Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Bombay High Court

CAJETAN SIMON FERNANDESversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS

Decided
Disposal
Dissmiss For Default/Non-Prosecution

Holding

The petition was dismissed for non‑prosecution.

Summary

Cajetan Simon Fernandes filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an unspecified matter. The petitioner failed to appear at the hearing scheduled on 30 September 2016 and again on 4 March 2026. No steps were taken by the petitioner or his counsel to circulate the petition after the earlier date. The Court observed that the petitioner appeared uninterested in pursuing the petition. Consequently, the bench of Justices A.S. Gadkari and Kamal Khata dismissed the petition for non‑prosecution.

Issues considered

  • Can a writ petition proceed when the petitioner fails to appear for hearing?

Subjects

  • writ petition
  • non‑prosecution
  • dismissal
  • criminal appellate jurisdiction
  • court procedure

Judgment

            ssm                                                         46-wp3736.2015.doc

                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

                                   CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 3736 OF 2015

       Cajetan Simon Fernandes                                          …..Petitioner

                 Vs.

       The State Of Maharashtra & Ors.                   …..Respondents
                       ____________________________________

       None for the Petitioner.
       Smt. Mankuwar M. Deshmukh Acting PP a/w Mr. Vinod Chate APP, for the
       Respondent-State.
                         ____________________________________

                                               CORAM :       A. S. GADKARI AND
                                                             KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
                                                 DATE :      4th MARCH, 2026.

       P.C.:-

       1)                   None for the Petitioner when called out for hearing.

       1.1)                 Record indicates that, even on earlier occasion i.e. 30 th

       September, 2016, none had appeared for the Petitioner. That, after 30 th

       September, 2016, Petitioner and/or his Advocate has not taken any steps to

       circulate the Petition, even for once.

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

       Petition.

       2)                   Dismissed for non-prosecution.



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

                Digitally signed                                                             1/1
SANJIV    by SANJIV
          SHARNAPPA
SHARNAPPA MASHALKAR
MASHALKAR Date: 2026.03.09
                19:55:06 +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.