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

The 26 petitioners, residents of Village Kharipaghara, Tahsil Amlipadar, District Gariyaband, instituted a writ petition against the State of Chhattisgarh and concerned forest and district authorities.

The matter was listed before the High Court on 31 August 2026. There was no appearance on behalf of the petitioners when the case was called twice.

In the absence of representation, the Court proceeded to consider whether the petition should continue.

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution when no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners despite the matter being called twice.

What final order should be passed in the circumstances.

The Court applied the established procedural principle that a proceeding may be dismissed for want of prosecution when the party instituting it fails to appear and pursue the matter despite due listing and calling.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the order; the dismissal was based on the Court’s procedural authority to control its docket and decline to entertain an unattended proceeding.

The petitioners did not appear when the matter was called twice, and there was no representation on their behalf. Consequently, the Court was unable to receive submissions or assess the merits of the writ petition.

Applying the procedural rule permitting dismissal of an unattended proceeding, the Court concluded that the petition could not be kept pending and should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

No adjudication was made on the merits of the underlying dispute, and no substantive relief was granted.