Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

SADA NAND SHUKLA ADVOCATEversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

Decided

Holding

The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 62718 of 2010 before the Allahabad High Court seeking relief against the State of U.P. and another respondent. The matter was listed for hearing, but on the date of hearing no petitioner or their counsel appeared. The respondent counsel, including R.K. Shukla and the State's standing counsel, were present. The court observed that the petition had either become infructuous due to the lapse of time or the petitioner was no longer interested in pursuing the writ. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution and discharged any interim orders that might have been in force.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate course of action when a petitioner fails to appear for a scheduled hearing and appears to have abandoned the writ petition?

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • dismissal
  • want of prosecution
  • procedural lapse
  • time bar

Judgment

                                                    HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

                                                                WRIT - C No. - 62718 of 2010

                                    Sada Nand Shukla Advocate
                                                                                                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                                Versus
                                    State of U.P. and Another
                                                                                                            .....Respondent(s)

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)                      :     K.D. Tiwari, Sada Nand Shukla
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)                      :     Aalok Kumar Srivastava, C.S.C.

                                    Court No. - 1
                                                       HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
                                                       HON'BLE SWARUPAMA CHATURVEDI, J.

                                    List is being revised. Nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner whereas Sri
                                    R.K.Shukla, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 as well as learned Standing Counsel
                                    representing State respondent are present.

                                    The matter is of the year 2010. It appears that either matter has rendered infructuous
                                    due to efflux of time or the petitioner is no more interesting in pursuing the writ
                                    petition.

                                    However, since petitioner is not present, we are dismissing the present petition for
                                    want of prosecution.

                                    Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

                                    March 18, 2026
                                    Sanjeev
                                                                          (Swarupama Chaturvedi,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
SANJEEV RANJAN
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.