The High Court reiterates that if the administrative order under challenge is withdrawn or cancelled by the authority after filing of the writ, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed as infructuous. This is a reaffirmation of settled law with binding effect for similar future cases involving administrative transfers.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/1138/2023 of GEETA RAUTELA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010106422023 |
| Date of Registration | 06-07-2023 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Uttarakhand High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Service Law / Administrative Law |
| Questions of Law | Effect of subsequent cancellation of an impugned transfer order on maintainability of writ petition |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court found that since the transfer order challenged by the petitioner had been cancelled by the State through a later order (dated 26.07.2023), the petitioner’s grievance no longer survived. Both counsels agreed that, due to this development, the writ petition had become infructuous and did not require adjudication on merits. The Court accordingly dismissed the writ as infructuous. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging a transfer order. After the writ was filed, the transfer order was cancelled. Both parties acknowledged that no effective cause of action remained in view of this cancellation. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Uttarakhand High Court’s territorial jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court explicitly confirms that where the impugned administrative action is withdrawn or cancelled during proceedings, writ petitions become infructuous and are to be dismissed as such.
- Lawyers should anticipate questions of maintainability if reliefs sought by a writ become superfluous due to administrative developments after filing.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The State informed the Court that after the writ petition was filed, the original transfer order against the petitioner was cancelled by a subsequent official order.
- The State Counsel submitted, and the petitioner’s counsel agreed, that because the order under challenge no longer existed, there was no surviving issue for adjudication.
- The Court accepted this consensus and dismissed the petition as infructuous, without addressing merits or underlying legal contentions.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The petitioner’s counsel agreed that, following the cancellation of the transfer order, the writ petition has become infructuous.
Respondent (State)
- The State’s counsel pointed out that the transfer order had already been cancelled after the writ was filed, making the petition infructuous.
Factual Background
The petitioner originally challenged a transfer order by way of a writ petition in the High Court. After the petition’s filing, the transfer order was cancelled by a subsequent government order dated 26.07.2023. In view of this, both the petitioner and the State agreed that the original cause of action had ceased to exist.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not discuss any particular statutory provision but applies general principles relating to the maintainability of writ petitions after withdrawal or cancellation of the impugned administrative order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion was recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules, guidelines, or innovations were announced by the Court in this case.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court’s reasoning is in line with settled legal practice regarding infructuous writs.