The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous because the respondent had already passed an order on the date of the counter affidavit, rendering the petition's cause of action moot.
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
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. - 3
Case :- WRIT TAX No. - 440 of 2022
Petitioner :- Girish Chandra Yadav Respondent :- State Of U P And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Prince Kumar Srivastava,Satyendra Kumar Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Jayant Banerji,J.
None appears for the petitioner even in the revised call.
Sri B.P. Singh Kachhawah, learned standing counsel has filed a counter affidavit/ personal affidavit dated 19.04.2022, which is taken on record.
Perusal of the aforesaid counter affidavit shows that the respondent No.2 has passed an order dated 16.04.2022.
In view of the aforesaid, no cause of action survives in the present writ petition inasmuch as the present writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent No.2 to decide his representation, which has been decided by the aforesaid order.
In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 19.4.2022 NLY
Digitally signed by NAND LAL YADAV Date: 2022.04.20 11:06:31 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition survives in light of the subsequent order passed by the respondent.
Girish Chandra Yadav
State Of U P
Another
Surya Prakash Kesarwani
Jayant Banerji
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
