Division Bench, Bombay H.C., Goa holds that a writ petition challenging planning authority action must be disposed of when the same relief is granted administratively, reaffirming mootness principles
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP 307/2025 of SHELLY SHARMA, rep. by her POA NILESH KUMAR and Anr vs State of Goa through Chief Secretary & 3 Ors |
| CNR | HCBM050001572025 |
| Decision Date | 25-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed of |
| Court | Bombay High Court at Goa |
| Bench | Division Bench (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Bharati Dangre & Hon’ble Ms Justice Nivedita P. Mehta) |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Ms Justice Nivedita P. Mehta & Hon’ble Smt. Justice Bharati Dangre |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition remains maintainable when the relief sought is subsequently granted by the statutory authority. |
| Ratio Decidendi | Once the specific relief sought in a writ petition is granted by the concerned authority (here, via a notification permitting rectifications), the writ petition becomes infructuous and must be disposed of. Courts need not decide substantive challenges when the grievance no longer survives due to administrative action. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that a writ petition challenging administrative action is rendered infructuous when the same relief is granted by the authority before final adjudication.
- Emphasizes the practice of disposing petitions as moot once the underlying grievance has been addressed administratively.
- Advises advocates to check for subsequent administrative notifications granting relief before pursuing writ remedies under Article 226.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioners sought rectifications from the Town & Country Planning Department and challenged refusal via WP 307/2025.
- Counsel for petitioners informed the Court that by a notification dated 04-03-2025 the Department had allowed the rectifications as applied for.
- An affidavit by the Chief Town Planner confirmed issuance of that notification.
- The Division Bench held the grievance no longer survived and disposed of the petition as infructuous, without adjudicating the substantive challenge.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners
- The grievance against the Planning Department became moot once the 04-03-2025 notification permitted the rectifications sought.
Respondents
- No substantive opposition was pressed after issuance of the notification granting relief.
Factual Background
Shelly Sharma, represented by her power of attorney holder Nilesh Kumar, filed WP 307/2025 challenging the Town & Country Planning Department’s refusal to allow certain rectifications. During pendency, the Department issued a notification on 04-03-2025 granting those rectifications. An affidavit from the Chief Town Planner confirming the notification led the Bombay High Court to dispose of the petition as infructuous.
Citations
- 2025:BHC-GOA:1597-DB
- WP 307 of 2025