Debu Maya vs State Of Manipur & Ors

Ramalingam Sudhakar, CJ

[1] Today, when the matter is taken up, none appears for the petitioner. Mr. S. Napolean, learned Government Advocate appears for the State respondents and Mr. S. Suresh, learned ASG appears for respondent No. 5.

[2] Earlier, the same petitioner filed one W.P. (C) No. 307 of 2000 which came to disposed of as not pressed on 07.05.2007 as follows :

"Mr. Sharat Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to press the petition on instruction of the petitioners.

Prayer is allowed. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of as not pressed."

[3] The present writ petition is filed as W.P. (C) No. 331 of 2015 by the same writ petitioner for the same relief. Notice was issued on 08.04.2015. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time for filing objection. Respondent No. 1 and 5 filed their objection primarily pleading that the first writ petition filed by the very same petitioner, being, W.P. (C) No. 307 of 2000 was withdrawn as not pressed without liberty to file a fresh petition and the subsequent writ petition is filed in the year 2015 without any just or reasonable cause. Since no liberty was given while withdrawing the earlier writ petition, there is no need to entertain the present writ petition.

[4] Even otherwise, learned counsel for the petitioner has been taking time on many occasions as evident from the order sheets, and petitioner's counsel is also not appearing regularly as has been recorded as absent on 05.12.2017, 29.03.2018 and 19.04.2018.

[5] From the narration of the above facts, it appears that neither the petitioner nor her counsel is not serious in prosecuting the matter.

[6] Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.