High Court upholds existing practice affirming its inherent power to dismiss non-prosecuted civil writ petitions; binding authority for lower courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWJC/4739/2016 of Poonam Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors |
| CNR | BRHC010551432016 |
| Decision Date | 24-09-2018 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH |
| Court | Patna High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing practice |
| Type of Law | Civil writ jurisdiction (procedural) |
| Questions of Law | Whether failure of the petitioner or her counsel to appear warrants dismissal for want of prosecution? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court has inherent jurisdiction in civil writ proceedings to dismiss a petition for want of prosecution where the petitioner fails to appear despite notice. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforcement that non-appearance on consecutive dates can lead to outright dismissal of a writ petition.
- Emphasizes the judiciary’s expectation of active prosecution by the petitioner or their counsel.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The writ petition had been listed earlier, but no one appeared for the petitioner.
- On the subsequent date (24-09-2018), again no counsel or petitioner appeared.
- Exercising inherent jurisdiction under civil writ procedure, the Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution.
Factual Background
Poonam Devi filed CWJC/4739/2016 against the State of Bihar and other officials, along with an individual respondent. The petition was repeatedly listed for hearing. On the previous listing, no one appeared for the petitioner, and on 24-09-2018, the petitioner again failed to appear. In the absence of prosecution by the petitioner or counsel, the High Court dismissed the petition outright.