When the authority withdraws the impugned order during writ proceedings, the High Court may dispose of the petition as nothing survives for adjudication. The present judgment reaffirms established precedent and has routine procedural value for future cases involving similar facts in administrative law within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Sikkim.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/35/2025 of Laxmi Tamang Vs The District Magistrate and Ors. |
| CNR | SKHC010000982025 |
| Date of Registration | 04-07-2025 |
| Decision Date | 29-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai |
| Court | High Court of Sikkim |
| Bench | Single Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Meenakshi Madan Rai, Judge |
| Precedent Value | Routine procedural; reaffirms existing practice; persuasive within factual context |
| Type of Law | Administrative Law; Constitutional Law—Article 226 |
| Questions of Law | Whether the writ petition survives after the challenged administrative order is withdrawn by the authority |
| Ratio Decidendi | Where the impugned administrative order is withdrawn by the issuing authority during pendency of the writ petition, there remains nothing further for the court to adjudicate. Accordingly, the petition is to be disposed of as the grievances raised are already satisfied. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged an order dated 06-12-2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gangtok District. During the pendency of the writ petition, the order was withdrawn by the issuing authority on 20-09-2025, rendering the reliefs sought by the petitioner satisfied. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Sikkim |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts facing similar factual situations |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that a writ petition becomes infructuous if the impugned administrative order is withdrawn by the competent authority while proceedings are pending.
- Affirms that courts may promptly dispose of such writ petitions as no further adjudication is necessary.
- Lawyers should check if the challenged administrative action has been withdrawn before proceeding further with substantive arguments.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner’s core relief was to set aside an administrative order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
- The Government Advocate informed the court that the impugned order had already been withdrawn by the issuing authority.
- The petitioner’s counsel agreed that, following the withdrawal, nothing further remained to be adjudicated.
- The court perused the papers and concluded that the petition had become infructuous, as the grievances stood redressed by the withdrawal.
- The writ petition was accordingly disposed of, applying the logical principle that withdrawal of the impugned order obviates the need for further judicial intervention.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Sought setting aside of the order dated 06-12-2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate.
- Upon withdrawal of the impugned order, submitted that all prayers were satisfied and nothing survived for adjudication.
Respondents No. 1 and 2 (Government)
- Informed the court that the impugned order was withdrawn via Memo dated 20-09-2025 and requested disposal of the writ petition.
Respondent No. 3
- No submissions advanced.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 challenging an order dated 06-12-2024 issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Gangtok District. Before the matter was heard substantively, the authorities withdrew the disputed order by Memo dated 20-09-2025. Consequently, the petitioner’s grievance no longer survived, and all parties acknowledged that nothing required further adjudication.
Statutory Analysis
- The petition was entertained under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, concerning the court’s writ jurisdiction to review administrative action.
- The judgment does not reflect substantive interpretation of any statutory provision, as the key event was factual (withdrawal of the order).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There was no dissenting or concurring opinion; the matter was heard and disposed of by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or directives were set; the court followed standard practice in disposing of infructuous writ petitions.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – The judgment applies and reaffirms established legal and procedural precedent concerning the disposal of infructuous writ petitions following withdrawal of impugned administrative orders.