Chhattisgarh High CourtCivil Procedure and EvidenceAdministrative and Public Law

Petition dismissed for want of prosecution due to petitioners’ repeated non-appearance.

SUKHDEV MANDALv.STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Petition dismissed for want of prosecution due to petitioners’ repeated non-appearance.. SUKHDEV MANDAL vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH. Chhattisgarh High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution when there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners despite the matter being called twice?

The court held

The High Court dismissed WPC No. 5759 of 2024 for want of prosecution because there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners when the matter was called twice.

It also directed

No substantive relief or further direction was granted.

01Facts

The 42 petitioners instituted a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur against the State authorities, the Principal of Government Engineering College, Ambikapur, and Gram Panchayat Digma.

When the matter was called, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners, even after the case was called twice.

¶ 1

The Court consequently considered dismissal of the petition for want of prosecution.

¶ 1

02Issues

i.Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution when there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners despite the matter being called twice?

¶ 1

ii.Whether any relief could be granted in the absence of appearance or prosecution by the petitioners?

¶ 1–2

03Law Applied

The Court applied the procedural principle that a proceeding may be dismissed for want of prosecution where the party initiating the proceeding fails to appear and pursue it when the matter is called.

¶ 1–2

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order; the dismissal was based on the Court’s procedural authority to prevent a proceeding from remaining pending without prosecution.

¶ 1–2

04Reasoning

The petitioners’ absence, despite the matter being called twice, demonstrated that the writ petition was not being prosecuted.

¶ 1

In the absence of representation, the Court had no submissions or instructions from the petitioners on the merits of the case and therefore found no basis to adjudicate or grant relief.

¶ 1

The Court accordingly exercised its procedural discretion to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution.

¶ 1

05Holding

The High Court dismissed WPC No. 5759 of 2024 for want of prosecution because there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners when the matter was called twice.

¶ 2

No substantive relief or further direction was granted.

¶ 2
Chhattisgarh High Court

Original Court PDF

SUKHDEV MANDALvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Chhattisgarh High Court · August 31, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment