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.
¶ 1The Court consequently considered dismissal of the petition for want of prosecution.
¶ 102Issues
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?
¶ 1ii.Whether any relief could be granted in the absence of appearance or prosecution by the petitioners?
¶ 1–203Law 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.
¶ 1–2No 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.
¶ 1–204Reasoning
The petitioners’ absence, despite the matter being called twice, demonstrated that the writ petition was not being prosecuted.
¶ 1In 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.
¶ 1The Court accordingly exercised its procedural discretion to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution.
¶ 105Holding
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.
¶ 2No substantive relief or further direction was granted.
¶ 2Original Court PDF
SUKHDEV MANDALvsSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
