Bombay High Court

PRATIKSHA UTTAM RATHODversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: VIBHA KANKANWADI HITEN S VENEGAVKAR

Holding

The writ petition is dismissed due to the petitioner's counsel's non-appearance.

Summary

The petitioner, Pratiksha Uttam Rathod, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The petitioner's counsel was absent both physically and virtually on the scheduled hearing dates, including a prior notice on 22.01.2026. The court had previously warned that continued absence of the petitioner's advocate on 04.03.2026 would result in dismissal of the petition. On the stated date, the advocate remained absent, leading the bench to conclude that the petitioner had lost interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition for lack of representation. No substantive merits of the petition were examined.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate consequence when a petitioner's counsel remains absent despite prior warning?

Subjects

writ petition
dismissal
non-appearance
court procedure
high court

Judgment

                                   -1-
                                                       wp13981.25.odt

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                7 WRIT PETITION NO. 13981 OF 2025

Pratiksha Uttam Rathod                            ….Petitioner

VERSUS

The State of Maharashtra & others                 …..Respondents

Mr. S. B. Pulkundwar, AGP for the State.
Mr. R. K. Ingole, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

                                 CORAM : SMT VIBHA KANKANWADI
                                         & HITEN S VENEGAVKAR, JJ.
                              DATE       : 4th MARCH, 2026.
PER COURT :


1.    The learned Advocate for the Petitioner is absent either

physically or virtually. He was absent on 22.01.2026 also.

2.    In our earlier order we had made it clear that if the Petitioner’s

Advocate remains absent on 04.03.2026 i.e. today, the matter would

be liable to be dismissed.

3.    It appears that the Petitioner has lost interest and therefore,

the petition stands dismissed.



( HITEN S. VENEGAVKAR )                     ( SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI )
      JUDGE                                            JUDGE

dyb

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…