Where the relief sought in a writ petition is fully granted by the respondent authority during the pendency of proceedings, the High Court affirms that the petition is rendered infructuous and is to be dismissed accordingly; this approach upholds existing procedural precedent and clarifies that courts will not adjudicate petitions after actual redressal of grievance. Binding precedent for cases involving public disbursements or compliance during litigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/20084/2025 of MS SATISH AGGARWAL AND CO Vs THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS |
| CNR | PHHC011089822025 |
| Date of Registration | 16-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL |
| Court | High Court of Punjab and Haryana |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Procedural/Administrative Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petition was filed seeking release of an amount from respondents. During the pendency of the case, the respondent Municipal Corporation released the claimed amount to the petitioner. The petitioner acknowledged receipt and submitted that the petition had become infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Punjab & Haryana jurisdiction |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing mootness when relief is granted during litigation |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that courts will dismiss writ petitions as infructuous if the relief sought is voluntarily provided by the respondent during pendency.
- No adjudication on merits is made where the grievance is entirely redressed before judgment.
- Reinforces the principle of judicial economy: courts do not decide academic or moot questions.
- Lawyers should promptly apprize courts if relief is granted during litigation, to avoid unnecessary proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that subsequent to judicial direction, the respondent Municipal Corporation placed on record a speaking order and released the amount sought by the petitioner.
- Upon confirmation by both parties that the amount was received and no further grievance subsisted, the court concluded that nothing survived in the petition.
- Dismissal as infructuous was appropriate, given that the relief sought was entirely met during the pendency and no unresolved issue remained for adjudication.
- The order reinforces the established approach that the court will not proceed to decide issues that have become academic due to compliance by the opposing party during litigation.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Counsel stated that the petition had become infructuous since the sought amount had been released by the respondents.
Respondents (Municipal Corporation):
- Informed the court that a speaking order had been passed and the claimed amount was released to the petitioner.
Factual Background
The writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking release of a particular amount from the Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar. Pursuant to directions from the court, the respondent corporation passed a speaking order and released Rs. 3,53,723/- to the petitioner. Upon receipt of payment, the petitioner acknowledged that the grievance was redressed and requested that the case be treated as infructuous.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment contains no substantive statutory interpretation. The issue was disposed of on procedural grounds following compliance by the respondents and redressal of the petitioner’s grievance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Confirms existing practice regarding mootness/infructuous petitions after compliance.
Citations
No external law reports or neutral citations mentioned in the judgment.