The Calcutta High Court granted withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action, but did not adjudicate any question of law. This order does not create binding or persuasive precedent and leaves the substantive legal questions open for future determination.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/2139/2025 of HABEZ UDDIN MANDAL Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS |
| CNR | WBCHCJ0050902025 |
| Date of Registration | 26-09-2025 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA |
| Court | Calcutta High Court, Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya) |
| Precedent Value | No precedent value; does not adjudicate legal issues |
| Type of Law | Constitutional/Writ Jurisdiction |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The petition was dismissed as withdrawn on the petitioner’s request, with liberty to refile on the same cause of action due to inadvertent errors. The Court refrained from examining or deciding the merits, and no question of law was determined. The order is administrative in nature and does not address substantive legal principles. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner sought leave to withdraw the writ petition citing inadvertent errors, and prayed for liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with such liberty granted. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None; does not operate as binding precedent |
| Persuasive For | None; not persuasive on legal issues |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to refile on the same cause of action leaves all questions of law and fact open; no findings are made.
- Such orders carry no precedential value—lawyers cannot rely on them as authority on legal propositions.
- If a writ petition is withdrawn with liberty, a fresh petition may be filed in the same court on the same issue, provided procedural rules and limitation periods are followed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner’s counsel pointed out inadvertent errors in the writ petition and sought leave to withdraw while also seeking liberty to refile on the same cause of action.
- The Court, without going into the merits or considering any legal submissions, allowed the prayer and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
- The Court expressly provided liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action, and did not decide any substantive issues.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Submitted that there were inadvertent errors in the writ petition.
- Requested leave to withdraw with liberty to refile on the same cause of action.
No submissions by other parties are recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition but subsequently noticed certain inadvertent errors. Counsel for the petitioner requested to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action. The Court granted the prayer and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment does not engage in statutory interpretation or analysis as it solely addresses withdrawal of the writ petition at the petitioner’s request.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions recorded; the order was issued by a Single Judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedent or guideline was set by this order. The disposition follows standard practice for withdrawal of writ petitions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The standard practice of permitting withdrawal of a writ petition with liberty to refile is followed; no new precedent is created.