Does the High Court Permit Petitioners to Challenge Subsequent Administrative Orders Passed During the Pendency of a Writ Petition Without Deciding the Merits?

LawSikho
October 24, 2025
Category: High Court of Jharkhand

The High Court clarified that disposal of a writ petition—following the passing of a new administrative order relevant to the proceedings—does not preclude the petitioner from challenging such fresh order before the competent forum. The judgment affirms long-standing procedural practice and holds binding precedential value for all subordinate courts within the state, especially in government/administrative law matters.

WPC/3200/2025 – High Court Administrative Orders

Summary

Category	Data
Case Name	WPC/3200/2025 of SANJAY KUMAR RAI Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND, THROUGH THE SECRETARY, DEPT. OF MINES AND GEOLOGY, CNR JHHC010196332025
Date of Registration	01-07-2025
Decision Date	15-10-2025
Disposal Nature	Disposed Off
Judgment Author	HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR RAI
Court	High Court of Jharkhand
Bench	Division Bench (Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad, Justice Arun Kumar Rai)
Precedent Value	Binding on all subordinate courts in Jharkhand; persuasive for procedural matters elsewhere
Questions of Law	Whether a writ petitioner retains the liberty to challenge a fresh administrative order passed during the pendency of a writ petition.
Ratio Decidendi	Where, during the pendency of a writ petition, a new administrative order is passed that touches upon the same subject matter, the writ petition is appropriately disposed of granting liberty to challenge the fresh order. The court took on record the supplementary counter affidavit reporting the new order, heard both sides, and found no opposition to procedural disposal. This approach ensures that the writ process is not rendered infructuous and protects the petitioner’s substantive rights without adjudicating stale issues. The court’s order dispensed with personal appearance of governmental officers given the disposal.
Facts as Summarised by the Court	During the writ petition challenging earlier action, the respondents passed a fresh administrative order relevant to the case. The counter affidavit informed the court of the new order. Petitioner requested, and respondents did not oppose, the writ’s disposal with liberty to challenge the new order.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts in Jharkhand
Persuasive For	Other High Courts and administrative law practitioners

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Reaffirms the High Court’s practice of disposing pending writ petitions with liberty to challenge fresh administrative orders passed during the writ’s pendency.
The court explicitly records and protects a petitioner’s right to pursue new remedies without rendering their claim infructuous due to fresh governmental action.
Petitioner need not re-argue older grounds; can directly institute fresh action regarding the new order, streamlining litigation and preventing procedural delays.
The dispensation of personal appearance for government officials upon such disposal is in line with judicial economy.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

The court noted a new administrative order dated 13.10.2025 was passed during the pendency of the writ petition, as communicated via supplementary counter affidavit.
Petitioner’s counsel requested that the writ be disposed of with liberty to challenge the new order; State counsel did not object.
The High Court, therefore, disposed of the petition, clarified the petitioner’s liberty to challenge the new order before appropriate fora, and dispensed with unnecessary personal appearances of public officials.
No adjudication on merits of the original challenged action was undertaken, as it was overtaken by the new order, affirming efficient and fair administrative law procedure.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioner

Requested the writ petition be disposed of with liberty to challenge the new administrative order passed during pendency.

Respondent (State)

Expressed no objection to the petitioner’s request.

Factual Background

During the pendency of the writ petition concerning an administrative action by mining authorities, the respondent authorities passed a new order dated 13.10.2025 that directly related to the dispute. This development was communicated to the court by way of a supplementary counter affidavit. The petitioner then sought disposal of the writ petition with liberty to challenge the fresh order. The State did not oppose this procedural course.

Statutory Analysis

The judgment does not set out detailed statutory interpretation but implicitly affirms the procedural approach under Article 226 of the Constitution, allowing disposal of writ petitions when the administrative status quo changes, with liberty to pursue new challenges as required.

Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary

No dissenting or separate concurring opinions are recorded in the judgment.

Procedural Innovations

The court accepted a supplementary counter affidavit on record to incorporate changed facts—i.e., the passing of a new administrative order—without requiring a full recommencement of proceedings.
Dispensation of personal appearance for the Deputy Commissioner when further appearance was no longer required post-disposal.

Alert Indicators

✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment upholds and affirms existing procedural law without overturning or narrowing prior precedent.