When the relief sought in a writ petition has already been provided, the High Court may dismiss the petition as infructuous; this judgment aligns with existing precedent, reaffirming binding practice for courts within Uttarakhand and providing persuasive value elsewhere.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMB/902/2025 of MS PRAMOD KUMAR GOVT CONTRACTOR AND GENERAL ORDER SUPPLIER Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010167142025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK MAHRA |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Division Bench (Ravindra Maithani, J. and Alok Mahra, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on courts within Uttarakhand; persuasive elsewhere |
| Type of Law | Procedural (Writ Jurisdiction) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous as the grievance had already been redressed. The High Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that writ petitions may be dismissed as infructuous when the grievance is already addressed.
- If relief is afforded during pendency, counsel may seek dismissal as infructuous instead of judicial adjudication.
- No new substantive law or procedure created; the judgment is a clear restatement of procedural disposal.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- At the very outset, counsel for the petitioner informed the court that the grievance had already been resolved.
- On this basis, the writ petition was dismissed as infructuous by the High Court.
- No substantive questions of law or detailed reasoning were addressed, as the only issue was the lack of surviving grievance.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous because the grievance had already been redressed.
Respondent
- No arguments were mentioned in the text of the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand. At the outset of the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that the petition had become infructuous as the grievance had already been redressed. The Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous accordingly.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted in the judgment. The matter was disposed of on procedural grounds due to the redressal of grievance prior to adjudication.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded or delivered in this case.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural principles or guidelines were set. The Court followed existing procedure in dismissing infructuous writ petitions upon redressal of the grievance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows established practice regarding disposal of infructuous writ petitions when grievances are redressed.