The High Court of Chhattisgarh reaffirmed that a writ petition may be dismissed where the petitioner repeatedly fails to appear, and such dismissal is for want of prosecution rather than on merits. This order holds binding value only for the parties but does not set a substantive precedent on merits for future writ petitions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/9535/2025 of Shivsingh Uddey Vs State of Chhattisgarh |
| CNR | CGHC010347582025 |
| Date of Registration | 12-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Precedent Value | Limited (procedural dismissal; not on merits) |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Procedural Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner did not appear for consecutive hearings, indicating loss of interest in prosecuting the matter. The dismissal was expressly stated to be for want of prosecution. No findings were recorded on the merits of the petitioner’s grievance. The order reinforces the procedural rule that matters may be dismissed where parties neglect to pursue their cases. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | The parties to the writ petition and other similarly situated petitioners in procedural context |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts (for procedural dismissals, not on merits) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- High Court reaffirmed that a writ petition may be dismissed for want of prosecution if the petitioner repeatedly fails to appear.
- Such dismissal is strictly procedural and does not operate as an adjudication on the merits of the case.
- Lawyers should ensure continued presence or seek adjournment proactively, else risk dismissal of their matters.
- The order documents the Court’s process in dismissing matters where there is persistent lack of prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the matter had been listed previously and passed over for want of appearance.
- On subsequent listing, no representation was made for the petitioner again.
- The Court inferred that due to persistent non-appearance, the petitioner lost interest in pursuing the petition.
- Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution.
- The dismissal is a procedural outcome due to the petitioner’s inaction, not based on an assessment of substantive rights or grievances.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No submissions recorded; petitioner was absent on hearing dates.
Respondent (State)
- Represented by the Panel Lawyer; specific arguments not recorded in the order.
Factual Background
- The petitioner, serving as Head Master/Hostel Superintendent, approached the High Court of Chhattisgarh in writ jurisdiction.
- The writ petition (WPS/9535/2025) was listed for hearing on 29.08.2025, but no one appeared for the petitioner.
- On subsequent hearing dated 03/09/2025, again, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner.
- The Court presumed lack of interest by the petitioner in prosecuting the matter and dismissed the petition accordingly.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment did not discuss or interpret any statutory provision; the dismissal was on procedural grounds for non-prosecution.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; single-judge order.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded. The dismissal for want of prosecution follows established procedure.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court followed established principles regarding dismissal for want of prosecution.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:45033 (Neutral citation)
- NAFR (Not approved for reporting)