Dismissed¶13

Kundan Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Allahabad High Court (Anish Kumar Gupta, J.) – WRIT

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WRIA/38876/2010

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal as infructuous; death/expiry of sole petitioner during pendency of writ petition; writ of certiorari against order dated 10.6.2010 passed by respondent no. 3; mandamus for continuation on Class III post and month-to-month salary; Kundan Singh v. State of U.P. and Others; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; WRIT - A No. 38876 of 2010; Anish Kumar Gupta, J.; no substantive adjudication; no statutory provision or precedent discussed.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, as the sole petitioner expired during the pendency of the petition. ¶13

Kundan Singh Vs State of U.P. and Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 38876 of 2010

¶2

Kundan Singh

¶3

.....Petitioner(s)

¶4

	Versus
State of U.P. and Others		.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Anupam Kumar, Pavan Kumar, Shivendu Ojha	Harishchandra Dubey, Shatrughan Sonwal,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.

¶5

Court No. - 34

¶6

(SN.27)

¶7

HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

¶8

Heard Sri Shravan Kumar Yadav, Advocate, holding brief of Sri Harishchandra Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vivek Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State.

¶9

The instant petition was filed with the following prayers:

¶10

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 10.6.2010 passed by the respondent no. 3 (Annexure no. 1)

¶11

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in nature of Mandamus directing the concerned respondents that the petitioner who has not been relieved till date from the said post may be allowed to continue on the said Class III post till pendency of this writ petition and the applicable salary may be paid to the petitioner month to month."

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the sole petitioner has now expired during the pendency of the instant petition. In such view of the matter, the instant petition has become infructuous.

¶13

Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed as infructuous .

¶14

(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)

¶15

May 5, 2026 Shubham Arya

¶16

Digitally signed by :- SHUBHAM ARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kundan Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kundan Singh v. State of U.P. and Others

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

Smt. Dulari Vs D.D.C. and Others

Committee of Management, A.S. Degree College Association and Another vs State of Up and 3 Others

Shashima Maurya Vs State of U.P.and Others

Anil Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Others

Ram Lal Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Yashodhara Devi Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others