The judgment reaffirms that where the underlying claim in a writ petition is resolved during proceedings—here, through payment made to the petitioner—the court will dispose of the petition without further adjudication. This maintains established practice for prompt closure of writ matters post-settlement in the public employment or government dues context. Applicable as binding authority for similar situations in West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/8025/2025 of BIPUL SARKAR Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0160772025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-04-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISPOSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding within jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court disposed of the writ petition after noting that payment to the petitioner has been made, as confirmed by both parties. The logic reflects the practice that writ proceedings are not pursued further once the core relief sought (here, payment) is granted during pendency. No further adjudication is warranted when the dispute is rendered academic by settlement between parties. Urgent certified copy directions issued as per standard procedure. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Counsels for both petitioner and State submitted that, upon instructions, payment due to the petitioner was made. The court noted this resolution and found no need to proceed further with the writ petition. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in similar payment/settlement circumstances |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that if the core grievance in a writ petition—such as delayed payment by the State—is resolved during pendency, the High Court will dispose of the matter without further inquiry.
- Lawyers can cite this for prompt disposal/closure of writs where payment or relief is provided before argument or order.
- No costs or directions issued where parties submit full satisfaction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recorded submissions from both sides confirming that the petitioner’s payment has been made.
- Upon satisfaction of the claim, the court found no need to continue adjudication.
- The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, reflecting established judicial economy principles in constitutional writ jurisdiction.
- Request was allowed for urgent certified copies per the usual process.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Through counsel, submitted that payment owed was received.
- Indicated that no further grievance subsisted.
Respondent (State)
- Through counsel, confirmed that payment to the petitioner has been fulfilled.
Factual Background
- Petitioner filed a writ against the State of West Bengal and others, seeking payment or dues.
- During pendency, both parties confirmed before the Calcutta High Court that payment had been made to the petitioner.
- The resolution of dispute occurred before substantive hearing or further argument.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not discuss or interpret any statutory provisions; the disposal is based entirely on factual settlement.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded; single-judge summary disposal.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural guidelines or innovations issued; order follows standard practice where relief is granted during court proceedings.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The court adheres to established practice of concluding writ matters upon factual settlement of the dispute during pendency.