Repeated non-appearance by applicants warrants dismissal of the original application for want of prosecution.

The applicants, 27 Tax Assistants, instituted Original Application No. 1259 of 2025 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, against the Union of India, authorities of the Income Tax Department, and 25 private respondents who were serving as Office Superintendents/Superintendents in the Department.

The applicants were represented by Shri Devanshu Nandi, who was absent when the matter was called. On the date of hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the applicants. The Tribunal recorded that the applicants had also remained unrepresented on the previous date, 15 June 2026.

Counsel appeared for respondents 1–4 and respondents 5–29.

Whether the Original Application was liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution when neither the applicants nor their counsel appeared on the date of hearing and there had also been no representation on the previous date?

Whether, in the absence of representation by the applicants and in view of their apparent lack of interest in pursuing the matter, the Tribunal could dismiss the Original Application without adjudicating its merits?

The Tribunal applied the procedural principle that a court or tribunal may dismiss a proceeding for want of prosecution where the party instituting it repeatedly fails to appear or take steps to pursue the matter.

The order was based on the Tribunal’s inherent procedural power to prevent the pendency of an unattended proceeding and did not involve the determination or application of any substantive statutory provision, constitutional principle, or judicial precedent.

The Tribunal noted that the applicants were absent when the matter was called and that their counsel was also not present.

Since the applicants had similarly failed to secure representation on 15 June 2026, the Tribunal inferred that they had lost interest in pursuing the Original Application.

In those circumstances, and with counsel for all respondents present, the Tribunal concluded that there was no effective prosecution of the case and that dismissal for want of prosecution was warranted. The Tribunal therefore declined to examine the substantive merits of the applicants’ claims.

Original Application No. 1259 of 2025 was dismissed for want of prosecution, as the applicants had failed to appear on the date of hearing and had also been unrepresented on the previous date.

No relief was granted and no adjudication was made on the merits of the applicants’ claims.