The judgment affirms that a writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution does not bars future revival by the petitioner, subject to fresh application, and holds no precedential value on the merits; the order is procedural and follows existing legal position.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/8489/2017 of HARYANA DISTILLERY LTD. Vs STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011062772017 |
| Date of Registration | 24-04-2017 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | None on merits; dismissal is procedural |
| Type of Law | Procedural; Writ Jurisdiction |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution, as counsel for the petitioner conveyed that the distillery had been closed and no further instructions were forthcoming. The order clarified that if any cause of action survives in the future, the petitioner retains the liberty to revive the writ petition by moving an appropriate application. Pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of accordingly. No findings on merits were recorded in the dismissal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Counsel for the petitioner informed that the petitioner company (distillery) has been closed and no further instructions were available to proceed. Consequently, the Court proceeded to dismiss the matter for want of prosecution, with liberty to revive on the emergence of cause of action. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None; procedural dismissal, no binding authority on the merits |
| Persuasive For | None; limited to procedural aspect of revival of dismissed petitions |
| Follows | Existing procedural law regarding dismissal for want of prosecution and possible revival, no specific case cited |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Dismissal for non-prosecution does not bar the petitioner from reviving the writ petition, upon showing a surviving cause of action.
- No judgment on merits is rendered when a writ is dismissed for want of prosecution.
- Counsel’s inability to proceed, due to lack of instructions, leads to dismissal but with explicit liberty to move for revival.
- Miscellaneous applications in the main matter also stand disposed when the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted counsel’s statement that the petitioner company had ceased operations and that he had no instructions to proceed further.
- In view of absence of prosecution, the Court exercised its power to dismiss the writ petition for want of prosecution.
- The Court explicitly recorded that if any cause of action survives, the petitioner may seek revival of the petition by appropriate application.
- All pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of as a consequence of main petition being dismissed.
- The Court recorded no findings on merits and restricted the order to procedural default.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Learned counsel informed the Court that the petitioner company (distillery) had closed and that he had received no further instructions to represent in the matter.
Respondent
No arguments by the respondents are recorded in the order.
Factual Background
Counsel appearing for the petitioner (Haryana Distillery Ltd.) apprised the Court that the distillery had been closed and he had no further instructions to proceed. The Court, in absence of prosecution from the petitioner side, dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution, leaving it open for the petitioner to seek revival if any cause of action survives in future.
Statutory Analysis
- No substantive statutory provision was interpreted or discussed.
- Procedural aspect under writ jurisdiction was applied, concerning dismissal for want of prosecution and liberty to revive, but without detailed statutory analysis.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; the order is that of a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
- The order affirms the procedural practice that a writ petition dismissed for want of prosecution does not operate as res judicata on the merits and allows for liberty to apply for revival if necessary in the future.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Confirms existing procedural practice that dismissal for want of prosecution does not conclude the matter on merits and revival is permissible.