JUDGMENT : S.K. Keshote, J. The Special Civil Application had come up for hearing before this Court on 26th December, 1996. The matter was called out for hearing in the first round then in the second round and lastly, in the third round, but nobody put appearance on behalf of the petitioner, and as such, the Special Civil Application was ordered to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 2. The counsel for the applicant has given out the cause of his absence that he was busy in another matter before Mr. Justice M. S. Parikh. 3. This Court has taken a view in many matters earlier that the counsel for the petitioner if busy in another court is hardly any ground much less a sufficient ground for absence in the old hearing matters. The matter pertains to Tanna Associates which means that there may be some assistant advocates to Mr. B.P. Tanna. In many cases of Mr. B.P. Tanna, Shri D.V. Mehta appears and on that day nobody appeared in the case. Mr. Tanna should have taken the care that his junior person appears in the case so that the old matter may by disposed of. I do not find any sufficient cause which justifies the absence of the counsel for the petitioner when the case was called for hearing. 4. The M. C. A. is dismissed. Petition dismissed.