The Court affirms that when a writ petition under Articles 226/227 seeking protection of life and liberty is withdrawn by the petitioner to pursue alternative legal remedies, such withdrawal does not bar recourse to those remedies. The judgment upholds established procedural principles and can be cited as binding authority for matters of withdrawal and liberty to pursue alternative reliefs within the High Court’s jurisdiction, especially relating to protection-of-life petitions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRWP/9446/2025 of JAGJEET SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. |
| CNR | PHHC011382772025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Procedure / Writ Jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law | Whether withdrawal of a writ petition for protection of life and liberty permits recourse to alternative remedies under law. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that petitioners are at liberty to withdraw a writ petition under Articles 226/227 seeking protection of life and liberty, and such withdrawal expressly permits them to avail alternative remedies available to them under law. The statement from the Bench and lack of State objection reinforce the procedural principle that withdrawal does not prejudice future legal options. The matter was accordingly disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty reserved. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 seeking directions to protect his life and liberty from private respondents. A status report was filed by the police. Upon perusal, counsel for the petitioner sought to withdraw the petition to avail alternative remedies. There was no objection from State counsel. The court disposed of the petition as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court. |
| Persuasive For | High Courts of other states and Supreme Court in dealing with similar procedural questions. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Explicit affirmation that withdrawal of a writ petition for protection of life and liberty allows the petitioner liberty to avail other statutory or alternative remedies.
- The judgment clarifies that lack of State objection to such withdrawal supports the procedural course.
- Lawyers may cite this order to preserve their client’s right to seek alternate remedies if withdrawing similar writ petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered the status report submitted by police authorities.
- Upon request by counsel for the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition in order to pursue alternate remedies, the Court noted the absence of objection from the State.
- The Bench affirmed that withdrawal is permissible and expressly stated that liberty is reserved for the petitioner to avail other remedies in accordance with law.
- The petition was disposed of as withdrawn with such liberty.
- No adverse order or restriction was imposed, underscoring the procedural fairness and unprejudiced nature of withdrawal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought withdrawal of the writ petition to take recourse to alternative remedies as available under law.
State (Respondent)
- No objection to the submission of withdrawal by the petitioner.
Factual Background
The petitioner approached the High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution seeking directions to protect his life and liberty at the hands of private respondents. A status report by the police was produced and furnished to petitioner’s counsel. Upon resumed hearing, counsel for the petitioner sought withdrawal of the petition to explore alternative remedies available under law. The State did not object, and the Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn.
Statutory Analysis
- Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India provide for the High Court’s writ jurisdiction and supervisory powers.
- The Court referenced these provisions in entertaining and subsequently disposing of the petition in accordance with established procedural norms when withdrawal is sought.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies established principles regarding withdrawal of writ petitions and preserving liberty to seek alternate remedies.