1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 4057/2011 (VIJAY P. ADHAU & ANOTHER VERSUS ADDL. COMMISSIONER, AMRAVATI DN., AMRAVATI & ANOTHER) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri P.S. Patil, counsel for the petitioners. Mrs. Rashi Deshpande, Assistant Government Pleader for the R1-State. Shri M.U. Bute, counsel for the R-2. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : DECEMBER 5 , 2011 . By this petition, the petitioners impugn the order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Amravati on 05.04.2011 dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioners as according to the Additional Commissioner, the petitioners were not interested in prosecuting the matter. It is averred by the petitioners in the writ petition that the petitioner no.1 attended the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner on the dates of hearing but, he was not able to present himself before the Additional Commissioner on 05.04.2011 due to health problem. It is in this background that the petitioners seek a writ, order or direction for setting aside the impugned order dated 05.04.2011. The learned counsel for the respondent no.2 had presented a certified copy of the Roznama of the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner for perusal of this Court. It appears from the Roznama that the petitioners remained 2 absent on 02.06.2010, 29.06.2010, 20.07.2010, 17.08.2010, 14.09.2010, 05.10.2010 and 19.10.2010. It was observed by the Additional Commissioner in the order dated 19.10.2010 that the parties were given a last opportunity to present their case on 09.11.2010. However, on 09.11.2010, the petitioners were absent. The petitioners failed to remain present when the matter was then fixed on 26.11.2010, 21.12.2010, 11.01.2011, 08.02.2011 and 01.03.2011. On 01.03.2011, the Additional Commissioner observed that a last opportunity is granted to the petitioners to remain present on the next date of hearing. However, the petitioners and their counsel remained absent on 18.03.2011 and 05.04.2011. It is in this background that the Additional Commissioner dismissed the matter on 05.04.2011 for want of prosecution. There is nothing wrong with the order passed by the Additional Commissioner on 05.04.2011. The case of the petitioners that the petitioner no.1 attended the proceedings before the Additional Commissioner on all dates except on 05.04.2011 due to ill-health appears to be false and baseless. In view of the statement made in paragraph 1 of the writ petition, the statement of fact in Ground G) of the petition also cannot be believed. This is a case of Suggestio Falsi Suppressio Veri. No relief can be granted to the petitioners in such a case, specially when the petitioners have failed to remain present in spite of specific orders passed by the Additional Commissioner granting a last opportunity to the petitioners to remain present. This Court would not be in a position to interfere with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. 3 For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE APTE