M/S Vishal Mini Rice Mill vs State Of U.P. Through Secretary, ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 1263 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 

 
Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 4044 of 2001
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S Vishal Mini Rice Mill
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Food & Civil Supply,Lucknow
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Mathur,Rajesh Verma,Ram Kailash
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.

(C.M.Application No. 41836 of 2017)

1. Heard.

2. Delay in filing application is explained satisfactory. It is hereby condoned.

3. This application is accordingly allowed.

Order Date :- 26.5.2017

Pachhere/-

Case :- MISC. BENCH No. - 4044 of 2001

Petitioner :- M/S Vishal Mini Rice Mill

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary, Food & Civil Supply,Lucknow

Counsel for Petitioner :- J.P. Mathur,Rajesh Verma,Ram Kailash

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sandeep Kumar Singh

Hon'ble Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.

Hon'ble Ravindra Nath Mishra-II,J.

(C.M.Application No. 41840 of 2001)

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel.

2. This is an application for recall of the order dated 23.02.2017 apparently on the ground that petition was dismissed for non prosecution.

3. From the perusal of order dated 23.02.2017 reveals that learned counsel for the petitioner was not present in the revised list and he has also not made any alternative arrangements, despite order dated 17.02.2017 wherein while adjourning the case on the illness slip of the petitioner Court directed learned counsel for the petitioner to make alternative arrangement if he is not available on the next date and on the date fixed neither learned counsel for the petitioner was present nor any alternative arrangement was made by him. The court with the assistance of learned Additional Chief Standing counsel gone through the contents of writ petition as well as counter affidavit and came to the conclusion that the petition is short of pleadings and dismissed the same.

4. As the pleadings and record were examined by the Court, thereafter, Court came to the conclusion that the petitioner is short Pleadings and dismissed the same, therefore, this is not a case where order is to be recalled appreciating the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner was not present in the revised list when the case was taken up. Writ petition was not dismissed for want of prosecution but on finding that same is short of pleadings.

5. Accordingly, application being misconceived, dismissed.

Order Date :- 26.5.2017

Pachhere/-