Clarification on the Effect of Full State Compliance with Prior Court Directions in Writ Proceedings Under Article 226
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/22414/2025 of BANASHREE DAS Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0439712025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE SUVRA GHOSH |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the Calcutta High Court; clarificatory for writ practice |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law – writ proceedings under Article 226 |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | The Court’s reasoning is that satisfaction with compliance by State means nothing further subsists for adjudication; procedural integrity requires that the matter be closed except where factual disputes require further examination. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Pursuant to prior Court order dated 24 October 2025, police authorities started a specific case, undertook to keep strict vigil at the petitioner’s residential area, and to preserve peace and tranquility. State report was placed on record. Private respondents remained unrepresented despite service. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities under the Calcutta High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering the effect of full State compliance with interim writ directions |
| Follows | Established High Court precedent for disposal of writs on full compliance |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that when the State complies fully with the interim/vacation order and the Court is satisfied, the writ petition shall be disposed of as infructuous—no further adjudication is required.
- Merely instituting affidavits or making allegations in the writ does not constitute judicial admission unless the Court seeks an affidavit; protects parties from unintended admissions.
- Writ practitioners should note this as affirming the principle of disposition upon fulfillment of direct Court relief, helpful in matters involving police action and preventive orders.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court assessed the State’s report regarding compliance with its order dated October 24, 2025.
- Upon finding that police authorities had registered a case and had committed to substantive preventive policing at the petitioner’s residence, the Court found its earlier directions were completely fulfilled.
- The private respondents, despite being served, did not appear, and no further counter or factual inquiry was necessitated by the Court.
- The Court clarified that because it did not call for affidavits, all allegations in the petition are deemed not admitted, thus preserving neutrality on any unresolved factual contentions.
- The Court noted that on comprehensive compliance with relief sought, the writ no longer requires adjudication and should be disposed accordingly.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Affidavit of service filed.
- Relied on prior directions for police protection and maintenance of peace.
State:
- Submitted report indicating police compliance: a case was started, vigilant protection at petitioner’s residence was provided, and peace/tranquility ensured.
Private Respondents:
- Not represented despite service.
Factual Background
Following a prior interim order by the High Court dated October 24, 2025, the police authorities were directed to initiate a specific case and to provide vigilant protection at the petitioner’s residential premises to prevent any untoward incident and maintain peace and tranquility in the locality. The State filed its compliance report confirming these actions were completed. Despite being served, the private respondents did not appear or respond before the Court.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment applies the procedural law relating to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, focusing on the High Court’s powers to monitor compliance with its interim orders and to dispose of a writ petition when substantive relief, as directed by the Court, is fully implemented. The approach follows prevailing practice that absence of factual contest and fulfillment of relief leads to infructuous writ and disposal.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court reiterates that unless specific affidavits are called for, mere allegations in the writ petition are not admitted, ensuring procedural fairness.
- Affidavit of service and compliance report practice is reinforced as essential procedural steps for effective Court supervision of interim directions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms settled principles regarding disposal of writs upon compliance with directions.