The Rajasthan High Court reaffirms that withdrawal of a writ petition due to a subsequent order does not require formal liberty for assailing the new order, as any challenge would not arise from the “same cause of action.” This order follows existing precedent and holds persuasive value for future litigation in administrative and public law matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CW/11118/2025 of DR. GOPAL SHARMA SON OF SHRI HANUMAN PRASAD SHARMA Vs STATE OF RAJASTHAN |
| CNR | RJHC020628522025 |
| Date of Registration | 21-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL |
| Court | High Court Of Rajasthan |
| Bench | Jaipur Bench |
| Precedent Value | Persuasive authority for procedural matters in future petitions |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Procedural Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that, upon withdrawal of a writ petition following a subsequent order, no formal liberty is required to challenge that new order, as a fresh writ petition—if filed—would arise from a different cause of action. The dismissal does not operate as a bar to future litigation based on fresh facts or subsequent developments. This approach is in line with established procedural law and ensures litigants’ rights to challenge subsequent administrative actions remain intact. Pending applications are also disposed of with the main petition. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition in view of a subsequent order dated 29.08.2025 and prayed for liberty to challenge the later order. The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, clarifying that fresh liberty was unnecessary because a new writ would not be on the same cause of action. |
| Citations | [2025:RJ-JP:34860] |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate Courts and Benches of the Rajasthan High Court for similar procedural issues |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and practitioners handling administrative/procedural writ withdrawals |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that formal liberty is not required from the Court to challenge a subsequent order if the cause of action has changed.
- Withdrawal of a writ petition in view of a subsequent order does not bar a fresh challenge to the new order.
- Petitions dismissed as withdrawn in such circumstances do not operate as res judicata on the changed cause of action.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the petitioner sought to withdraw his pending writ petition due to the issuance of a subsequent administrative order.
- The petitioner’s counsel prayed for liberty to challenge the subsequent order.
- The Court clarified no such liberty is legally required since any future challenge would be based on a new cause of action, separate from the issue in the withdrawn petition.
- Dismissal of the petition as withdrawn does not affect the petitioner’s right to file a new petition on the basis of the subsequent order.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought permission to withdraw the writ petition in light of a subsequent order.
- Requested liberty to challenge the subsequent order.
Respondent
- Not specifically recorded in the operative order regarding the main issue.
Factual Background
The petitioner, Dr. Gopal Sharma, filed a writ petition against the State of Rajasthan and its authorities. Due to a subsequent administrative order dated 29.08.2025, the petitioner sought to withdraw the pending writ petition, requesting that the Court grant him liberty to challenge the new order. The High Court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn, clarifying the legal position on subsequent causes of action.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment proceeds on general principles of procedural law regarding withdrawal of writ petitions and the doctrine of “same cause of action.”
- No specific statutory provisions or constitutional articles were interpreted or discussed in the order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- The Court restated that in procedural matters, formal liberty to challenge future or subsequent orders is unnecessary when the new cause of action arises post-withdrawal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court followed established principles regarding withdrawal of petitions and subsequent challenges.
Citations
- [2025:RJ-JP:34860]