Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

GAJEY SINGHversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 4 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous due to the petitioner’s non‑appearance and the staleness of the cause of action.

Summary

Petitioner Gajey Singh filed a writ petition (Writ‑C No. 23848 of 2014) before the Allahabad High Court. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and no adjournment was sought. The Court observed that the cause of action had become stale due to the petitioner’s failure to press the petition. Consequently, the writ petition was held to be infructuous and was dismissed, with any interim relief vacated. The Court, however, allowed the petitioner a six‑week window to move an application for recalling the order if he believes the matter still subsists.

Issues considered

  • Whether a writ petition can proceed when the petitioner fails to appear and no adjournment is sought
  • Whether the cause of action becomes stale rendering the petition infructuous

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • staleness
  • infructuous
  • procedural default
  • dismissal

Judgment

                                                     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                               WRIT - C No. - 23848 of 2014

                                    Gajey Singh
                                                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                         Versus

                                    State Of U.P. And 4 Others
                                                                                                .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Pankaj Dubey, Rituvendra             Singh
                                                                        Nagvanshi
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)         : C.S.C., Ramendra Pratap Singh

                                    Court No. - 21
                                                      HON'BLE MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, J.
                                                      HON'BLE KUNAL RAVI SINGH, J.

                                    1. The matter was taken up in the revised list. However, none appeared on
                                    behalf of the petitioner to press the petition, nor has any adjournment slip
                                    been moved. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-
                                    respondents is present.

                                    2. In the absence of any effective representation, it appears that the cause of
                                    action has become stale and the writ petition has been rendered infructuous
                                    by efflux of time.

                                    3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Interim order,
                                    if any, stands vacated.

                                    4. In case the petitioner feels that the matter survives, liberty is granted to
                                    him to move an application for recalling this order within six weeks from
                                    today.


                                                           (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    March 13, 2026
                                    A.K.Srivastava




Digitally signed by :-
ARUN KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.