L.Sankar vs. The Commissioner

Facts

The petitioner, L. Sankar, filed a writ petition (W.P(MD). No. 11544 of 2017) before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court. The petition challenged an order dated 06.06.2017 passed by the Second Respondent, the Commissioner of Customs House, Tuticorin. The petitioner sought to quash this order. The case was listed for hearing on 07.12.2022. The learned counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the petitioner had collected the case bundle with consent to engage another lawyer, but no new appearance had been entered on behalf of the petitioner. The Registry confirmed that no one had appeared for the petitioner. The court noted that there was no purpose in keeping the writ petition pending indefinitely.

Held

The Court held that there was no useful purpose in keeping the Writ Petition pending indefinitely, as the Petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the same. The Court observed that the Petitioner's counsel had informed the court about the Petitioner collecting the case bundle for engaging another lawyer, and no new appearance had been entered. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. The Court clarified that the Petitioner was not precluded from applying for revival of the Writ Petition, if necessary, in accordance with law. The connected miscellaneous petitions were also closed. No costs were awarded.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Writ Petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution, given the petitioner's failure to appear and the indication of no longer wishing to pursue the matter. Petitioner's Argument: The petitioner's counsel informed the court that the petitioner had taken the case bundle to engage another lawyer, implying a potential withdrawal or change in representation. The absence of appearance further supports this. The petitioner did not explicitly argue against dismissal but implicitly indicated a lack of intent to proceed. Respondent's Argument: The respondent, represented by the Senior Panel Counsel for Customs and GST, did not present any arguments against dismissal. The court's order suggests the respondent was present and the matter was taken up for hearing.