Writ Petition Dismissed for Non-Prosecution After No Counsel Appeared to Pursue It.

The petitioner sought directions for preparation and payment of pending running and final bills for tender works, return of security and other deposits, and related reliefs

At the hearing, counsel appearing for the petitioner stated that the brief had been taken away and that counsel had no instructions to pursue the matter

The petition had also been listed earlier, on 1 September 2026, when no one appeared for the petitioner

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution when no one appeared to pursue it on the petitioner’s behalf

The judgment cites no statute, precedent, or express procedural rule.

It applies the procedural consequence of non-prosecution: where the petitioner is not represented by anyone able to pursue the case, the court may dismiss the petition without deciding its substantive claims

Counsel for the petitioner expressly stated that there were no instructions to pursue the matter, and the petitioner had also failed to appear at the previous listing

With no one present to press the petition, the Court dismissed it for non-prosecution rather than examining the claims for unpaid bills, withheld deposits, or other reliefs on their merits

It made no determination on the merits of the petitioner’s claims.