The High Court reaffirmed that where a petitioner has already complied with the impugned transfer order and seeks to withdraw the writ petition, the matter is dismissed as infructuous. This practice is in line with prior judicial treatment of such circumstances and serves as binding authority only on the facts, carrying limited precedential weight for substantive legal points in future disputes involving administrative transfers in public service.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/1123/2023 of HEMLATA LOHANI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010106162023 |
| Date of Registration | 06-07-2023 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Type of Law | Administrative law (service law – transfer orders) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that since the petitioner, having earlier challenged a transfer order, had complied with the order and joined at the transferred place (with no interim protection), her counsel’s statement that the writ petition had become infructuous warranted dismissal of the petition as infructuous. No adjudication on the merits of the transfer order was made. The decision reinforces the practice that voluntary compliance with impugned administrative orders, without interim relief, typically renders the legal challenge infructuous unless exceptional circumstances are demonstrated. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner initially challenged an order of transfer. In the absence of any interim order, she joined at the transferred place. Her counsel indicated that the writ petition had become infructuous as a result. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding as precedent; applies to similar factual scenarios within the High Court of Uttarakhand. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in procedural matters regarding withdrawal of petitions after compliance. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces the established procedural practice that a writ petition will ordinarily be dismissed as infructuous if the petitioner has already complied with the impugned administrative order (here, a transfer order) and seeks withdrawal.
- No adjudication on the merits will occur if parties accept the effects of the order they challenged and do not press for interim relief.
- Lawyers should ensure that interim protection is obtained if they intend to maintain the challenge to an administrative order; lack of such protection, followed by compliance, may result in the petition becoming infructuous.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner’s counsel submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous as the petitioner had joined at the transferred place, having not secured interim relief against the transfer order.
- The Court accepted the counsel’s statement and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.
- There was no analysis of the transfer order’s legality or the merits of the challenge, with dismissal purely on procedural grounds due to subsequent factual development (compliance).
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Counsel requested that the petition be treated as infructuous since the petitioner had already joined at the new transferred place and did not secure interim relief.
Respondent (State)
- No submissions from the State recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a transfer order in the High Court of Uttarakhand. No interim protection was granted. Subsequently, the petitioner complied with the transfer order by joining at the new posting location. Counsel for the petitioner informed the Court that, in view of these facts, the petition had become infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted in the judgment, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds following a factual development (petitioner’s voluntary compliance).
Procedural Innovations
None stated in the judgment. The approach followed is a standard procedural route in service law disputes where the impugned order has been acted upon during pendency of the petition.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Routine affirmation of the procedure to dismiss as infructuous when the matter has been voluntarily acted upon by the petitioner. No new precedent created nor prior precedent overruled.