Facts
The petitioners (six individuals residing in Kodambakkam, Chennai) filed a Writ Petition seeking to quash planning permission (No. PPA/WDCN10/02354/2025) and building permission (No. BA/WDCN10/03179/2025) issued by the 7th Respondent.
Source reference: p. 3They further sought a direction for Respondents 1, 6, and 7 to remove alleged encroachments to ensure free public access to Baskara Street and requested a fresh survey of properties in Survey No. 9, Block No. 48, Puliyur Village.
Source reference: p. 3Procedurally, when the matter was first called on 27.04.2026, there was no representation for the petitioners. Consequently, the Registry listed the matter under the caption "for dismissal" on 28.04.2026.
Source reference: p. 3-4Issues
1. Whether the Writ Petition is maintainable when the petitioners consistently fail to appear before the Court to prosecute the matter.
Source reference: p. 4Law Applied
The court applied the procedural principle of "Dismissal for Non-Prosecution" under the Code of Civil Procedure and the High Court Writ Rules.
Source reference: p. 4This principle dictates that if a petitioner/plaintiff fails to appear when the case is called for hearing, the court may dismiss the action to prevent the stagnation of the judicial calendar and ensure the efficient administration of justice.
Source reference: p. 4Reasoning
The Court observed that the petitioners were absent during the initial hearing on 27.04.2026.
Source reference: p. 3To provide the petitioners with a fair opportunity, the Court directed the matter to be listed specifically under the caption "for dismissal" on a subsequent date. However, upon the matter being called again on 30.04.2026, there was still no representation for the petitioners.
Source reference: p. 4The Court determined that the continued absence indicated a lack of diligence in pursuing the legal remedy sought. Since the petitioners failed to represent their grievances or provide grounds for the requested relief, the Court exercised its power to dismiss the proceedings without delving into the merits of the planning permissions or encroachment claims.
Source reference: p. 4Holding
The Court answered the issue in the negative and dismissed the Writ Petition for non-prosecution.
No costs were awarded. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP No. 41746 & 41747 of 2025) were closed.
Source reference: p. 4, 6Original Court PDF
AFTHAB BEGUMvsTHE COMMISSIONER
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in