U.P.Council Of Agriculture ... vs Presccribed Authority
2015 Latest Caselaw 3904 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 24
 

 
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 9323 of 1993
 

 
Petitioner :- U.P.Council Of Agriculture Research
 
Respondent :- Presccribed Authority
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.P.Shukla,Avadhesh Kumar Singh,V.K. Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- D.P.Dubey,C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.

It appears that there were two matters listed on 7.11.2005 and Sri V.K.Srivastava was appearing as Counsel for the opposite party in writ petition no. 2234 (SS) of 1991 and in the present petion as counsel for the petitioner and both were dismissed for want of prosecution.

The submission of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that name of Sri V.K.Srivastava has wrongly been transcribed as counsel for the respondent, whereas Sri V.K.Srivastava, Advocate was appearing as counsel for the petitioner, therefore, this petition has wrongly been dismissed for want of prosecution.

This Court feels that Sri V.K.Srivastava was present when the petition was dismissed for want of prosecution, then how it can be said that the knowledge of the dismissal of the present petition for want of prosecution was came in the knowledge only on 18.9.2014, as mentioning the name of Sri V.K.Srivastava as Counsel for the respondent will not make any difference as his presence is recorded in the order. Therefore, petitioner counsel Sri V.K.Srivastava was aware about the dismissal of the present petition for want of prosecution. This position has not been indicated in the affidavit filed in support of Condonation of Delay.Therefore, in the interest of justice two weeks' time is granted to learned Counsel for the applicant to explain the position.

Order Date :- 4.11.2015

Arvind