A writ petition becomes infructuous and is dismissed as withdrawn if the sole petitioner dies before adjudication and withdrawal is sought. The judgment upholds settled practice, carries binding value on lower courts, and clarifies no new law but restates existing procedure for similar instances in service and writ matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSB/26/2023 of BHUPESH KUMAR RAI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010008302023 |
| Date of Registration | 12-01-2023 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G. NARENDAR (per curiam) |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Division Bench: HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. G. NARENDAR; HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. SUBHASH UPADHYAY |
| Precedent Value | Binding on coordinate and subordinate benches within the State of Uttarakhand |
| Type of Law | Procedural – Writ jurisdiction (Service matter) |
| Ratio Decidendi | Where the sole petitioner in a writ petition dies before the matter is heard, and counsel requests withdrawal, the court will record the submission and dismiss the petition as withdrawn. No substantive adjudication occurs, and the petition ceases to survive for further consideration. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner’s counsel submitted that the petitioner had passed away the previous month and sought leave to withdraw the writ petition. The court accordingly dismissed the petition as withdrawn. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and benches within Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | High Courts in other states (for similar procedural situations) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates the settled practice: when a petitioner dies and withdrawal is sought, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn without further inquiry or substitution, unless otherwise moved.
- Lawyers representing deceased petitioners should promptly inform the court and seek withdrawal when no substitution is intended.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The counsel for the petitioner informed the court of the petitioner’s demise and sought leave to withdraw the writ petition.
- The court placed the submission on record.
- Without substantive discussion or adjudication, the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn due to the petitioner’s death.
- The decision reflects adherence to established procedural norms regarding the maintainability of writ petitions upon the death of the sole petitioner, where no request for substitution is made.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Submitted that the petitioner passed away the previous month.
- Sought leave to withdraw the writ petition.
Respondent:
- No substantive submissions are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand in a service matter. Before the matter could be heard, the petitioner passed away. The petitioner’s counsel informed the court of the death in the following month after it occurred and requested withdrawal of the petition. The court recorded the submission and dismissed the petition as withdrawn. No substantive hearing was undertaken.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or specially concurring opinions are recorded; both judges (HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G. NARENDAR and HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY) agreed with the order dismissing the petition as withdrawn.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were discussed or introduced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment reiterates established procedural law and practice regarding withdrawal of writ petitions on the death of the petitioner.