When an impugned transfer order is cancelled during the pendency of a writ petition, the Court holds the petition becomes infructuous and dismisses it accordingly; this approach upheld existing procedural precedent and will guide future handling of such petitions in government service matters.
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 on subordinate courts within Uttarakhand |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Government Service – Transfer) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition challenging a transfer order remains maintainable after the said order is cancelled during the pendency of proceedings. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that since the transfer order challenged by the petitioner was cancelled by the State during the pendency of the writ petition, the purpose of the litigation became redundant. Both parties acknowledged this development. Therefore, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, reaffirming that courts will not issue rulings on academic or non-existent disputes. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner challenged a transfer order. After the petition was filed, the State cancelled the transfer order (dated 26.07.2023). Both the State and the petitioner agreed that the petition was rendered infructuous as a result. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India in similar factual scenarios |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that when the cause of action in a writ petition is removed by a subsequent government act (e.g., cancellation of challenged order), the petition should be dismissed as infructuous.
- Lawyers should be vigilant to notify the court if relief sought becomes unavailable due to subsequent developments.
- Demonstrates that both counsel and State can jointly acknowledge supervening events to expedite disposal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the only issue in the writ petition was the legality of a transfer order.
- The learned State counsel informed the Court that the transfer order was cancelled after the petition was filed.
- Counsel for the petitioner conceded that the writ petition had become infructuous as a result of the cancellation.
- The Court applied the settled principle that courts do not adjudicate upon academic or redundant matters when the cause of action ceases to exist.
- Based on these facts and concessions, the petition was dismissed as infructuous.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Conceded that the writ petition had become infructuous due to cancellation of the transfer order.
Respondent (State)
- Informed the Court that the transfer order was cancelled vide order dated 26.07.2023.
- Submitted that in view of the cancellation, the writ petition had become infructuous.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an official transfer order issued against her. After the petition’s institution, the State cancelled the transfer order on 26.07.2023. Both parties appeared in court and jointly acknowledged that, in light of the cancellation, the writ petition no longer survived.
Statutory Analysis
No detailed statutory interpretation found in the judgment; the dismissal was based on procedural principles regarding maintainability and infructuous petitions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rules or innovations were introduced or discussed in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court reaffirmed the settled law that a writ petition is dismissed as infructuous if the impugned action is withdrawn or cancelled during its pendency.