The High Court confirmed that writ petitions seeking reliefs which have become infructuous may be dismissed as such without adjudicating the merits. This order follows settled precedent, reinforcing consistent judicial practice, and will serve as binding authority for similar future situations.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/23414/2020 of BEELA PARVATHI Vs THE STATE OF AP CNR APHC010352272020 |
| Date of Registration | 08-12-2020 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent for identical procedural circumstances |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law – Article 226, writ jurisdiction |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and similar writ proceedings |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The Court emphasized that writ petitions can be dismissed as infructuous when the relief sought is no longer necessary.
- No findings are given on merits when a petition is dismissed as infructuous.
- Counsel submissions on infructuousness, when accepted, may conclude proceedings without further inquiry.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court, upon being informed by petitioner’s counsel that the relief sought had become infructuous, recorded this submission.
- The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous and no order on costs or merits was passed.
- There was no examination of the substantive legal claims in the petition.
- This demonstrates that judicial resources need not be expended on matters where the sought relief is no longer required.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Through counsel, submitted that the relief sought had become infructuous and requested for disposal on that ground.
Respondents
- Learned Assistant Government Pleader for Home was present.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to direct the police authorities to provide protection for harvesting a paddy crop on specific land in West Godavari District, alleging refusal of police protection due to ongoing civil disputes. During the hearing, petitioner’s counsel informed the Court that the relief sought had become infructuous. The Court, accordingly, disposed of the writ petition as infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
- The writ petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking judicial intervention by way of mandamus.
- No substantive interpretation of statutes was undertaken as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds (infructuousness).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were established in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms the settled practice regarding infructuous relief in writ proceedings.