Manisana, J.:- Facts giving rise to this application are thus. On 6.9.91, when Civil Rule No. 281 of 1990 was called on for hearing neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present. However, the petition was dismissed on merits after hearing the counsel for the respondents. Thereafter, this application has been filed by the writ petitioner for review or setting aside the order made on 6.9.91. 2. We have the experience that if the petitioner or his counsel does not appear when a matter is called out for hearing it hampers the working of the Court and creates serious problem for the Court. Therefore, if neither the petitioner nor his counsel appears when the case is called out for hearing, it will be at the discretion of the Court to dismiss the petition for non-prosecution or to adjourn the hearing of the petition. The question then is, Whether a writ pet­ition can be disposed of on merits without hearing the petitioner of his counsel ? At this stage, it will be helpful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Ram Naresh vs. State of Bihar, AIR 1987 SC 1500 . In that case, the Supreme Court observed that, where neither the appellant nor his counsel is present, a crim­inal appeal against an order of conviction and sentence may be dismissed. But the matter can be disposed of on merits only after; hearing the appellant or his counsel. We are of the view that the principle underlying the above observations regarding disposal on merits can be extended to the writ proceedings also. Therefore, the writ petition can only be disposed of on merits only after hearing: the petitioner or his counsel. 3. In that view of the matter, the order dated 6.9.91 passed in Civil Rule No. 281 of 1990 is set aside. The Civil Rule is res­tored to file. 4. The petition is disposed of. No costs.