When a writ petition is withdrawn at the request of the petitioner, without any adjudication on merits, the High Court’s order does not set any new legal principle, nor does it clarify or overrule existing law. Such orders carry no precedential value for future cases involving land settlement representations or governmental directions.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/25159/2025 of DHRUBA CHARAN BEHERA Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010633232025 |
| Date of Registration | 10-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Withdrawn |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA, MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA, JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO |
| Precedent Value | None |
| Questions of Law | None adjudicated |
| Ratio Decidendi | The writ petition seeking a direction to the Tahasildar for disposal of the petitioner’s land settlement representations was withdrawn at the request of the petitioner; hence, no legal question was decided or principle laid down. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner sought a direction to the Tahasildar, Mahakalpada, to dispose of his representations relating to settlement of specified plots. During the hearing, petitioner’s counsel sought to withdraw the petition, which was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding on any court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The petition was dismissed as withdrawn upon petitioner’s request; no legal question was adjudicated.
- Orders dismissing petitions as withdrawn have no precedential value and should not be cited as authority.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recorded that the petitioner’s counsel requested withdrawal of the writ petition.
- The bench granted the prayer for withdrawal and dismissed the petition accordingly.
- No discussion, analysis, or adjudication of legal principles or statutory interpretation occurred.
- No precedent, jurisprudence, or authorities were cited or relied upon.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought a direction to the Tahasildar, Mahakalpada, to dispose of his representations for settlement of specified land.
Respondent
- No arguments recorded; the matter was withdrawn before any submissions from the State.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a direction to the Tahasildar, Mahakalpada, for disposal of his representations dated 07.12.2024 and 08.04.2025 concerning settlement of specified plots of land in Mouza-Badatubi, Kendrapara district. During the hearing, before any adjudication on the merits, the petitioner sought and was permitted to withdraw the petition.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were discussed or interpreted in the order, as the writ petition was withdrawn without hearing on merits.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; the order was unanimous.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded in the order.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Order is consistent with established practice that withdrawn petitions do not decide or alter the law and carry no precedential value.