The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous since no one appeared to press the matter during hearing. Interim orders were 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. - 37
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2 of 2018
Petitioner :- Atul Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhileshwar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vimlesh Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J.
List has been revised. Even though Sri Vimlesh Kumar Rai was present, no one appeared to press the petition. This writ petition has been listed under the heading of infructuous cases. It appears that either the petitioner has lost interest in the matter or the issue has become infructuous.
In that view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
However, it may be provided that in the event the matter survives, the petitioner would be at liberty to move an application for restoration.
Order Date :- 24.3.2022 PK
(Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.03.25 17:26:12 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Atul Kumar Srivastava
State Of U.P.
Siddhartha Varma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
