A writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash an appointment order that is subsequently withdrawn during proceedings, is rendered infructuous and liable to be dismissed as withdrawn. The court reaffirms the principle that writ petitions do not survive once the impugned action is undone; this upholds existing precedent and is binding on all subordinate courts within the jurisdiction.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/11710/2023 of JAGMAL SINGH Vs UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VITRAN NIGAM LTD. AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC010703372023 |
| Date of Registration | 25-05-2023 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Precedent Value | Binding in the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Constitutional/Service Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition challenging a departmental inquiry officer’s appointment survives after withdrawal of the impugned order. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court held that when the authority withdraws the impugned order under challenge, the relief sought in the writ petition becomes moot. The petition is therefore rendered infructuous, as the foundational grievance no longer exists. The court, upon being informed of this development, records the petitioner’s statement to withdraw and dismisses the writ as infructuous. This affirms the established principle that courts do not entertain academic or infructuous petitions. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner filed a writ seeking quashing of the appointment of respondent No.4 as inquiry officer in a departmental inquiry. During the hearing, respondents informed the court that the appointment order had already been withdrawn, and a copy of the withdrawal order was given to the petitioner’s counsel. The petitioner wished to withdraw the writ, which was dismissed as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, as reaffirmation of the mootness doctrine in writ proceedings |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that writ petitions become infructuous if the foundation—i.e., the impugned order—is withdrawn during the pendency of the case.
- Counsel should promptly seek withdrawal in such cases to avoid unnecessary judicial time and litigant effort.
- Restates the principle against adjudication of academic or theoretical issues where no live controversy survives.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court accepted the respondents’ submission that the impugned appointment order of the inquiry officer had been withdrawn.
- Upon record of the petitioner’s desire to withdraw, the petition was dismissed as having become infructuous.
- The judgment affirms the settled legal position that when the substratum of a writ petition is removed during proceedings, the writ loses purpose and should be dismissed as infructuous.
- The court refrained from making any observations on the merits, as there was no surviving dispute.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Filed writ under Articles 226/227 seeking to quash the appointment of inquiry officer.
- Upon withdrawal of appointment order, petitioner’s counsel sought leave to withdraw petition.
Respondent (Corporation)
- Stated at the outset that the appointment order under challenge had already been withdrawn.
- Supplied a copy of the withdrawal order to the petitioner’s counsel.
Factual Background
The petitioner initiated a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution to quash the appointment of respondent No.4 as the inquiry officer in a departmental proceeding. During the hearing, counsel for the respondent corporation informed the court that the appointment order had already been withdrawn, providing documentary proof to the petitioner’s side. With no subsisting grievance, the petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ, resulting in dismissal as infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
- The petition was entertained under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
- The court did not expressly interpret or expound on statutory provisions, as the matter was disposed of due to the withdrawal of the impugned order.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
The court noted and accepted withdrawal of the petition once the impugned administrative action was rescinded, following existing procedures—no new procedural innovations are detailed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court reaffirms settled law that a writ petition is rendered infructuous if the impugned action ceases to exist during its pendency.
Citations
- No SCC, AIR, MANU, or neutral citations are provided in the judgment.
- Not indicated as reportable or non-reportable.