The Madras High Court held that a writ petition may be dismissed both for non-prosecution and because the relief sought has ceased to exist; this decision reaffirms existing procedural practice under Article 226 and serves as persuasive authority for future challenges involving infructuous relief.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/23582/2010 of TAMILNADU ADVOCATE ASSOCIATION Vs THE STATE OF TAMILNADU |
| CNR | HCMA010195232010 |
| Date of Registration | 19-10-2010 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Type of Law | Constitutional / Procedural Law (Article 226) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the relief sought has become infructuous. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The court observed that when a petitioner fails to appear despite repeated listings, non-prosecution justifies dismissal. Further, if the substantive relief sought—here, the appointment of a judicial member—has ceased by virtue of the member’s attaining the age limit, the petition becomes infructuous. Both grounds independently warrant dismissal under the court’s inherent and supervisory powers. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied | The court applied well-settled practice that non-appearance warrants dismissal and recognised that relief ceasing by operation of law renders a petition infructuous. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Tamil Nadu Advocate Association challenged G.O. (Ms.) No.84/2010 seeking appointment of a judicial member to the TNERC. The respondent had already reached the age of 65, ending any entitlement to that office. The petitioner failed to appear when the matter was called “For Dismissal.” |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| ✔ Precedent Followed | Confirms that non-prosecution and infructuous relief independently justify dismissal of writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that repeated non-appearance alone is sufficient ground for dismissing a writ petition for non-prosecution.
- Clarifies that if the relief sought has lapsed by operation of law (e.g., age limit), the petition becomes infructuous and may be dismissed on that basis.
- Reinforces the court’s inherent and supervisory jurisdiction to clear its roster of stale or moot petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The matter was listed “For Dismissal” due to the petitioner’s non-appearance on 22.08.2025 and again on 25.08.2025.
- In absence of any representation, the court invoked its practice of dismissing matters for non-prosecution.
- The Additional Government Pleader informed the court that the substantive relief (appointment until age 65) had become infructuous since the respondent had already attained that age.
- The court held that both non-prosecution and infructuousness independently warranted dismissal, and hence the writ petition was dismissed on both grounds without costs.
Arguments by the Parties
Respondent (State/Government Pleader)
- The relief seeking the appointment of a judicial member to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission had become infructuous as the incumbent had already attained the maximum age of 65 years.
Factual Background
The Tamil Nadu Advocate Association filed WP No.23582/2010 under Article 226 seeking to quash G.O. (Ms.) No.84 dated 03.09.2010 and to direct the State to appoint a judicial member to the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission. The petition was repeatedly listed for hearing “For Dismissal” due to non-appearance by the petitioner. Meanwhile, the respondent’s tenure automatically ended upon attaining the age of 65, rendering the relief nugatory.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed