When the matter is called out, Mr. Shah is not present.
2. In this petition, the petitioner has challenged an order passed under the provisions of Public Premises Act, 1971. Initially, an order came to be passed by Development Commissioner requiring the petitioner to vacate the public premises. The said order of the Development Commissioner was challenged by the petitioner before the Additional District Judge by way of Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 11 of 2002. By order dated 27.11.2007, the learned Additional District Judge has rejected the said appeal and confirmed the order of the Development Commissioner. Consequently, the petitioner is required to vacate the public premises. Against the said order dated 27.11.2007 by the learned Court, present petition came to be filed in February, 2008. Since then, the petition is not prosecuted by the petitioner and is being adjourned from time to time. On 2nd May, 2008, the petition was adjourned at the request of the petitioner's advocate. Likewise on 8th May 2008 also, the petition was adjourned at the request of the petitioner's advocate. Lastly on 19.6.2008 also, the petition came to be adjourned at the request of Mr. Shah, advocate for the petitioner. Today also, when the matter is taken out, the petitioner's advocate is not present. Hence, the petition is dismissed. It is clarified that this Court has not examined the matter on merits and has not expressed any opinion also on merits. The petition is rejected on ground of non-prosecution.
[ K.M. Thaker, J. ] rmr.