Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

M/S TULSYAN COAL COMPANYversusSTATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The petition was dismissed for want of prosecution because the petitioner failed to appear before the court.

Summary

M/s Tulsyan Coal Company filed a writ petition against the State of U.P. and others. The petition was listed under “Old Pending Cases for Priority Hearing” for the year 2008. When the case was called in the revised list, the petitioner’s counsel, Anand Tewari, was not present. The court therefore dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. Consequently, any interim order that may have been in force was vacated.

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • procedural default
  • vacated interim order
  • dismissal for want of prosecution

Judgment

                                             HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                                                            WRIT - C No. - 63208 of 2008

                                    M/S Tulsyan Coal Company
                                                                                                .....Petitioner(s)
                                                                       Versus

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

                                    Counsel for Petitioner(s)                       :      Anand Tewari
                                    Counsel for Respondent(s)                       :      C.S.C.

                                    Court No. - 40
                                                     HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.
                                                     HON'BLE SUDHANSHU CHAUHAN, J.

                                    1. The writ petition is listed under the heading “Old Pending Cases for
                                    Priority Hearing.” The petition pertains to the year 2008 and has been
                                    listed peremptorily.

                                    2. When the case is called out in the revised list, learned counsel for the
                                    petitioner is not present.

                                    3. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

                                    4. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.



                                                               (Sudhanshu Chauhan,J.) (Saral Srivastava,J.)
                                    September 8, 2026
                                    Nadeem




Digitally signed by :-
NADEEM AHMAD
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.