A writ petition was dismissed as infructuous when the statutory authority passed an order under Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, covering the relief sought. The judgment reaffirms the long-standing judicial principle that writ petitions may be rendered infructuous due to subsequent statutory developments. This decision is binding precedent for procedural outcomes in the State of West Bengal and provides persuasive value for similar cases across India.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/8939/2025 of SOMNATH SARKAR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0178602025 |
| Date of Registration | 21-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 27-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI SEN |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge (Court No. 19) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Calcutta High Court’s jurisdiction for similar procedural fact patterns |
| Type of Law | Procedural Law (Writ Jurisdiction and Statutory Proceedings) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition becomes infructuous upon the passing of an order by the competent statutory authority under Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Calcutta High Court held that when, during the pendency of a writ petition, the competent authority under the governing statute passes an order that covers the subject matter of the writ, such petition becomes infructuous. The Court dismissed the writ solely on this ground, relying on the express concession of the petitioner. The ratio underscores judicial economy and prevents parallel proceedings for matters covered by a statutory order. This principle ensures that High Courts avoid adjudicating moot questions where effective alternative relief has already been obtained via statutory mechanisms. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner’s counsel submitted that, pursuant to an order in proceedings commenced under Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, the relief sought in the writ petition was addressed, making the writ unnecessary. The State was represented, and upon such submission from the petitioner, the Court dismissed the writ as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court in situations where statutory proceedings address the relief sought in a writ petition. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and courts in India handling similar procedural situations; demonstrates the approach to managing parallel statutory and writ remedies. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment affirms that where the relief sought in a writ petition is addressed via a statutory mechanism, writ courts will dismiss proceedings as infructuous.
- Lawyers should carefully track parallel proceedings under special statutes and proactively appraise the Court if statutory relief has overtaken the writ’s cause.
- The Court’s succinct approach preserves judicial economy and prevents inconsistent reliefs.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted the petitioner’s express submission that following the passing of an order under Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, no live issue remained in the writ petition.
- Upon this submission, the Court concluded that the writ petition had become infructuous and could not be pursued any further.
- The order demonstrates efficient utilization of judicial resources and the doctrine that courts will not decide moot or academic questions when statutory remedies have effectively addressed the grievance.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
Submitted that the order passed in proceedings under Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964, rendered the writ petition infructuous.
Respondent (State)
Appearance recorded; no further arguments detailed in the order.
Factual Background
A writ petition was filed by the petitioner. While this was pending, proceedings under Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 took place, and an order was passed in such proceedings. The petitioner’s counsel then submitted to the Court that the order had provided the relief sought, making the writ unnecessary. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ as infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 10(4) of the West Bengal Highways Act, 1964 was referred to as the statutory provision under which an order was passed, covering the issues raised in the writ.
- No further statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted by the Court in the text of the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the order.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment relies on the express submission of the petitioner’s counsel to swiftly dispose of the writ as infructuous.
- No new procedural standards or guidelines are enunciated; established principles on mootness/infructuous petitions are reaffirmed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed existing procedural doctrine regarding infructuous petitions rather than breaking new legal ground.