The Uttarakhand High Court clarified that a writ petition dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the petitioner, with liberty to file afresh, does not decide any legal question or create binding precedent. The judgment upholds established practice without introducing new law or overruling prior precedent. Its practical utility is limited to the procedural context.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/1718/2025 of SURAJ KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010165092025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | No binding precedent; procedural order only |
| Type of Law | Procedural |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court allowed the petitioner’s request to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh. No legal issue was adjudicated. The order is purely procedural and does not address substantive questions of law. Such disposals simply restore parties to their original position, preserving their right to re-agitate the matter. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding; does not operate as precedent |
| Persuasive For | Limited to identical procedural contexts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The dismissal of a writ petition as withdrawn, with liberty to file fresh, does not result in adjudication of any legal question.
- Such orders are procedural and not precedents on substantive law or facts.
- Preservation of right to re-file: Parties retain liberty to approach the court afresh on the same cause, subject to limitation and procedural rules.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the petitioner’s request to withdraw the writ petition.
- Liberty to file fresh was expressly granted by the court.
- No examination of merits, facts, or any questions of law took place.
- The order is procedural, intended to facilitate the petitioner to re-agitate the matter if necessary.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file afresh.
Respondent
- No submissions on merits recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand. On the date of hearing, counsel for the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the petition with explicit liberty to file a fresh petition. No adjudication on the merits of the case took place.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not discuss or interpret any statutes or constitutional provisions; it records only the procedural act of withdrawal with liberty to file afresh.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations are recorded in the judgment; the procedure followed is standard practice for withdrawal with liberty.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court followed established practice regarding withdrawal of petitions without addressing substantive issues.