IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.2899 OF 2002

Thammaiah Gowda                  ...Appellant(s)

Versus

Shekar and Ors.                 ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

The High Court's Order against which this appeal is  

preferred  directed  for  the  appellant's  ejectment  from  the  

land forming the subject-matter of the writ petition.  The  

appellant came to this Court making the grievance that the  

order was passed in a public interest litigation and it went  

beyond the relief claimed in the writ petition.  Though leave  

was granted for filing appeal, this Court did not pass any  

interim order in the appellant's favour.  On notice being  

issued, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the  

State  stating  that,  in  pursuance  of  the  High  Court's  

direction, the appellant was dispossessed from the disputed  

land (which happens to be a forest land) and the State has  

resumed its possession.

When the case was called out, Mr. Rajesh Mahale, who  

is the Advocate-on-record, filed an interlocutory application  

for  his  discharge  from  this  case.   In  the  discharge  

application it is stated that on receipt of a copy of the  

counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State, he sought  

further instructions from the appellant or his son, but he  

never received any response from them.  The relevant extract  

from the application for discharge is reproduced below:

....2/-

- 2 -

“Although  the  Advocates  for  the  Appellant have informed him of the listing of  the case and the developments, there has been  no communication, information or instructions  from  the  Appellant  to  his  Advocates.   The  Applicant  has  tried  to  obtain  instructions  from the Appellant as to the developments in  the  case.   No  instructions  are  forthcoming  from  the  Appellant  or  his  son.   The  Applicant's  colleague  Mr.  Raghavendra  S.  Srivatsa, Advocate who is handling this case  has contacted  the Appellant  and his  son on  several  occasions  and  has  also  written  letters.  Finally, under cover of the letter  dated January 16, 2010, the Advocates for the  Appellant  have  informed  him  that  they  will  withdraw from the case and that.....”

In  these  circumstances,  we  allow  the  prayer  for  

discharge and direct that the vakalatnama filed on behalf of  

the appellant be cancelled and he be discharged from this  

case.   

This is not the end of the matter.  The discharge  

application  clearly  indicates  that  the  appellant  has  lost  

interest in the matter and he is no longer interested in  

prosecuting  the  appeal.  In  that  circumstance,  the  civil  

appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.

......................J.               [AFTAB ALAM]

......................J.               [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN]

New Delhi, April 20, 2010.