Dismissed¶15

Shri Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC17 Mar 2026WRIA/9016/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Dismissal for non-prosecution; writ petition dismissed as infructuous; oldest pending cases taken up for priority hearing; notice board direction regarding old cases up to 2022; non-appearance of counsel; liberty to file recall/restoration application; Allahabad High Court; WRIT - A No. - 9016 of 2018; Shri Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P.; single bench of Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.; decided March 18, 2026.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to file a recall/restoration application in case any cause of action still survives. ¶15

Shri Prakash Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 9016 of 2018

Shri Prakash Yadav

.....Petitioner(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Santosh Chaubey	Kumar Rai, Surendra Kumar
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Bhanu Bahadur	Pratap Singh, C.S.C., Man Singh

¶9

Court No. - 52

¶10

HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

¶11

Case is called out. None appears for the parties.

¶12

The case is listed in the category of oldest pending cases in the cause list, for priority hearing.

¶13

A notice has been placed on the notice board specifically, mentioning that "old cases up to the year 2022 shall be taken up in the first round itself. In case of non-appearance, matter shall be dismissed as infructuous or otherwise, and in the cases, where the cause of action still survives, the concerned advocates are expected to mark them accordingly in the cause list. Failure to do so, may result in its dismissal as infructuous" but, neither the counsel for the petitioner has appeared nor has the case been marked to indicate that the cause of action still survives.

¶14

Record shows that the matter is pending since the year 2018. It appears that either the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the matter or it has become infructuous.

¶15

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶16

Needless to say that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file recall/restoration application in case any cause of action still survives.

¶17

March 18, 2026 Vinod.

¶18

(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan, J.)

¶19

Digitally signed by :- VINOD KUMAR JAISWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Shri Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Prakash Yadav v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Bhushan vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Radhe Shyam Yadav and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Manju vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Khandeshwari Baba Purv Madhyamik Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ram Ashrey Vs D.D.C.

Surendra Kumar Vs D.D.C. and Others