The High Court dismissed the writ petition, filed in 2007, for want of prosecution. The rejection was due to the absence of the petitioner's counsel without satisfactory justification and the age of the case. Any interim order was discharged.
Discrimination of the interim order. Dismissal of the writ petition for want of prosecution.
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. - 38
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4559 of 2007
Petitioner :- Naresh Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Nigam,R.N. Srivastava,Shri Ram Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Monika Arya,S.C.,S.C. Mishra
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
List has been revised.
This is a writ petition of the year 2007. Prayer made for adjournment on behalf of the petitioner is not liable to be entertained, particularly, when no satisfactory justification for the absence of petitioner's counsel is disclosed to the Court. Routine adjournment cannot be granted in matters which are more than 10 years old. Ms. Monika Arya is present for the respondents.
Writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Order Date :- 24.7.2019 Ranjeet Sahu
Naresh Kumar
Union Of India
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
