The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dismissed this Article 226 petition for want of prosecution due to the non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel on the listed date without seeking an adjournment.
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. - 84
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1242 of 2021
Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kandarp Srivastava,Kaustubh Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
This is Item No.2 of the fresh list called at 10.06 A.M. However, Kandarp Srivastava and Kaustubh Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner are not present as well as no one has appeared on his behalf to make a request for adjournment or otherwise.
This approach of Advocates is absolutely unacceptable.
This petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Order Date :- 29.9.2022 SB
(Serial No.2 out of 459 fresh cases)
Digitally signed by SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA Date: 2022.09.29 17:23:08 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Raj Kumar
State Of U.P.
Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
