The Chhattisgarh High Court has reaffirmed the settled principle that a writ petition may be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner or their counsel fails to appear or make representation. The decision upholds existing precedent and clarifies the procedural consequences in service law disputes relating to administrative communications. This holding serves as binding authority for subordinate courts within the State
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/5519/2021 of BALRAM PANDEY Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010255712021 |
| Date of Registration | 27-09-2021 |
| Decision Date | 04-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Consequence of non-appearance of petitioner in pending writ challenging administrative order |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court reiterated that when the petitioner or their counsel does not appear or represent the matter during hearings, and there is no justification for absence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The petition in this case challenged a service-related administrative communication regarding nomination of teachers as Cluster Academic Coordinator, but with persistent non-appearance and likely retirement of the petitioner, the Court found no ground to keep the matter pending. Dismissal was ordered as a procedural consequence, with no costs. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petition challenged a communication dated 02.07.2021 nominating certain teachers as Cluster Academic Coordinator. The petitioner was about 59 years old at the time of filing and likely retired by the time of decision. Multiple opportunities were given for appearance, but none was availed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar procedural scenarios |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that persistent non-appearance by the petitioner or their counsel, without valid explanation, will lead to summary dismissal of the writ petition.
- Clarifies procedural efficiency: courts need not keep dormant petitions pending indefinitely, especially when the substantive cause may have become infructuous due to factors such as retirement in service matters.
- Highlights the importance of diligent prosecution in service law disputes and similar writ proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the petitioner’s consistent non-appearance despite repeated listings and opportunities.
- Observed that the matter pertained to a service-related administrative communication issued in 2021, and as of the decision date, the petitioner had likely retired.
- Reaffirmed the procedural norm that writ petitions are liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution when parties do not pursue the matter or appear before the court, and there is no material on record warranting further indulgence.
- Accordingly, dismissed the petition, emphasizing there was no reason to keep the matter pending in view of non-representation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
None presented; petitioner or counsel did not appear nor submit any representation during the hearings.
Respondent (State)
Represented by counsel; no specific substantive arguments recorded in the order due to the absence of the petitioner.
Factual Background
The petitioner, aged about 59 at the time of filing, challenged a communication dated 02.07.2021 pertaining to the nomination of certain teachers as Cluster Academic Coordinator. After the initial hearing, where time was sought for amendment, neither the petitioner nor counsel appeared for subsequent hearings over a period of four years. The Court noted the petitioner had likely retired from service by the time of the decision.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment does not detail discussion of specific statutory provisions, but applies procedural law regarding the dismissal of petitions for want of prosecution.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directions are detailed in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing procedural law reaffirmed regarding dismissal of dormant writ petitions for non-appearance by petitioner or counsel.