The High Court dismissed the writ petition by the petitioner for want of prosecution, noting the absence of the petitioner or counsel to press the case despite prior notice.
Writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution; interim order vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 3
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14393 of 2007
Petitioner :- Mahendra Bahadur Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Principal Secretary Agricluture And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.
Notice was issued to the petitioner to engage another counsel in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 18.09.2018.
Perused the office report dated 24.10.2018 which states that neither unserved notice nor Vakalatnama has been received yet. Notice upon the petitioner is deemed to be sufficient.
No one appears on behalf of the petitioner to press the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, is any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 21.11.2019 Sattyarth
Mahendra Bahadur Singh
State Of U.P.
Saral Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
