Bombay High Court

BALAJI AVERTISINGversusUNION OF INDIA

Decided: 16 September 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

A writ petition may be dismissed where the petitioner fails to appear and no live issue remains.

Summary

M/s Balaji Advertising filed a writ petition (WP-1837 of 2024) against the Union of India. The petitioner failed to appear before the Court on the date of hearing and had also been absent on previous occasions. Respondent No.2, represented by counsel, submitted that no live issue remained in the petition due to the petitioner’s non‑appearance. The Court examined the record, concurred with the respondent’s submission, and found that the petition could not proceed. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, but allowed the petitioner the opportunity to seek restoration by providing a satisfactory explanation for his absence.

Issues considered

Whether a writ petition may be dismissed for the petitioner’s failure to appear and the absence of a live issue?

Subjects

writ petition
non‑appearance
dismissal
restoration
civil procedure

Judgment

BHARAT                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
DASHARATH
PANDIT                                ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
Digitally signed by
BHARAT
DASHARATH
PANDIT
Date: 2026.09.17
10:01:34 +0530
                                            WRIT PETITION NO. 1837 OF 2024

                      M/s. Balaji Advertising                    …. Petitioner.
                           Vs.
                      Union of India and Anr.                    …. Respondents.

                      None for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Nikhil Adkine with Mr. Vaibhav Sugdare for Respondent No.2.


                                             CORAM : SUMAN SHYAM &
                                                     GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, JJ.

                                             DATE     : 16TH SEPTEMBER, 2026.
                      P.C. :


                      1.       None appeared for the Petitioner when the matter is called
                      out. Mr. Adkine, learned counsel for Respondent No.2 submits
                      that the Petitioner was absent even on the previous occasions and
                      no live issue survives in this Writ Petition at this point of time.


                      2.       On perusal of the record we are in agreement with the
                      submission of the learned counsel for Respondent No.2.


                      3.       In view of the above, Writ Petition stands dismissed. The
                      Petitioner, however, is at liberty to seek restoration of the same by
                      furnishing sufficient justification for his non-appearance, if so
                      advised.



                      [ GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J. ]                     [ SUMAN SHYAM, J. ]
                                                         1/1
                      19 WP-1837-2024.doc                                                   bdp

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.