JUDGMENT The petitioner had failed to deposit the publication charges. It may be mentioned that pursuant to the order dated 23-11-90 passed by this Court, the office informed the counsel for the petitioner on 27-11-90 to deposit an amount of Rs. 1000/- as publication charges within ten days. However the petitioner failed to make any such deposit. The matter came up for hearing on the question regarding the said default on 11-1-1991. On the said date, at the request of the counsel for the petitioner one last opportunity was granted to the petitioner to deposit the requisite publication charges within three weeks. But, then, no such deposit has been made till date. Shri Deoras, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that inspite of he having sent letters to the petitioner he has not received any instructions from him in regard to deposit of publication charges. In the opinion of this Court, from the fact of the petitioner ceasing to give instructions to the counsel engaged by him, and from the fact of his failure to take necessary steps for serving the notice of the petition on the respondent, it is apparent that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. It is no doubt true that the Representation of the People Act, 1951 does not give any specific power of dismissal in the above said circumstances. But it is axiomatic that no Court or Tribunal is supposed to continue a proceeding before it when the party who has moved it does not care to remain present or to give requisite instructions to his counsel. In such circumstances, no express provision in the Act is necessary to empower the Court to make the order of dismissal in default. The provisions of section 87 of the Act read with those of Order 9 C.P.C. are sufficient to empower the Court to make the order of dismissal in default. [See Dr. P. Nalla Thampy Thera v. B.L. Shanker and Others (A.I.R. 1984 SC 135). Consequently, for the reasons stated above, the petition is dismissed for default in appearance.