The High Court of Uttarakhand held that withdrawal of the impugned tender notification by the State renders any writ petition challenging such notification infructuous. This approach upholds existing precedent and will serve as practical binding authority for future cases involving withdrawal of administrative actions, especially in tender and government contract matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPMB/896/2025 of MS PRAMOD KUMAR GOVT CONTRACTOR AND GENERAL ORDER SUPPLIER Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010165872025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR JUSTICE G. NARENDAR |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH UPADHYAY (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Bench | Division Bench (Chief Justice & Justice Subhash Upadhyay) |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent in Uttarakhand for identical/similar fact settings |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law/Tender Law |
| Questions of Law | What is the effect of withdrawal of impugned tender notification on pending writ petitions? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Division Bench recorded the submissions of both parties that the notification inviting tender had been withdrawn, and on that basis, held that the writ petition challenging such notification had become infructuous. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as infructuous, reaffirming that when the subject matter of a writ is removed by subsequent developments, the petition does not survive. The judgment did not enter into the merits of the challenge or the underlying dispute. This approach conserves judicial resources and avoids rendering advisory opinions on academic issues. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner filed a writ against a tender notification. During proceedings, counsel for both sides confirmed that the notification was withdrawn, making the petition infructuous. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering writs where the impugned administrative action is withdrawn |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that withdrawal of an impugned tender or administrative notification renders pending challenges infructuous.
- Lawyers should promptly inform the court of such withdrawals, as it will result in summary dismissal for infructuousness.
- Parties cannot seek adjudication on merits or academic issues once the notification challenged ceases to exist.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court focused exclusively on the submission from both petitioner and respondent counsels that the notification inviting tenders, which was under challenge, had been withdrawn.
- It held that, as a result, the writ petition had lost its substratum and thus must be dismissed as infructuous.
- The judgment did not enter into the merits, reflecting a judicial policy against academic or hypothetical adjudication.
- No further reasoning or discussion on legal principles was deemed necessary by the court.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Counsel submitted (through video conferencing) that the impugned notification inviting tender had been withdrawn.
Respondents
- Learned Standing Counsel for the State, and separate counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3, confirmed the withdrawal of the notification, thereby supporting dismissal of the writ as infructuous.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged a tender notification issued by the State of Uttarakhand and its agencies. During the pendency of the writ, counsel for both the petitioner and respondents confirmed to the High Court that the notification was withdrawn. This development rendered the substance of the writ petition non-existent, thereby leading the bench to declare the petition infructuous and dismiss it accordingly.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment does not analyze or interpret any statutory provisions, as the matter was disposed of on the basis of withdrawal of the tender notification.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There is no dissent or separate concurring opinion; both judges concurred in dismissing the petition as infructuous.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations are introduced or discussed in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing jurisprudence on infructuous petitions upon withdrawal of the challenged action is affirmed.