A writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed because the petitioner failed to appear in the second call while the State counsel appeared, leading to dismissal for want of prosecution.
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
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.
\u?)ia‘ A? g; 1 ‘QQ£%
VERSUS
x’ ' PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 22/6x’ /227 OF CON
22/6x’ /227 OF CON STITUTION OF INDIA
Ea mm. Trnm? EWHELI
uw&wW% QWE‘H‘ @FM ‘ $ W 20
mmiW)
| mmW mg | $m'rMa mw‘i ii fgQW fiat $ aim ar‘m |
|---|---|
| 7-.170-201 3 l |
|
| None for the petitioner. Ms. Raksha Awasthy, The matter was pass |
Panel Lawyer for the State. ked over once. No one appears for the |
| petitioner in the second call. In the circumstances, |
there is no other option Ieft with the Court |
| but to dismiss the petition for w Accordingiy, the writ pe |
ant of prosecution. tition is dismissed for want of prosecution. |
| Sd/— i ‘i Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition should be adjudicated upon on merits given the absence of the petitioner in the second call.
Jogjram Thakur S/o late Baliram Thakur
State of Chhattisgarh
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
