The High Court confirmed that when a petition is withdrawn after the impugned administrative order has already been passed and communicated, the writ petition is not adjudicated on merits; the petitioner is granted liberty to challenge the administrative order afresh. This judgment did not create new law or overrule existing precedents, and is not a binding authority on reviewing punishments under Article 226, but clarifies procedural latitude in similar withdrawal scenarios.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/23562/2017 of N APPALA NAIDU, VISAKHAPATNAM. Vs A.P.E.P.D.C.L., VISAKHAPATNAM, & 2 OTRS. |
| CNR | APHC010663982017 |
| Date of Registration | 14-07-2017 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED NO COSTS |
| Judgment Author | MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM, J |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Procedural; not a binding precedent on the merits of reviewing punishments |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn after it was brought to the Court’s notice that the administrative authority had already considered and rejected the petitioner’s representation for review of punishment. The petitioner was granted liberty to challenge the subsequent administrative order in accordance with law. The Court did not decide on the legality or merits of the original review or the impugned punishment. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner challenged the non-consideration of his representation for review of a punishment order (stoppage of increments with cumulative effect), alleging violation of Article 14 as similarly situated employees were treated differently. During the hearing, the respondents informed the Court that the representation was considered and rejected. The petitioner then sought permission to withdraw the writ with liberty to challenge the rejection order. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Persuasive For | Similar matters where the writ becomes infructuous following subsequent consideration of representation |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that when administrative authorities pass a subsequent order on the core subject-matter during the pendency of a writ, the writ may be withdrawn with liberty to challenge the new order.
- No legal finding is rendered on merits if the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn; the question of law remains open for adjudication in future proceedings.
- Procedural approach clarified: liberty may be sought and granted to file a new petition challenging the subsequent administrative order.
- Lawyers should ensure to promptly challenge any newly issued administrative order separately after withdrawal of a pending writ petition.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner approached the Court alleging discriminatory non-consideration of his review request in disciplinary matters.
- During hearing, it was brought to the Court’s notice that after filing the writ, the administrative authority had already passed a speaking order on the representation.
- Recognizing that the original cause of action was superseded by the subsequent administrative order, the petitioner sought and was granted liberty to withdraw the current writ and challenge the new order through appropriate legal proceedings.
- The Court, without adjudicating any merits, dismissed the writ as withdrawn, expressly reserving the petitioner’s right for future challenge.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought writ of mandamus alleging failure of the respondents to consider his representation for review of punishment, as had been done for other similarly situated employees.
- Argued that such non-consideration was illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Article 14.
- Upon learning of rejection of representation, sought leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the order.
Respondents
- Informed the Court that the representation dated 30.05.2011 had already been considered and rejected vide memo dated 12.01.2012.
Factual Background
The petitioner, an Assistant Divisional Engineer with A.P. Eastern Power Distribution Company, was subject to a disciplinary penalty involving stoppage of increments with cumulative effect. He submitted a representation dated 30.05.2011 for review of this punishment, citing similar reliefs granted to other employees. His grievance was that the respondents had failed to consider his representation, allegedly violating Article 14. During the writ proceedings, the respondents notified the Court that the representation was in fact addressed and rejected through an administrative order dated 12.01.2012, after which the matter was withdrawn by the petitioner with leave to challenge the new order.
Statutory Analysis
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Power of High Courts to issue appropriate writs for enforcement of legal rights, including writs of mandamus against administrative inaction.
- Article 14 of the Constitution of India – Ensures equality before the law and prohibits arbitrary state action.
- No further statutory provision was interpreted or expounded upon in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None indicated in the judgment; standard procedure followed in dismissing the petition as withdrawn with liberty to approach the court afresh.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment simply employs established procedural norms for withdrawal of petitions with liberty when a new order is passed, without laying down new law or breaking with precedent.