Bombay High Court
RAMESH EKNATH PAWAR AND OTHERSversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THROUGH ITS COMMISSIONER AURANGABAD AND ANOTHER
- Disposal
- DISPOSED OFF
Holding
The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Summary
The petitioners filed a writ petition in 2017 challenging actions of the Municipal Corporation. No counsel appeared for the petitioners on the scheduled hearing dates of 22.01.2026 and 23.01.2026. The Court, noting the lapse of several years and the petitioners' failure to prosecute, granted them a final opportunity to appear on 23.01.2026. When the petitioners again failed to appear, the Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. The dismissal was entered without any substantive consideration of the merits of the petition.
Issues considered
- What is the appropriate consequence when a petitioner fails to appear and prosecute a writ petition for an extended period?
Subjects
- writ petition
- dismissal
- want of prosecution
- municipal corporation
- high court
Judgment
2026:BHC-AUG:2976
Dilwale 1 907-WP-10682-17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
907 WRIT PETITION NO. 10682 OF 2017
Ramesh Eknath Pawar And Others
VERSUS
The Municipal Corporation Through Its Commissioner Aurangabad And
Another
...
CORAM : SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE, J.
DATE : 23.01.2026
PER COURT :
1. On 22.01.2026, following order is passed:-
“1. None appears for the Petitioners. The matter is of the year 2017.
2. In view of the above and to grant one final opportunity to the
Petitioners, the matter is directed to be listed on 23.01.2026 under the caption
“For Dismissal”.”
2. Today also none appears for the petitioner. Hence, the petition is
dismissed for want of prosecution.
[ SIDDHESHWAR S. THOMBRE ]
JUDGE
Checking your session…