Back
2025 Supreme(AP) 107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
RAVI NATH TILHARI, MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, JJ.
Y.B. Haranath, VIS. S/o. late Venkataramaiah - Appellant
Vs.
Sri Satyanarayan Swamy Temple, VIS. & Others - Respondent
WRIT PETITION NO: 8549 OF 2008
Decided On : 24-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P SRI RAGHU RAM
For the Respondent: GP FOR LAND ACQUISITION
A writ petition can be dismissed for want of prosecution if the petitioner fails to make alternative arrangements for representation after being directed to do so.
Headnote:
(A) Writ Procedure - Dismissal for Want of Prosecution - The court dismissed the writ petition due to the petitioner's failure to make alternative arrangements after the previous order directed them to do so - The petitioner was served notice but did not respond - The court emphasized the importance of representation in legal proceedings. (Paras 1-5)
(B) Adjournment - The court declined the request for adjournment as the petitioner had already been given sufficient opportunity to arrange for representation. (Paras 3-4)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was represented by counsel who had given up their Vakalat, and despite being served notice, the petitioner failed to make alternative arrangements for representation.
Findings of Court:
The writ petition was dismissed due to lack of prosecution, highlighting the necessity for parties to actively engage in their legal matters.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner had made adequate arrangements for representation after being notified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the dismissal was warranted due to the petitioner's inaction and failure to comply with the court's directive to secure representation.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed for want of prosecution.
ORDER :
Ravi Nath Tilhari, J.
On 28.08.2024, the following order was passed:
“As it is represented that Mr.P.Sri Raghu Ram has given up his Vakalat and no longer represents that petitioner, list this case on 18.09.2024.
2. Registry is directed to issue notice to the petitioner to enable him to make alternative arrangements”.
2. As per the office report, the petitioner has been served on 14.10.2024.
3. Ms. Y.Bhanu Sri Akhila, learned counsel representing Sri P.Sri Raghu Ram, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that no-objection vakalat was given and seeks adjournment. This fact was already recorded in the order dated 28.08.2024, directing the petitioner to make alternative arrangements. However, despite service of the notice, the petitioner has not made any alternative arrangements. Adjournment is declined.
4. Today, when the matter is taken up, there is no other representation for the petitioner.
5. The Writ Petition is dismissed “for want of prosecution”.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
