Allahabad High Court
ZULFIKAR ALIversusSTATE OF UP AND ANOTHER
- Decided
Holding
The petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution due to the petitioner’s failure to comply with the Court’s orders.
Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition against the State of U.P. and a bank, seeking relief. The High Court ordered the petitioner to deposit a bank draft of Rs. 7,50,000 in favour of the respondent bank by 04‑08‑2026 and to produce proof of deposit. The petitioner failed to appear, sought adjournments, and was given a final one‑week extension to comply by 23‑09‑2026, after which no representation was made. The Court held that the petitioner’s repeated non‑appearance and failure to obey the interim orders amounted to non‑prosecution. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court expressly stating that the pendency of the writ does not confer any interim protection. The dismissal was pronounced in the presence of the respondent’s counsel, Ramesh Kumar Shukla.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition may be dismissed for non‑prosecution when the petitioner fails to comply with the Court's interim order to make a payment?
Subjects
- non-prosecution
- writ petition
- interim order
- failure to comply
- dismissal
- Allahabad High Court
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
WRIT - C No. - 29294 of 2026
Zulfikar Ali
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Imtiaz Husain
Counsel for Respondent(s) : Ramesh Kumar Shukla, C.S.C.
Court No. - 2
HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.
HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.
Case called on. No one appears on behalf of the petitioner.
On 29.07.2026 the following order was made:
"1. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner is ready and willing to make the payment.
2. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner is directed
to place the bank draft of Rs. 7,50,000/- in favour of the respondent-Bank
by Tuesday next i.e. 04.08.2026 or deposit the same with the respondent -
Bank and place proof of deposit before this Court.
3. Put up as fresh on 04.08.2026 showing the name of Sri Ramesh Kumar
Shukla as counsel for the respondent - Bank.
4. This order has been passed in presence of Sri Ramesh Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the respondent - Bank.
5. It is made clear that pendency of the present writ petition will not be
treated that any interim protection is granted by this Court."
Again on 18.08.2026 there is a prayer to adjourn on account of which the
matter was posted to 07.09.2026. The matter next came up on 14.09.2026
when the following order was passed:
"1. As a last opportunity, learned counsel for the petitioner is granted a
WRIC No. 29294 of 2026
2
week's time to comply with the order dated 29.07.2026.
2. Put up as fresh on 23.09.2026.
3. It is made clear that pendency of this petition shall not be treated to be
stay of any proceeding, which may be going elsewhere."
Today when the case is called on no one appears on behalf of the
petitioner.
This petition is, accordingly, dismissed on account of non-prosecution.
Mr. Ramesh Kumar Shukla appears on behalf of the Bank.
(Indrajeet Shukla,J.) (J.J. Munir,J.)
September 23, 2026
S.P.
Digitally signed by :-
SANJAY PURI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…