Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SMT. SAVITRI DEVIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

Summary

Smt. Savitri Devi filed a writ petition (Writ‑C No. 56722 of 2012) against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others. No counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioner and no adjournment was sought. The Court held that the cause of action had become stale and the petition was rendered infructuous due to the passage of time. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and any interim relief previously granted was vacated. The Court, however, allowed the petitioner a six‑week window to move an application seeking recall of the order if she believes the matter still subsists.

Issues considered

  • The petition is infructuous and stale due to non‑appearance of counsel and passage of time.

Subjects

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

Judgment

                                                     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                               WRIT - C No. - 56722 of 2012

                                    Smt. Savitri Devi
                                                                                                  .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                         Versus

                                    State of U.P. and Others
                                                                                                .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)         : Dinesh Kumar, Jagadeesh Prasad
                                                                        Chaurasiya
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)         : C.S.C., Nitin Kumar Agarwal, Nitin
                                                                        Kumar Agrawal

                                    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
                                    her to move an application for recalling this order within six weeks from
                                    today.



                                                           (Kunal Ravi Singh,J.) (Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.)
                                    March 18, 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.