The High Court confirms that writ petitions may be dismissed as withdrawn upon oral request by counsel, upholding established judicial procedure; order affirms existing practices and has binding value within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMS/2376/2025 of SANTOSH TAMTA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010123612025 |
| Date of Registration | 08-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Single Bench (HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction for similar procedural applications |
| Type of Law | Constitutional / Procedural Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn based on an oral prayer from the learned counsel representing the petitioner. The court did not require a written application for withdrawal and permitted withdrawal upon the submission that the petitioner had been appointed elsewhere. Thus, withdrawal on oral request of counsel is sufficient for dismissal of writ petitions, consistent with established practice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought withdrawal of the writ petition through oral submission by his counsel, as the petitioner had secured appointment elsewhere. The court allowed the withdrawal accordingly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts within Uttarakhand for procedural aspects regarding withdrawal of writ petitions |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts when considering procedural flexibility on oral requests for withdrawal |
| Follows | Established judicial procedure relating to withdrawal of writ petitions via oral requests by counsel |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The High Court permitted withdrawal of a writ petition based solely on an oral request by the petitioner’s counsel.
- No written application for withdrawal was required or insisted upon.
- Lawyers may rely on this order to request withdrawal of writs orally in similar circumstances.
- The court recorded the reason for withdrawal (“petitioner has been appointed elsewhere”) as submitted in open court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner’s counsel orally requested withdrawal of the writ petition, citing that the petitioner had secured another appointment.
- The court found this oral prayer sufficient and did not mandate any formal written withdrawal application.
- The writ petition was accordingly “dismissed as withdrawn” following this oral submission.
- The order aligns with established procedural practice in the High Court regarding withdrawal of cases.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought permission to withdraw the writ petition on the grounds that the petitioner had been appointed elsewhere.
Respondent (State)
- No specific arguments recorded; standing counsel appeared.
Factual Background
The petitioner had filed a writ petition before the High Court. During the listing of the matter, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition, submitting that the petitioner had secured appointment elsewhere. The court allowed withdrawal of the writ petition on this oral prayer.
Statutory Analysis
No specific statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted in the order. The order reflects judicial procedure for withdrawal of writ petitions in the High Court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded; the order was authored by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
The judgment confirms (rather than introduces) the established practice that oral requests from counsel suffice for withdrawal of writ petitions, without requiring a written application.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms prevailing procedural practice regarding withdrawal of writ petitions upon oral submission by counsel.