Dismissed¶22

Ashok Kumar Rajbhar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Allahabad HC31 Jul 2025CRLP/12164/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution; writ petition pending since 2019 abandoned by petitioner and counsel; repeated adjournments (10.7.2025 illness; 17.7.2025 personal reasons); no appearance on final date; maxims Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt and Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium applied; no merits adjudication; interim orders vacated; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Saurabh Lavania J.; Criminal Misc. Writ Petition 12164 of 2019; Ashok Kumar Rajbhar v. State of U.P.; 2025:AHC-LKO:44566.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner and the counsel engaged by him had lost interest in the case and were not interested in pursuing the petition pending since 2019; accordingly the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution instead of being disposed of on merits. ¶22

Ashok Kumar Rajbhar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors. — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:44566

¶2

Court No. - 13

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 12164 of 2019

¶4

Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Rajbhar Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Bal Keshwar Srivastava,Versha Rani Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Babu Ram

¶5

Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

¶6

Case called out in revised list. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition. However, learned State Counsel is present.

¶7

On 10.07.2025 this Court passed the following order:-

¶8

"Sri Bal Keshwar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner is reported to be ill. Accordingly, the case is adjourned for the day.

¶9

List this case on 17.07.2025.

¶10

Interim order, if any, granted earlier shall continue till the next date of listing.

¶11

It is made clear that on the next date of listing, the case would not be adjourned on any ground including illness and appropriate order would be passed in the first call."

¶12

On 17.07.2025 the following order was passed:-

¶13

"It has been informed at the Bar that on account of some personal reasons learned counsel for the petitioner is not able to argue the case.

¶14

In the interest of justice, the case is adjourned for the day.

¶15

List/put up this case on 31.07.2025 in terms of order dated 10.07.2025 passed by this Court.

¶16

Interim order, if any, shall continue till the next date of listing."

¶17

It appears that the petitioner and the counsel engaged by him have lost the interest in the case and are not interested in pursuing the petition, which is pending since 2019.

¶18

It would be appropriate to refer two maxims:-

¶19

(i) Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (The law assists only those who are vigilant, and not those who sleep over their rights); and

¶20

(ii) Interest reipublicae ut sit finis litium (In the interest of the society as a whole, the litigation must come to an end).

¶21

The above said two maxims are sister provisions, which would highlight and spotlight that the party seeking remedy before the Court should be vigilant, otherwise, the law would not come to their help and there should be end to litigation.

¶22

Considering the aforesaid, this Court feels that the petition should not be disposed of on merits and should be dismissed for non-prosecution. Accordingly, it is dismissed for nonprosecution. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

¶23

Order Date :- 31.7.2025 Anand/-

¶24

Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ashok Kumar Rajbhar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar Rajbhar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lucknow and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Om Prakash vs Sri Ravindra Kumar, Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Agricultural Edu. and Research Lko. and Others

Juvenile X Thru. His Natural Guardian, Mother Y vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Lucknow and Another

Smt. Anara Devi vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Rajesh Vs State of U.P.

Ram Rang Shukla vs Sri Umesh Chandra Diwedi, Secy. Gram Panchayat Bhithaura, Gonda and Another

Smt. Ram Dulari and 4 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko and Another