The High Court clarified that where petitioners acknowledge that the cause of action is no longer subsisting due to the passage of time, the writ petition may be dismissed as infructuous upon their statement. The decision affirms existing precedent; lawyers can cite it for procedural disposal of matters rendered academic by efflux of time. Applies across all writ petitions where the factual substratum has vanished.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMS/2512/2023 of SUNITA THUKRAL Vs EXCISE COMMISSIONER STATE OF UTTARAKHAND CNR UKHC010144332023 |
| Date of Registration | 05-09-2023 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| 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; persuasive elsewhere |
| Questions of Law |
Whether a writ petition should be dismissed as infructuous if the petitioners concede that the cause of action is lost due to passage of time. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
When a petitioner states at the Bar that by efflux of time the writ petition has become infructuous, the Court is justified in dismissing the petition as infructuous. The factual basis for the writ, if extinguished, means the Court need not proceed to adjudicate on merits. The Court acts on the concession of the parties regarding live controversy. This ensures judicial economy by not proceeding with non-existent disputes. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Learned counsel for the petitioners made a categorical statement that the writ petitions had become infructuous by efflux of time. Based on this representation, the Court dismissed the petitions as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On |
All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand High Court’s jurisdiction; applies to benches and trial courts when considering live/academic causes. |
| Persuasive For |
Other High Courts; relevant for procedural handling of cases rendered moot by subsequent events, especially passage of time. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that a writ petition can be disposed of as infructuous based purely on the petitioner’s express concession that the basis for the petition no longer survives, particularly due to “efflux of time”.
- The Court need not adjudicate merits if parties agree that the issue has become academic or non-existent.
- Useful procedural precedent for efficiently closing redundant or moot writ petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that learned counsel appearing for the petitioners expressly stated at the Bar that the writ petitions had become infructuous due to the efflux of time.
- Upon this unambiguous concession, the Court considered it appropriate to dismiss the writ petitions as infructuous.
- The Court did not enter into the merits as the live controversy had ceased to exist.
- The principle applied is that courts should avoid adjudicating academic or hypothetical disputes.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Stated at the Bar that the writ petitions had become infructuous by efflux of time.
Respondent (State):
- No independent argument recorded in the judgment; presence of State counsel noted.
Factual Background
The writ petitions were originally filed and registered on 05-09-2023. At the hearing, counsel for the petitioners categorically stated that, due to the passage of time, the matters had become infructuous. On this basis, the Court dismissed the writ petitions as infructuous, without going into underlying disputes or merits.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted in the judgment, as disposal was based entirely on the petitioners’ concession regarding the factual status of the case.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded; order followed established practice of disposing of infructuous petitions based on parties’ statements.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment applies settled law that courts may dismiss petitions as infructuous when the controversy no longer survives.