The Calcutta High Court reiterates that a writ petition is liable to be disposed of as infructuous when the relief sought can no longer be granted due to subsequent developments; this upholds settled jurisprudence and clarifies that courts need not proceed to decide academic issues. The decision is binding precedent for similar matters arising from changed circumstances in service and tenancy disputes.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/22078/2017 of RITA KULLU Vs THE CHAIRMAN, L.I.C. & ORS CNR WBCHCA0419042017 |
| Date of Registration | 22-08-2017 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding on coordinate benches and subordinate courts within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Service law/tenancy disputes; writ jurisdiction |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that since the petitioner had already retired and vacated the allotted quarter, the writ petition—seeking quashing of the eviction order and demand for license fees—had become infructuous. As the relief claimed was no longer capable of being granted due to supervening events, no further interference was necessary, and the petition was disposed of accordingly. The case reinforces the settled principle that courts do not decide academic or futile issues. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner sought quashing of orders requiring her to vacate a staff quarter and deposit license fees. Respondents informed the court that the petitioner had retired and vacated the quarter. No one appeared for the petitioner at the hearing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the jurisdiction of Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar situations involving infructuous petitions due to supervening circumstances |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ petitions become infructuous if the relief sought is no longer applicable owing to events arising after filing.
- Clarifies that courts have no obligation to decide petitions where no effective relief can be granted.
- Lawyers should monitor ongoing status of clients and parties; supervening events (retirement, possession vacated, etc.) can terminate a case.
- Absence of petitioner at final hearing, with respondent’s uncontradicted submissions on factual developments, may result in disposal as infructuous.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the petitioner sought quashing of orders for eviction from staff quarters and demand for license fees.
- The respondent informed that the petitioner had already retired and vacated the concerned quarter.
- There was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner, nor was any adjournment sought.
- The court found that because the petitioner had already complied with the main impugned orders, no effective relief could be granted; thus, the writ petition had become infructuous.
- Accordingly, the petition was disposed of without any order as to costs, reaffirming that courts will not entertain academic questions where the real dispute is extinguished by subsequent events.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
(No appearance at the hearing; the judgment does not record submissions by the petitioner.)
Respondent (LIC):
- Informed the court that the petitioner has retired from service.
- Informed the court that the petitioner has vacated the staff quarter previously allotted to her.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging orders requiring her to vacate a staff quarter and deposit license fees. During the pendency of the petition, the petitioner retired and vacated the staff quarter. At the hearing, counsel for the respondent (LIC) informed the court of these facts; no one appeared for the petitioner. The court found that, in light of these supervening developments, the petition could not be proceeded with.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment does not discuss or interpret any statutory provision, but proceeds on settled writ jurisdiction principles regarding relief and infructuousness.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – When existing law is affirmed.