Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sadichha Mahila Mandal, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated September 15, 1997 passed by the Minister for Food & Civil Supplies, Government of Maharashtra, which allotted a fair price shop (ration shop) at Koparigaon, District Nasik to respondent No.3, Gavdevi Mahila Mandal. The petitioner had originally been allotted the shop by the Controller of Rationing on 30th January/1st February 1992, but the Minister reversed that decision. When the petition was called for hearing, the petitioner's counsel, Shri S. S. Lanke, was absent. The court noted the absence and dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. No legal issues were argued or decided on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Dismissal for Default - Non-Prosecution - Writ Petition - Petitioner's counsel absent when called - Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution as no one appeared to argue the matter - Held that the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution (Para 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petition challenging the allotment of a fair price shop should be entertained when the petitioner's counsel is absent.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Law Points
- Non-prosecution
- Dismissal for default
- Writ petition
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (02) 13
Writ Petition No.5494 of 1997
V. S. Gokhale (AGP for Respondent-State), S. S. Lanke (for Petitioner - absent)
State of Maharashtra, Controller of Rationing, Gavdevi Mahila Mandal
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging allotment of fair price shop
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to challenge the order of the Minister allotting the shop to respondent No.3
Filing Reason
Petitioner was aggrieved by the order dated September 15, 1997 passed by the Minister for Food & Civil Supplies
Previous Decisions
Controller of Rationing had allotted the shop to petitioner on 30th January/1st February 1992; Minister reversed that decision on 15th September 1997
Issues
Whether the petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner's counsel is absent
Submissions/Arguments
No arguments were made as the petitioner's counsel was absent
Ratio Decidendi
When the petitioner's counsel is absent and no one appears to argue the matter, the petition is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Judgment Excerpts
Shri. S. S. Lanke learned counsel for the petitioner is absent when called.
By this petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated September 15, 1997 passed by the respondent no.1
Procedural History
The petitioner filed a writ petition in 1997 challenging the Minister's order of 15th September 1997. The petition was heard on 1st February 2006, when the petitioner's counsel was absent, leading to dismissal for non-prosecution.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Foodgrains Distribution (Second) Order, 1966: Clause 30
