The court established that dismissal of a writ petition as withdrawn, especially with liberty to file afresh, is not a determination on merits and carries no binding effect. This reaffirms long-standing procedural law and has only limited, routine procedural utility.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMS/2863/2025 of DR GAUTAMVEER Vs UTTARAKHAND INFORMATION COMMISSION |
| CNR | UKHC010157682025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN |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 (Withdrawal of writ petitions) |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition on the petitioner’s request, expressly granting liberty to file afresh, and clarified that such disposal is not a pronouncement on merits. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None; only on the parties, not on future cases |
| Persuasive For | None; does not decide any legal issue on merits |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that withdrawal of a writ petition “with liberty to file afresh” does not amount to adjudication on the merits.
- Such a withdrawal order does not constitute binding precedent.
- Parties retain the right to re-agitate the matter, subject to law.
- This order follows the routine procedure for withdrawal but may be cited to clarify the status of withdrawn petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner applied for withdrawal of the writ petition.
- The Court considered the application and allowed it.
- The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with express liberty granted to file afresh.
- By this mode of disposal, the Court made no adjudication on merits and gave no pronouncement on any substantive issue.
- All pending applications were also disposed of.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, reserving liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action.
Respondent
- No submissions by the respondent are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand. Subsequently, an application was made to withdraw the petition. No details regarding the substantive dispute or underlying facts are provided in the order. The Court considered this application and allowed withdrawal with liberty to file afresh.
Statutory Analysis
- No specific statutory provisions were analyzed or interpreted in the judgment; the order concerns routine procedural withdrawal of a writ petition in the High Court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- The judgment was delivered solely by the presiding judge; no dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded.
Procedural Innovations
None; the Court followed the standard procedure for withdrawal of a case and spoke to no procedural innovations.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows the settled procedural law regarding withdrawal of petitions and does not create new precedent or overrule any existing decision.