IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.06.2010 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Writ Petition No.16456 of 1998 S.Ahmed Yasin ..Petitioner Vs 1. The Competent Authority SAFEM (FOP) "UTSAV" No.64/1, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai.17 2. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeiture of Property, Khan Market, New Delhi 3. District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu ..Respondents Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent relating to the impugned order dated 19.06.1998, quash the same and consequently, direct the first respondent to drop the proceedings against the petitioner. For Petitioner : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.S.Haja Mohideen Gizathi (R1 & R2) Mr.B.Vijay (G.A.) (R3) O R D E R This writ petition has been pending from the year 1998. Though on several occasions it was listed it could not be disposed of. When the matter was listed earlier on 01.03.2010, it was taken up by his Lordship M..J.P.J. and as there was no representation for the petitioner, it was ordered to be listed under the caption"for dismissal". It was accordingly listed on 09.03.2010, At the request https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of the petitioner, the caption was removed and it was again listed for final hearing. Thereafter, it was listed on 18.03.2010, 30.03.2010, 13.04.2010. On 13.04.2010, when the matter was taken up, there was no representation for the petitioner and therefore, the matter was again ordered to be listed under the caption for dismissal on 21.04.2010. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 21.04.2010, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not ready for arguing the matter. At his request, it was again ordered to be listed after two weeks under the caption "for dismissal". On 07.06.2010 it was listed, on which date, at the request of the petitioner, it was ordered to be posted on 14.06.2010. On that day also, he was not ready. Therefore, it was ordered to be listed on 15.06.2010. When the matter was taken up, the learned counsel for the petitioner was not ready to argue the matter and he sought for adjournment. However, the learned counsel for the respondent was ready and he objected for adjournment, as the matter was pending for about 12 years. However, with a view to afford yet another opportunity to the petitioner, the matter was ordered to be listed today under the caption "for Dismissal". Even today, when the matter is taken up, there is no representation for the petitioner. From the facts narrated above,I am of the view that the petitioner is not ready in prosecuting the matter further. It is also noticeable that on previous occasions also, on 13.11.2009, when the matter was listed before K.K.S.J, there was no representation. Again, it was listed on 16.11.2009 before K.K.S.J, and there was no representation. In view of all the above, and considering the fact that the writ petition has been pending from 1998 i.e. for about 12 years and also the fact that the petitioner has not shown any interest in arguing the matter,I find no option except to dismiss the petition. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly for non prosecution. No costs. sd/- Asst.Registrar /True copy/ Sub.Asst.Registrar PAL To 1. The Competent Authority SAFEM (FOP) "UTSAV" No.64/1, G.N.Chetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai.17 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2. Appellate Tribunal for Forfeiture of Property, Khan Market, New Delhi. 3. The District Collector, Ramanathapuram District, Tamil Nadu. + 1 c.c. to Mr. S. Haja Mohideen Gisthi, Advocate. S.R.No.44040. W.P.NO.16456 OF 1998 MRD (CO) GSK 30.06.2010. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/