When an administrative order impugned before the High Court is rescinded during the pendency of a writ petition, the proceedings are rendered infructuous and are closed without adjudication on merits. This disposition does not affect the petitioner’s liberty to initiate fresh proceedings on unresolved issues, reaffirming existing procedural precedent with binding authority for subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/13935/2025 of SAPANA DHIMAN Vs STATE OF HP AND ANR |
| CNR | HPHC010503642025 |
| Date of Registration | 28-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Romesh Verma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel, Romesh Verma |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established approach to infructuous petitions |
| Type of Law | Administrative / Constitutional |
| Questions of Law | Effect of rescission of an impugned administrative order during pendency of a writ petition |
| Ratio Decidendi |
When the impugned rejection order is rescinded during the pendency of the writ petition, the proceedings become infructuous. The High Court closes the matter as such and clarifies that other unresolved legal claims may be agitated afresh through appropriate proceedings. The judgment reaffirms that courts do not adjudicate upon issues rendered academic due to supervening events. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner challenged an office order (Annexure P-7) rejecting her representation and sought quashing of the order, the HP Recruitment Act, 2024, and consequential service benefits. Prior to adjudication, the impugned order was rescinded during the pendency of the writ petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar procedural scenarios |
| Follows | Follows established practice regarding infructuousness upon change in circumstance |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that rescission or withdrawal of the impugned order renders related writ petitions infructuous.
- No decision on merits is taken; petitioners retain the liberty to approach the court again on other unresolved issues.
- Confirms closure of proceedings as a matter of judicial procedure and economy in similar cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted that the petitioner’s grievance was specifically against an office order (Annexure P-7) rejecting her representation.
- During the pendency of the petition, Annexure P-7 was rescinded by the respondents.
- As the grievance no longer survived due to the rescission, the Court held the writ proceedings had become infructuous and required no further adjudication.
- It was clarified that liberty was reserved to the petitioner to raise any remaining or related legal issues afresh by appropriate proceedings.
- The Court did not express any opinion on the merits of the broader claims in the petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the validity of the rejection order (Annexure P-7), the HP Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024, and sought service benefits.
- Cited previous judgments passed by the High Court.
- Sought quashing of the order and a declaration regarding employment status.
Respondent (State of Himachal Pradesh)
- No substantive argument necessitated post-rescission; factual update placed before the Court regarding rescinding of Annexure P-7.
Factual Background
The petitioner had challenged an office order (Annexure P-7) that rejected her representation regarding regularization of service. In addition, the petition included challenges to the validity of a legislative enactment and sought consequential service benefits based on prior judgments. While the petition was pending, the State rescinded the impugned order, rendering the principal grievance moot.
Statutory Analysis
- The petition questioned the HP Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Government Employees Act, 2024.
- The Court did not enter into statutory interpretation or adjudicate the validity of the Act due to the matter being rendered infructuous by the rescission of the administrative order in question.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
The judgment was unanimous; no dissenting or separate concurring opinion exists.
Procedural Innovations
- Affirms the procedural practice of declaring writ petitions infructuous where the relief sought has ceased to be in issue owing to supervening events (here, rescission of the impugned order).
- Expressly reserves liberty for the petitioner to raise unresolved legal issues in fresh proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on closure of infructuous petitions is affirmed.