Where a writ petition challenging alleged police conduct under Article 226 is withdrawn prior to judicial determination, the High Court’s dismissal as withdrawn does not create binding or persuasive precedent on the substantive legal questions raised. No change or clarification of the law; the legal status quo is maintained for future cases involving the same issues.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/22742/2023 of DAMA CHENDRAMOULI Vs THE STATE OF AP |
| CNR | APHC010432442023 |
| Date of Registration | 30-08-2023 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | Dr. Justice Venkata Jyothirmai Pratapa |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | None (No binding or persuasive value on merits; dismissed as withdrawn) |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Legality of police procedure requiring appearance at station and suspect sheet affixation under Article 14, 19, 21 and A.P. Police Standing Orders |
| Ratio Decidendi | No ratio; the matter was not adjudicated on merits since the petitioner withdrew the writ petition. The Court simply permitted withdrawal and recorded no findings or observations on the merits of the issues raised. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged the requirement to appear before the police station, be present all day Sunday, and have his photograph affixed as a “suspect,” alleging violation of constitutional rights and police standing orders. The writ sought a declaration of illegality and quashing of the suspect sheet. However, before the matter was heard on merits, the petitioner’s counsel sought withdrawal of the petition, which the Court permitted. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding on any court (dismissed as withdrawn, no merits) |
| Persuasive For | Not of persuasive value on substantive legal questions |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- When a writ petition is withdrawn before adjudication, the High Court makes no findings on alleged constitutional or administrative law violations.
- Orders stating “dismissed as withdrawn” create no precedent, binding or persuasive, regarding the legal questions framed in the writ.
- Future litigants must not rely on such an order for principles or clarification of the law.
- Substantive legal points under Article 14, 19, 21, or A.P. Police Standing Orders remain open for determination in future cases.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recorded the submission of the petitioner’s counsel, who sought withdrawal of the writ petition.
- No adjudication or discussion occurred on the merits of the petitioner’s challenge regarding police conduct or constitutional rights.
- The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with no order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications (if any) were closed.
- No analysis was undertaken on statutory, constitutional, or police standing order grounds.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought to withdraw the writ petition; no arguments advanced on merits as per order.
Respondent
- Counsel for respondents was present, but no submissions recorded.
Factual Background
The petitioner alleged that police required him to be present at the station from morning to evening on Sundays, and his photo was affixed as a suspect person. He challenged such action on the basis that it violated Article 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution and the Andhra Pradesh Police Standing Order 601 (Old 701). Before these questions could be adjudicated, the petitioner, through counsel, sought withdrawal of the writ petition, which the Court permitted.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory analysis was undertaken by the Court in this judgment, as the matter was disposed of on the basis of withdrawal without examining the merits.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No concurring or dissenting opinions are present; the order was issued by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
None. The case followed standard procedure; the writ was withdrawn on petitioner’s request.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – No
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – No
- ⚖️ Split Verdict – No
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – No
Citations
No legal citations or paragraph references available as no substantive pronouncement was made. The judgment is non-reportable and does not contain ratio decidendi.