Dismissed¶¶14

Jagdish Chandra Saini and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC4 May 2026WRIC/57652/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (WRIT - C No. 57652 of 2015, Jagdish Chandra Saini v. State of U.P., Allahabad High Court) dismissed for want of prosecution on non-appearance of petitioners/counsel; petition deemed infructuous or abandoned; interim order, if any, discharged; condition imposed that recall/restoration applications require personal affidavit of petitioner. No substantive law point decided; no statutes or precedents cited.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution, no one having appeared for the petitioners to press it. ¶¶14

Jagdish Chandra Saini and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 57652 of 2015

¶3

Jagdish Chandra Saini And 2 Others

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶7

.....Respondent(s)

¶8

Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: D.K. Mishra
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.), C.S.C.,
	Kartikeya Saran, Mahendra Pratap, Tejasvi Misra

¶9

Court No. - 1

¶10

HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J. HON'BLE INDRAJEET SHUKLA, J.

¶11

Case called out in the revised list. Nobody has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner to press this petition, however, Sri Gaurang Tiwari, learned Advocate holding brief of Sri Tejasvi Misra, learned counsel for the respondent as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents is present.

¶12

The matter is of the year 2015 which is listed in the category of oldest pending cases for priority hearing.

¶13

It appears, therefore, that either writ petition has rendered infructuous due to efflux of time or the petitioner is otherwise no more interested in pursuing the matter.

¶14