The Punjab and Haryana High Court upheld established procedural law by allowing withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to challenge a subsequent administrative cancellation order, reaffirming its adherence to existing precedent. The judgment is not a binding authority on substantive challenges to transfer orders but is relevant for procedural guidance before the same court and persuasive elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/26877/2025 of VIKRAMJIT SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011450112025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE DEEPINDER SINGH NALWA |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Procedural; Not binding on the substantive legality of transfer cancellations |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law / Service Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition for quashing a non-relieving action is maintainable after the original transfer order is cancelled. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
Upon cancellation of the transfer order by a subsequent administrative act, the original challenge to non-relieving becomes infructuous. The Court, upon counsel’s request, allowed withdrawal of the petition with liberty to challenge the fresh cancellation order. No rulings were made on the merits of the transfer or its cancellation. The Court’s approach is consistent with procedural norms, enabling litigants to address newly arisen grievances. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought quashing of the respondents’ refusal to relieve him from his posting despite a transfer order. During the pendency of proceedings, the transfer order was cancelled by the department. The petitioner then sought to withdraw the writ petition to separately challenge the cancellation order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding on questions of substantive legality; procedural utility within the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and tribunals in similar procedural circumstances |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirms that when the administrative order challenged in a writ petition is cancelled during proceedings, the petitioner may withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the new cancellation.
- No decision on the merits of the original or cancelled transfer order.
- Lawyers should file fresh petitions challenging only the operative administrative order.
- The order is a procedural precedent for handling supervening administrative actions during writ pendency.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The original writ petition sought a certiorari quashing the respondents’ refusal to relieve the petitioner as per the transfer order.
- During pendency, the State produced an order cancelling the transfer, rendering the original petition infructuous.
- The Court considered the impact of the supervening order, and upon request by counsel, permitted withdrawal of the petition with liberty to challenge the cancellation order.
- The Court did not enter into the merits of either the transfer or its cancellation, maintaining strict procedural discipline.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought quashing of the action by respondents for not relieving him in terms of the transfer order.
- Upon learning of the cancellation order, sought permission to withdraw with liberty to challenge the fresh order.
Respondent (State)
- Presented the order cancelling the original transfer, rendering the non-relieving moot.
Factual Background
The petitioner, posted at Government Middle School Tapiala, Amritsar, challenged the respondents’ refusal to relieve him pursuant to a transfer order dated 31.08.2024. During the writ’s pendency, the Directorate cancelled the transfer by an order dated 15.09.2025. The petitioner, in light of this development, sought withdrawal of the petition with liberty to challenge the new cancellation order.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment does not detail discussion of specific statutory provisions, focusing instead on procedural handling in view of a supervening administrative order.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court reaffirmed the procedural precedent of permitting withdrawal of proceedings with liberty to challenge fresh administrative orders arising during pendency.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms existing procedural law on withdrawal and subsequent challenge rights in administrative/service disputes.