In a writ petition pending since 2003, the court observed that the petitioner has lost interest and is not providing instructions to counsel. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed for non-prosecution and miscellaneous applications were closed.
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 THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B.BHOSALE &
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V. SESHA SAI
WRIT PETITION No.8789 of 2003
ORDER: (Per Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B.Bhosale)
This writ petition is pending since 2003. Today,
Mr. G. Eswaraiah, learned counsel holding for Ms. S. Vani, advocate on record for petitioner, submits that they are not getting any response from the petitioner.
2. We have perused the prayer made in the writ petition.
In view thereof, it appears, the petitioner has lost interest in prosecuting this writ petition further and therefore, he is not coming forward to give instructions to his advocate.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
As a sequel, the miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.
DILIP B.BHOSALE, HACJ
A.V. SESHA SAI, J
July 20, 2016 DSK
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to proceed with a writ petition pending since 2003 where the petitioner appears to have lost interest and is not giving instructions to counsel.
Ms. S. Vani
Respondent
DILIP B. BHOSALE
A. V. SESA SAI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
