Bombay High Court

BHARTIYA GYANVARDHINI SABHA AND ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

Decided: 4 March 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: AMIT BORKAR

Holding

A writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution when the petitioner fails to appear or retain counsel after notice.

Summary

The petitioners filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking relief against the State of Maharashtra and others. The Court issued a notice on 12 August 2025, but the petitioners' counsel had expired and they failed to engage new representation. Despite the notice, the petitioners neither appeared before the Court nor appointed another advocate. The Court observed that a writ petition must be actively prosecuted and cannot proceed without representation. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution. The dismissal was pronounced by Justice Amit Borkar on 4 March 2026.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate course of action when a petitioner fails to engage counsel or appear before the Court after a notice is issued?

Subjects

writ petition
dismissal for want of prosecution
civil appellate jurisdiction
advocate representation
Bombay High Court

Judgment

                                                                            11-wp-655-2006.doc


                      Shabnoor
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO.655 OF 2006
SHABNOOR
AYUB                  Bhartiya Gyanvardhini Sabha & Anr.          … Petitioners
PATHAN                           V/s.
Digitally signed by
SHABNOOR AYUB
                      State of Maharashtra & Ors.                 … Respondents
PATHAN
Date: 2026.03.04
16:39:42 +0530
                      None for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Hamid D. Mulla, AGP, for the State – Respondent
                      Nos.1 and 2.
                      Ms. Deepa S. Punde with Sachin S. Punde, for
                      Respondent No.3.


                                                  CORAM      : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                  DATED      : MARCH 4, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      This Court, by order dated 12 August 2025, issued notice to
                      the petitioners, as the learned Advocate appearing on their behalf
                      had expired. Despite service of notice, the petitioners have neither
                      engaged another Advocate nor remained present before the Court.

                      2.      In the circumstances, the writ petition stands dismissed for
                      want of prosecution.


                                                                   (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                                        1

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…