Bombay High Court reaffirms dismissal for default of non-prosecuted writ petitions, reaffirming established procedural norms
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/1510/2020 of UNION OF INDIA THRU THE DIRECTOR GEN. NAVAL PROJECT(MB) Vs HINDUSTAN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. AND ANR |
| CNR | HCBM010154742019 |
| Decision Date | 23-08-2023 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed for default |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sandeep V. Marne |
| Court | Bombay High Court |
| Bench | Sandeep V. Marne, J. |
| Precedent Value | Affirms existing procedural law |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether non-appearance by the petitioner on two calls warrants dismissal of a writ petition for default |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court held that the presence of the petitioner or their counsel is essential for prosecuting a writ petition. Failure to appear on scheduled hearing dates, even after a second call, demonstrates disinterest in pursuing the petition. Consequently, such petitions may be summarily dismissed for default to maintain procedural integrity of the court. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The writ petition was listed for hearing on May 4, 2023; no counsel appeared for the petitioner even on a second call; the petition was dismissed for default on August 23, 2023. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Parties to writ petitions before the Bombay High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that non-appearance by a petitioner for hearing on multiple calls demonstrates lack of interest and warrants dismissal for default.
- Highlights the importance of maintaining active prosecution interest in writ proceedings.
- Confirms that absence of counsel without representation is sufficient grounds for default dismissal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petition was listed for hearing on May 4, 2023, and again on a second call due to non-appearance.
- The petitioner failed to appear on both calls, indicating disinterest in prosecution.
- Under established practice and the court’s inherent powers, non-prosecution permits dismissal of writ petitions for default.
- Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for default to uphold procedural integrity.
Factual Background
In WP 1510/2020, the Union of India challenged the actions of Hindustan Construction Co. Ltd. before the Bombay High Court. The matter was listed for hearing on May 4, 2023. On both the first and second calls, no counsel appeared for the petitioner. Observing the petitioner’s disinterest, the court dismissed the petition for default on August 23, 2023.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed