The Allahabad High Court dismissed a PIL seeking to quash a tender notice for want of prosecution. The court noted concealment regarding earlier filed petitions and the petitioner's failure to appear at the final hearing date.
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.
Chief Justice's Court Serial No. 322
**HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD *****
PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION (PIL) No. - 13841 of 2012
Nar Singh
.....Petitioner
v/s
The State of U.P. and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, JUDGE
ORDER
"At the outset an objection has been raised by Sri Shyam Sunder Mishra, learned counsel for respondent nos. 3 and 4 that the petitioner had approached this Court earlier through writ petition no. 50580 of 2011 which was dismissed as withdrawn and writ petition no. 378 of 2012 wherein time has been granted to file counter affidavit but this fact has deliberately not been disclosed in this public interest litigation.
Put up this matter on Wednesday next i.e. 04.04.2012 along with writ petition no. 50580 of 2011 and writ petition no. 378 of 2012."
2 WPIL No. 13841 of 2012
of hearing i.e. February 2, 2022, no one appeared for the petitioner.
(Piyush Agrawal, J.) (Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)
Allahabad 03.03.2022 SA/Madhurima
Whether the order is speaking : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable : Yes/No
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to concealment of prior petitions and non-appearance.
Whether the relief prayed for in the writ petition has become infructuous.
Nar Singh
The State of U.P.
Rajesh Bindal
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
