Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution after repeated non-appearance by petitioners.

The petition was filed by 73 petitioners before the High Court of Jharkhand against the State of Jharkhand and other respondents.

The judgment does not set out the substantive facts or relief sought in the writ petition.

The matter remained pending from 2021.

On 01.07.2024 and 06.08.2026, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners.

On 10.09.2026, despite repeated calls, no one appeared for the petitioners, while the respondents were represented by counsel.

Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioners repeatedly failed to appear despite opportunities and repeated calls.

Whether any substantive 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 non-prosecution where the party instituting it repeatedly fails to appear and pursue the matter despite opportunities.

No specific statutory provision, precedent, or substantive legal doctrine was discussed or relied upon in the order.

The Court noted that the writ petition was instituted in 2021 and that the petitioners had failed to appear on two earlier dates.

Their continued absence on 10.09.2026, despite repeated calls, demonstrated that they were not prosecuting the proceeding.

In these circumstances, and without the petitioners being present to advance their case or seek relief, the Court declined to proceed on the merits and applied the procedural consequence of dismissal for non-prosecution.

No substantive issue concerning the underlying dispute was adjudicated, and no relief was granted on the merits.