A single judge dismissed a writ petition for want of prosecution. The petitioner failed to appear, and the representing counsel merely sought an adjournment without filing vakalat, indicating lack of interest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
WRIT PETITION No.2968 of 2012
JUDGMENT:-
No representation from either side.
The matter is listed under the caption ‘for dismissal'.
On 27.06.2022, the following order was passed:-
“No representation from the side of the petitioners. The order sheet shows that, on 30.03.2022, 25.04.2022 as also on 13.06.2022, none appeared. Sri G.Mallikarjuna Reddy, learned counsel, represents that Sri Y.Nagi Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for APSPDCL has recently been engaged as Public Prosecutor and prays for two (02) weeks time to enable him to file vakalat for the respondents. Post on 11.07.2022 under the caption „for dismissal‟.”
In view of the aforesaid, it appears that the petitioners are no
longer interested in prosecuting the matter.
Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
No order as to costs.
As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions, if any pending, shall also stand closed.
RAVI NATH TILHARI,J Date: 11.07.2022 SCS
2
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI
7
WRIT PETITION No.2968 of 2012
Date: 11.07.2022
Scs
Petitioners
Respondents
Ravi Nath Tilhari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
