Reaffirming that, upon formal endorsement, a writ petition under Article 226 can be dismissed as withdrawn without costs, upholding established procedural practice in administrative law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/30869/2025 of G. RAVIRAJAN Vs THE SECRETARY |
| CNR | HCMA011768102025 |
| Date of Registration | 13-08-2025 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWAL |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The petitioner’s counsel sought and endorsed withdrawal of the writ petition; the Court thereupon dismissed the petition as withdrawn and directed that no costs be awarded. The judgment underscores that procedural endorsements for withdrawal suffice for summary dismissal without addressing merits, following established practice. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner filed WP No.30869/2025 under Article 226 seeking refund of ₹3,82,572 of alleged excess pay. The petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw and submitted an endorsement to that effect. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a writ petition can be summarily dismissed as withdrawn upon formal endorsement by counsel.
- Confirms that such dismissal attracts no costs.
- Emphasizes the importance of a clear endorsement when seeking withdrawal of a petition.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner’s counsel applied for withdrawal of the writ petition and filed an endorsement to that effect.
- The Court, exercising procedural authority under Article 226 jurisdiction, dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
- No consideration was given to the substantive merits of the petition; the focus remained solely on the procedural withdrawal.
- The Court directed that no costs be imposed in light of the withdrawal.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought permission to withdraw the writ petition via formal endorsement before the Court.
Factual Background
The petitioner had challenged an order of recovery of ₹3,82,572 on account of alleged excess pay by filing a writ petition under Article 226. During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition and submitted a formal endorsement to that effect. The Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn, directing that no costs be imposed.
Statutory Analysis
- The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking the High Court’s jurisdiction to issue writs, orders, or directions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed — The decision affirms established practice regarding withdrawal of petitions.