1. Vide order dated 17.7.2012, the Court had observed that the matter was called out twice in the first session and again in the second session. However, the learned advocate for the petitioner was not present. Similarly on 27.7.2012, the matter was called out twice, but the learned advocate for the petitioner was not present. Once again on 8.8.2012, the matter was called out twice.
However, none was present on behalf of the petitioner. Today, the matter has been called out twice. However, the learned advocate for the petitioner is not present.
2. Under the circumstances, the petition is dismissed for want of prosecution. Rule is discharged. Interim relief stands vacated.
[HARSHA DEVANI, J.] parmar*