Bombay High Court
RADHESHYAM SEETALAPRASAD GUPTAversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA and ORS.
- Decided
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- M M SATHAYE
Holding
The writ petition is dismissed for non‑prosecution.
Summary
The petitioner, Radheshyam Seetalaprasad Gupta, challenged a 2004 order allocating ration shops, alleging the order was not implemented. The High Court directed the petitioner's counsel to contact the petitioner by registered post and report back. No response or evidence of communication was presented, and no counsel appeared for the petitioner on the scheduled date. The court found the petition to be non‑prosecuted due to the petitioner's inaction and failure to comply with the court's directions. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed and any interim relief vacated.
Issues considered
- Whether a writ petition may be dismissed for non‑prosecution when the petitioner fails to appear or comply with court directions.
Subjects
- writ petition
- non-prosecution
- dismissal
- interim relief
- ration shop allocation
- Food and Civil Supplies Department
Judgment
4-WP-8992-2004.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8992 OF 2004
Radheshyam Seetalaprasad Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra And Ors. ...Respondent
SNEHA ****
NITIN
CHAVAN None for the Petitioner.
Digitally signed Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w S.D. Chipade, AGP for Respondent.
by SNEHA
NITIN CHAVAN
Date:
****
2026.07.07
17:25:21 +0530
CORAM : M.M. SATHAYE, J.
DATE : 7th JULY, 2026
P.C. :
1. On 23.06.2026, following order was passed.
“1. This petition is filed challenging the order dated 24.08.2004
passed by the State Minister of Food and Civil Supplies
Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai by which the revision filed by
present Petitioner was rejected/dismissed and the concerned
ration shop was allotted to Petitioner No.4 and additional shop was
allotted to Respondent No.5.
2. Perused the impugned order, record shows that this Court has
not granted any ad-interim relief to the Petitioner.
3. In the circumstances on 09.06.2026 following order was
passed:
"1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner seeks short
accommodation to take appropriate instructions about whether
the impugned order was implemented or not.
2. Stand over to 23.06.2026."
4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that Petitioner is not
in contact with the Advocate and therefore, he has no instructions
regarding implementation of the impugned order.
Sneha Chavan 1
4-WP-8992-2004.doc
5. Apparently impugned order was passed about 22 years ago and
by passage of long time, present petition seems to have become
infructuous.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner however, seeks last
opportunity to make effort to contact the Petitioner.
7. Advocate for the Petitioner is directed to send written
communication to the Petitioner at his last known address by
Registered-speed post A.D. and produce office copy of written
communication along with postal receipt and acknowledgment (if
received) on the next date.
8. Stand over to 07.07.2026. To be listed 'for dismissal'.”
2. Today the matter is listed under the caption of dismissal.
Nobody is appearing for the Petitioner, to inform whether any written
communication is sent to the Petitioner as directed by earlier order.
3. Above situation amounts to non-prosecution.
4. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution.
Interim/ad-interim relief, if any, is vacated.
5. All concerned to act on duly authenticated or digitally signed
copy of this order.
(M.M. SATHAYE, J.)
Sneha Chavan 2
Checking your session…