A writ petition was dismissed by the Gauhati High Court due to the petitioner’s failure to appear and take steps as directed, without any decision on the substantive legal issues. The judgment does not create new precedent or alter existing law, and its value as binding or persuasive authority for future cases is minimal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/6136/2017 of SAHIDA BIBI Vs THE STATE OF ASSAM and 7 ORS. |
| CNR | GAHC010143322017 |
| Date of Registration | 21-09-2017 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed For Non-prosecution |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANISH CHOUDHURY |
| Court | Gauhati High Court |
| Precedent Value | No precedential value; not a decision on merits |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The petition was dismissed because the petitioner failed to appear and did not take steps for service on certain respondents despite specific directions of the court. As a result, the petition was deemed not pursued, leading to its dismissal for non-prosecution without examination of the merits. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
No representation was made by the petitioner on the scheduled date or the previous listing. No steps were taken for issuance of notice to respondents 3, 4, and 6. The court had expressly warned of consequences in case of default. The petition was therefore dismissed for want of prosecution. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding; does not lay down any law or precedent |
| Persuasive For | No persuasive authority; order is procedural and not on merits |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The dismissal is strictly for want of prosecution and does not involve any decision on substantive or procedural legal questions.
- No legal principles have been articulated, distinguished, or clarified.
- The order explicitly records failure to prosecute as the sole reason for dismissal.
- Such a dismissal does not have any binding or persuasive value in subsequent cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner repeatedly failed to appear before the court despite being listed on multiple occasions.
- There was a failure to take court-directed steps to ensure service of notice upon certain respondents.
- A prior warning had been issued by the court regarding the consequences of failing to take such steps.
- The court inferred that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the writ petition any further.
- Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution.
- No substantive legal or constitutional questions were addressed or decided.
Arguments by the Parties
No arguments were recorded in the judgment as neither the petitioner nor respondents presented submissions; the matter was dismissed due to non-appearance and non-prosecution.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Gauhati High Court. On the dates the case was listed, the petitioner failed to appear. Despite court orders, no steps were taken to serve notice on several respondents. The court, noting these defaults, concluded the petition was not being pursued and dismissed it accordingly.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were analyzed or interpreted, as the matter was dismissed purely on procedural grounds without consideration of merits.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural innovations were introduced or discussed in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court followed the settled procedural practice of dismissing petitions for non-prosecution when a petitioner fails to comply with court directions.