Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Abdul Quddhose, J.
C.Chelladurai - Petitioner
Versus
The Vice Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Teachers Education University and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(MD)No.16046 of 2017 and W.M.P.(MD)Nos.12706 & 12707 of 2017
Decided On : 16-08-2024
Writ Petition - Non-Prosecution - The court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to appear in court on multiple occasions, indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. The court emphasized the importance of representation in legal proceedings and the consequences of failing to do so.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order related to a notification issued by the second respondent and to direct the issuance of a fresh notification as per UGC norms.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the absence of representation from the petitioner during the last hearing and the current hearing, leading to the conclusion that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the case.
Issues: Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the petitioner's failure to appear in court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a party's failure to appear and prosecute their case can result in dismissal, reinforcing the principle that active participation is essential in legal proceedings.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution, with no order as to costs, and connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
ORDER :
Abdul Quddhose, J.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the impugned order passed by the second respondent in Notification dated 11.07.2017 in Advt. No.TNTEU/R/Registration Advt/2017/1702 and quash the same as illegal and direct the second respondent to issue fresh notification as per UGC Norms.
There was no representation for the petitioner in the last hearing. The matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal” today. Even today, there is no representation for the petitioner. It can now be inferred that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this matter.
2.Accordingly, this Writ Petition is dismissed for Non- Prosecution. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to appear and show interest in the case.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or necessary.
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable if the relief sought has become infructuous.
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to show interest in pursuing the case.
A writ petition becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or actionable.
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to appear in court, demonstrating a lack of interest in the proceedings.
A writ petition can be rendered moot if the relief sought is subsequently granted through administrative action.
A writ petition becomes infructuous when the circumstances change post-filing, such as the retirement of the challenged party and the promotion of the petitioner.
The court affirmed the right of a petitioner to seek a revision under Section 48A of The Advocates Act when a complaint is dropped by the Bar Council, emphasizing adherence to due process.
The court has the discretion to dispose of a writ petition as infructuous based on the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
