Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner’s repeated absence at hearings.

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to respondents 1 to 3—the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board authorities—to compensate him to the extent of ₹7,20,000 for alleged crop and cattle losses.

He also sought an order restraining the discharge of treated effluent and raw sewage into the Karisalkulam Peria Kanmai in Survey No.286, and a direction to the District Collector to protect the waterbody from encroachment and preserve it.

When the matter was listed on 22 September 2026, there was no representation for the petitioner, and it was posted under the caption “For Dismissal.” The petitioner remained unrepresented on 23 September 2026 as well.

1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner failed to appear on two successive hearing dates.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to the substantive reliefs of compensation, prevention of effluent discharge, and protection of the Karisalkulam Peria Kanmai.

The petition was invoked under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers the High Court to issue writs and appropriate directions.

The Court applied the procedural principle that a writ petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution where the petitioner or counsel fails to appear when the matter is called for hearing, particularly after the case has been posted for dismissal.

Since the petition was dismissed on a procedural ground, the Court did not adjudicate the underlying environmental, compensation, or waterbody-protection claims.

The Court noted that the petitioner was absent when the matter was heard on 22 September 2026 and again when it was listed for dismissal on 23 September 2026.

In the absence of any representation or explanation for the petitioner’s non-appearance, the Court held that it had no alternative but to dismiss the proceedings for non-prosecution.

Consequently, the Court did not examine whether the alleged sewage discharge caused the claimed crop and cattle losses, whether compensation was legally recoverable, or whether directions concerning the Kanmai were warranted.

No order was made as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition, W.M.P.(MD) No.9364 of 2024, was closed.

The substantive reliefs sought by the petitioner were therefore left undecided.