The Court held that, once the government notification defers the election and directs acceptance of a candidate’s nomination papers, any writ challenging denial of nomination becomes unnecessary and is to be disposed of. The decision upholds existing practice and affirms that such writs become infructuous. This precedent is relevant for election law matters in Haryana and binds subordinate courts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/25121/2022 of LAKSHMI KUMARI Vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011242842022 |
| Date of Registration | 31-10-2022 |
| Decision Date | 29-11-2022 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED OF |
| Judgment Author | RITU BAHRI, J. |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | MANISHA BATRA, J. (Concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Division Bench (RITU BAHRI, J.; MANISHA BATRA, J.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Punjab and Haryana High Court jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Election Law / Constitutional Law (Nomination Process) |
| Ratio Decidendi | The writ petition challenging the non-acceptance of nomination papers becomes infructuous if, before adjudication, a government notification defers the election and directs acceptance of the petitioner’s nomination. No further court orders are warranted when the grievance is resolved through executive action and official notification. The petition is disposed of as no cause of action survives. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged non-acceptance of her nomination for an election scheduled on 12.11.2022. During proceedings, the government issued a notification dated 03.11.2022 deferring the election and ordering acceptance of her nomination. Counsel confirmed that the grievance was addressed. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Punjab and Haryana High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering similar election process infractions/remedies |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that executive notifications resolving the gravamen of a writ petition can render the petition infructuous.
- No further judicial orders will be issued when government action addresses the petitioner’s grievance in election nomination matters.
- Lawyers should promptly inform the court of any intervening government action which fully remedies the cause of petition.
- The precedent underscores the importance of monitoring post-filing events in writ litigation, especially during fast-moving election processes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recorded that the petitioner had placed on record a government notification deferring elections and accepting her nomination.
- It noted the petitioner’s counsel’s submission that she possessed the required SC certificate from Hisar.
- Recognizing that the petitioner’s primary grievance had been addressed by the subsequent notification, the Court held that no further orders were necessary.
- Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of as no live cause required judicial redress.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Placed on record notification dated 03.11.2022 that deferred the election and directed that the petitioner’s nomination be accepted.
- Submitted that the petitioner had procured the requisite SC certificate.
- Argued that, with the nomination accepted, no further orders from the Court were required.
Respondent (State of Haryana)
- No further arguments recorded in the judgment, as the relief stood granted through the notification.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged the non-acceptance of her nomination papers for an election that was scheduled to take place on 12.11.2022. While the writ was pending, the State issued a notification on 03.11.2022, deferring the election and directing acceptance of the petitioner’s nomination. The petitioner confirmed possession of an SC certificate from Hisar. Thereafter, the petitioner’s prayer was met and the petition became infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory interpretation or analysis was undertaken or required, as the writ was rendered infructuous by executive action (notification dated 03.11.2022) during its pendency.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinion; both judges concurred in the disposition.
Procedural Innovations
- The judgment demonstrates the procedure for disposing writs as infructuous where intervening executive action remedies the petitioner’s grievance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing practice on procedural disposition of cases rendered infructuous by executive action is affirmed.