The High Court dismissed the writ petition under Article 226 for nonprosecution. Neither the petitioner nor counsel appeared for the hearing, indicating lack of interest in pursuing the matter.
The writ petition is dismissed for nonprosecution.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 7996 of 1994 Date of decision : 03.10.2011
Angrez Singh
...Petitioner
versus
Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present: Nemo for the parties.
M ehinder S ingh S ullar, J. (Oral)
The bare perusal of the record would reveal that nemo had appeared on behalf of the petitioner on July 13, 2011, when this writ came up for hearing. Consequently, the petition was adjourned for arguments.
Today again no one is present on his behalf despite the case having been repeatedly called.
From the sequence of events narrated here-in-above, it appears that neither the petitioner nor his counsel is interested in pursuing the petition. Therefore, no option is left with this Court except to dismiss the petition for nonprosecution.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed for non-
prosecution.
October 03, 2011 ( M ehinder S ingh S ullar ) naresh.k Judge
Angrez Singh
Managing Director, Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala
Mehinder Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
