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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

No substantive relief or further direction was granted.