Dismissed

Narendra Kumari Singh v. State of Maharashtra and 12 Others

Bombay HC7 Jan 2016WP/2087/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution. The petitioner, appearing in person, failed to cooperate with registry directions to form a second bench and was absent on multiple dates. The court held that the matter cannot continue indefinitely and dismissed the petition due to serious lapse by the petitioner.

What the court decided

AI extract

Narendra Kumari Singh Vs State of Maharashtra and 12… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

903-OSWP2087-08.DOC

¶2

AGK

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 2087 OF 2008

¶4

Narendra Kumari Singh…Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra & 12 Ors.…Respondents

¶5

…Respondents

¶6

None for the Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. P. H. Kantharia, Government Pleader, for the Respondents
Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 8.

¶8

CORAM:S.C. DHARMADHIKARI &
G.S. PATEL, JJ.
DATED:7th January 2016

¶9

PC:-

¶10

1.The petition is filed by the Petitioner in person on 20th
October 2008. A learned Single Judge of this Court found that the
matter pertains to a Division Bench and, therefore, the Petitioner
must cooperate in drawing up a second set of the proceedings,
supplying it to the Registry and thereafter enabling the Registry to
place the matter before an appropriate Division Bench.

¶11

2.The Registry convened meetings pursuant to this order.
When it finds that the Petitioner remained absent on 25th October
2012 and 6th November 2012 before the Master & Assistant

¶12

1 of 2

¶13

903-OSWP2087-08.DOC

¶14

Prothonotary (Judicial), the Registry brought to our notice this
lapse on the part of the Petitioner and a Division Bench of this
Court made an order on 3rd December 2015 directing the Registry
to issue a notice to the Petitioner and serve him so that he could
remain present in person in Court today, else the Petition would be
dismissed for want of prosecution.

¶15

3.The report of the Registry shows that the packet containing
this notice was taken personally by a staff member at the residential
address indicated in the cause title but on two occasions the
Petitioner was not found at the premises and his neighbours
informed him that the premises are closed. No whereabouts of the
Petitioner are known to these neighbours.

¶16

4.We cannot continue these state of affairs merely because a
litigant is appearing in person, indefinitely. Just like Advocates, it is
their bounden duty to follow up the matter with the Registry.

¶17

5. On account of the serious lapse on the part of the Petitioner, we dismiss the Petition for want of prosecution.

¶18

(G. S. PATEL, J.)(S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

¶19

2 of 2

Narendra Kumari Singh v. State of Maharashtra and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Narendra Kumari Singh v. State of Maharashtra and 12 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Raju Laxman Pachapure Vs District Deputy Registrar, C. S. Kolhapur and Ors.

Mrs. Neela Bernard Soans Vs the Principal / Head Mistress, of Seven Square Academy and Ors.

Harshal Ramsingh Patil Vs State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Justice and Special Assistance Dept and Ors.

Indur Kartar Chhugani Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Wasim Mohammed Satted Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Triveni Sangam (S.R.a) Co-Op. Hsg. Soc. Ltd. Vs the Slum Rehabilitation Authority