The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for want of prosecution. The petitioner had died, did not appear, and no substitution application was filed. No substantive adjudication on the merits took place.
Dismissed 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. - 4
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32864 of 2009
Petitioner :- Mauji Ram Gupta Respondent :- Muktesh Kumar Jain Counsel for Petitioner :- Arun Kumar,J.P. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Akalesh Singh Chauhan,K.B. Dixit
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
List revised.
No one has appeared on behalf of petitioner to press the petition.
Sri K. B. Dixit, learned counsel for the respondent, is present and states that the petitioner had died on 07.07.2021 but no substitution application has been filed. It is also contended that petitioner had initiated proceedings under Section 21 of the U.P. Act No. 13 of 1972 and the said application was allowed. Against the order of Prescribed Authority an appeal was filed, which was allowed against which present writ petition has been filed.
In view of the above, writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Order Date :- 22.11.2021
Shekhar
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance and death of the petitioner without substitution.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Mauji Ram Gupta
Muktesh Kumar Jain
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
