The Calcutta High Court dismissed as infructuous a writ petition challenging an order under Section 144(2) CrPC, holding that passage of time had rendered the judicial review ineffective. This reaffirms the binding principle that challenges to time-limited executive orders may be declined if those orders have expired. The decision upholds existing precedent on mootness and has binding value within West Bengal.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/1651/2020 of BUDDHADEV BASU Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCA0048472020 |
| Date of Registration | 24-01-2020 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within the jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
| Type of Law | Criminal Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition challenging an order under Section 144(2) CrPC remains maintainable after passage of time has rendered the executive order ineffective. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Calcutta High Court held that the writ petition challenging an executive order under Section 144(2) CrPC became infructuous due to lapse of time. The court exercised its discretion to refrain from deciding moot or academic issues, affirming that courts may dismiss challenges to expired executive orders as infructuous. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 7th November 2019 passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 144(2) CrPC. There was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner at the hearing. The court found the petition had become infructuous with passage of time. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within jurisdiction of the Calcutta High Court |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that courts may dismiss as infructuous writ petitions challenging expired or time-bound executive orders.
- Highlights the discretionary nature of judicial review in cases rendered academic by lapse of time.
- Reinforces the importance of timely legal intervention when challenging executive actions under Section 144 CrPC.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Calcutta High Court noted that the writ petition challenged an order under Section 144(2) CrPC dated 7th November 2019.
- The court took judicial notice that with the passage of time, the impugned executive order had become ineffective.
- Given that no party appeared to support the writ petition and the substantive relief was no longer live, the court exercised its discretion to dismiss the petition as infructuous.
- The court made no observations on merits or costs.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- No one appeared in support of the writ petition when called.
Respondent:
No arguments by the respondent are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Calcutta High Court challenging the validity of an order dated 7th November 2019 passed by the Executive Magistrate under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner. The court found that the issue had become infructuous due to passage of time.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure was the provision under challenge.
- The judgment does not record any interpretation, expansion, or restriction of Section 144(2); it solely relies upon the lapse of the impugned order with time.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing principles reaffirmed regarding mootness and infructuousness.