The High Court reaffirmed that non-appearance at two consecutive hearings warrants dismissal of a writ petition for non-prosecution, upholding existing procedural practice in Jammu & Kashmir; persuasive authority for petitioners’ counsel to ensure timely representation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | OWP/1323/2009 of SATYA METALS AND ORS Vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS |
| CNR | JKHC020009952009 |
| Date of Registration | 09-12-2009 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2024 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed for non-prosecution |
| Court | High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Kumar; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Sekhri |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The matter was placed for hearing on the scheduled date but no counsel appeared on behalf of the petitioners.
- The court called the petition twice, before and after the break, and recorded continued non-appearance.
- Non-appearance was treated as an indication that the petitioners had lost interest in pursuing the petition.
- In exercise of its procedural powers, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.
Factual Background
Satya Metals and others filed OWP No.1323/2009 before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu challenging certain actions of the Union of India and others. On the date fixed for final hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioners despite two calls of the case. The respondents were represented by counsel, who awaited the petitioners’ appearance. Concluding that the petitioners had lost interest in prosecuting their writ petition, the court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.