Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

PRAKASH SHANTILAL GANNAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Disposed Off

Holding

The petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Summary

The petitioner filed a writ petition on 6 January 2021 in the Bombay High Court seeking relief, but failed to take any steps to advance the petition thereafter. The petitioner's advocate, Ms. Shell, informed the court that she could no longer assist because the brief had been returned to the petitioner. The court observed that the petitioner showed no interest in pursuing the matter. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. The dismissal was signed by both judges on 3 September 2026.

Issues considered

  • What is the appropriate consequence when a petitioner fails to prosecute a writ petition?

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • want of prosecution
  • dismissal
  • criminal appellate jurisdiction
  • Bombay High Court

Judgment

                  ssm                                                            26-wp285.2021.doc

                                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                        CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                          WRIT PETITION NO. 285 OF 2021

            Prakash Shantilal Ganna                            …..Petitioner
                  Vs.
            State Of Maharashtra & Ors.                        …..Respondents
                             ____________________________________

            Adv. Aashka Shell i/by Adv. Kartik Garg for the Petitioner.
            Shri. Ashish I. Satpute APP, for the Respondent-State.
                               ____________________________________

                                                      CORAM :      A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                                   KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
                                                        DATE :     29th AUGUST, 2026.

            P.C.:-

            1)               Advocate Ms. Shell submitted that, at the request of the

            Petitioner, the Advocate on record for the Petitioner has long back returned

            the brief to him and therefore she is unable to assist the Court in hearing

            the Petition.

            2)                    Record indicates that, since the date of filing of the Petition i.e.

            6th January, 2021, the Petitioner has not taken any steps to circulate the

            Petition, even once.

            2.1)                  It appears that, the Petitioner is not interested in pursuing the

            Petition.

            3)                    Dismissed for want of prosecution.



                        (KAMAL KHATA, J.)                                (A.S. GADKARI, J.)

            Digitally signed by                                                                      1/1
SANJIV      SANJIV
            SHARNAPPA
SHARNAPPA   MASHALKAR
MASHALKAR   Date: 2026.09.03
            10:40:14 +0530


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.