The court reaffirmed that when a petitioner’s counsel states that the writ petition has become infructuous, the writ petition can be summarily dismissed as infructuous—without entering the merits. This order upholds established procedural norms and functions as binding precedent within the High Court of Uttarakhand on administrative disposal of infructuous matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/1115/2023 of MUKESH SHARMA Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010105432023 |
| Date of Registration | 05-07-2023 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding (within Uttarakhand High Court for administrative disposal of infructuous writs) |
| Type of Law | Procedural/Administrative—Writ Jurisdiction |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that, upon a statement made by the petitioner’s counsel that the writ petition has become infructuous, it may be dismissed as infructuous accordingly. The order did not examine merits or substantive questions of law, but was premised entirely on the counsel’s representation. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner’s counsel stated that the writ petition has become infructuous. Based on this statement, the petition was dismissed as infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and benches of the High Court of Uttarakhand for administrative dismissal of infructuous writs |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts when addressing administrative/pragmatic dismissals of infructuous petitions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Dismissal as infructuous can be summarily ordered on counsel’s statement, without further inquiry.
- Lawyers should ensure the client’s intention before making such a statement, as it leads to immediate dismissal without examination of merits.
- This practice maintains docket efficiency and upholds procedural economy in writ jurisdiction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recorded the categorical statement made by the petitioner’s counsel—that the writ petition had become infructuous.
- Relying solely on this unambiguous statement, the court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous.
- There was no discussion on the merits or any reasoned judicial determination—procedural efficiency and judicial time were prioritized.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Counsel stated the writ petition had become infructuous.
Respondent (State):
- No submissions recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
- The writ petition WPSS 1115/2023 was filed and listed before the High Court of Uttarakhand.
- On the date of hearing, the petitioner’s counsel unambiguously stated the petition had become infructuous.
- The petition was then dismissed as infructuous by the court on that basis, without entering merits.
Statutory Analysis
- No statutory sections were discussed or interpreted in the order.
- The procedural context was writ jurisdiction of the High Court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; single judge bench.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations introduced; established practice followed.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Established procedural approach for dismissing infructuous petitions was reaffirmed.