Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1087
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
S. Thirupathi - Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Theni District, Theni. – Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.16102 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.12784 to 12786 of 2017
Decided On : 28-08-2024
Important Points
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to show interest in pursuing the case.
Subject
Civil Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
DISMISSAL - WRIT PETITION - The court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution, indicating the petitioner's lack of interest in pursuing the case, despite prior opportunities to represent their claims. The court emphasized the importance of active participation in legal proceedings and the consequences of inaction.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order and to be reinstated in service with back wages and benefits. The case was pending since 2017.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that there was no representation from the petitioner on the last hearing date and that a memo indicated the counsel had returned the case bundle to the petitioner. The court inferred a lack of interest from the petitioner in prosecuting the case.
Issues: Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to appear and represent their case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a lack of representation and interest in pursuing the case justifies dismissal for non-prosecution, reinforcing the principle that parties must actively engage in legal proceedings.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
For the Petitioner: Mr. K. Guhan.
For the Respondent:Mr. S. Kameswaran, Government Advocate.
ORDER :
(Abdul Quddhose, J.) :
(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to the order passed by the respondent in Na.Ka.No. 4181/2013-R-3 dated 27.05.2013 and quash the same and consequently direct the respondent to reinstate in service with all back wages, continuity of services, attendant benefits etc.)
On the last hearing date i.e., on 13.08.2024, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner. However, earlier a memo dated 05.03.2018 was filed by learned Counsel for the petitioner stating that he has returned the case bundle to his client and he has also given change of vakalat. After recording the memo dated 05.03.2018 referred to supra, this Court directed the Registry to print the name of the petitioner and to post the matter for hearing today [28.08.2024].
2. As directed by this Court, the Registry has printed the name of the petitioner. Despite printing the name of the petitioner, there is no representation on the side of the petitioner. This Writ Petition is of the year 2017. It can now be inferred that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this Writ Petition.
3. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
