Sunil Kumar Chhabra vs. State Of Chhattisgarh

Facts

The petitioner, Sunil Kumar Chhabra, filed a writ petition before the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. The respondents are the State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Department of Commercial Tax/GST (Excise), the Collector (Excise) Bilaspur, and the Deputy Commissioner (Excise) Bilaspur. The writ petition was listed for hearing. Despite it being the second round of listing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Held

The Court held that since there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner even in the second round of listing, the Court was left with no other option but to dismiss the petition for want of prosecution. The reasoning is solely based on the procedural default of the petitioner in failing to appear and prosecute their case. The Court did not delve into the merits of the case or any substantive legal issues. The operative direction was to dismiss the petition on this procedural ground alone.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of prosecution, given the absence of the petitioner's counsel in the second round of listing? The petitioner's side did not present any arguments as no one appeared. The State, represented by the Panel Lawyer, likely contended that the petition should be dismissed due to the petitioner's non-appearance, as is standard procedure when a party fails to prosecute their case. No specific provisions or precedents were mentioned in the judgment regarding the arguments for dismissal.