The High Court discharged an interim order and dismissed the old writ petition for want of prosecution as the petitioner was absent and had lost interest in the matter.
Interim order discharged; writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution.
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. - 9
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34092 of 1995
Petitioner :- Mohd.Yaqoob Respondent :- Dy.Transport Commissioner And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Cp Ghildyal Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Prakash Padia,J.
List has been revised but nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner whereas, learned Standing counsel for the State is present.
The matter is old one and it relates to the year 1995.
It appears from perusal of the record that either the writ petition has become infructuous by lapse of time or the parties have lost their interest to proceed with the matter.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stands discharged.
Since nobody is present on behalf of the petitioner, it is open to the petitioner to file application for recall of this order within two months in case the matter still survives.
Order Date :- 16.1.2023 S.K.
Digitally signed by :- SWEETY KANOJIA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Mohd. Yaqoob
Dy. Transport Commissioner
The State
Prakash Padia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
