Held that the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioner's counsel did not appear and there was no proof of compliance with a conditional order. The interim order dated 11.9.2003 stands discharged.
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. The interim order dated 11.9.2003 is discharged.
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. - 30
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 40528 of 2003
Petitioner :- Gauri Shanker Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Umesh Chandra Sharma,J.
None appears for the petitioner even in revised call. However, Shri Arvind Kumar Mishra, learned A.C.S.C. is present for the State.
There is no proof of compliance of the conditional order dated 11.9.2003. The matter pertains to the year 2003, it seems that by efflux of time either cause of action is no more surviving or for any other reason the petition has rendered infructuous. That is why none has appeared to press the petition.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order dated 11.9.2003 stands discharged.
Order Date :- 2.12.2022 S.Verma
Digitally signed by SANDEEP KUMAR VERMA Date: 2022.12.03 17:04:40 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Gauri Shanker
State of U.P.
Umesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
