1. We heard Mr. Kamal Nayan Choubey, Senior Counsel for the appellant. He vehemently contended that when the petitioner or his counsel did not appear, the Single Judge had two options viz.; (i) adjourn the case; or (ii) dismiss the case for default. He would, thus, contend that because of non-appearance of the petitioner or his counsel, the Single Judge could not have considered the matter on merit. He placed heavy reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Kishori Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar and Others, 2008 2 PLJR 458, more particularly, paragraph 3 of the report. That reads thus:

"We have also earlier made it clear and we again make it clear that where the. learned counsel for the petitioner is not present, the ordinary course is either to postpone the hearing or to dismiss it for want of prosecution but in no circumstances it is to be decided on merit. The same view has also been taken by the Hon ble Supreme Court in number of matters."

2. In our view, the aforesaid observations cannot be said to laying down an absolute proposition that in absence of the party or his counsel, writ petition cannot be decided on merits. It could not have been