must be paid within a week into the High Court Bar Association's bank account, and no application to recall the order would be entertained without proof of payment. The judgment was delivered by Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery on September 23, 2026.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate remedy when a writ petition is not prosecuted?
Subjects
- procedural law
- writ petition
- cost order
- dismissal for want of prosecution
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 22952 of 2026
Rinku Kumar Gautam
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 5 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Brijesh Kumar Yadav, Inarmal Yadav
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Farook Ahmad Khan
Court No. - 36
HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
1. Case called. None appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
2. According the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution at the
cost of Rs. 2,000/-.
3. No application to recall the order will be will be registered without
proof of payment of cost.
4. The cost shall be paid within a week in the bank account of High Court
Bar Association.
(Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.)
September 23, 2026
Kumar Manish
Digitally signed by :-
MANISH TRIPATHI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…