High Court reaffirms the necessity to invoke writ jurisdiction against final executive orders and permits withdrawal with liberty, reinforcing procedural rigor for parole petitions
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPCR/478/2025 of HARISH GANJIR Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010364632025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | WITHDRAWN |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Hon’ble The Chief Justice and Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru |
| Type of Law | Constitutional law – Writ jurisdiction (Article 226) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable when it challenges only a police recommendation and not the final order of the District Magistrate. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, a convict seeking parole, challenged only the Superintendent of Police’s recommendation dated 01.07.2025 without placing the District Magistrate’s rejection order on record; on realizing the omission, counsel sought withdrawal with liberty to file afresh. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44733-DB |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Writ petitions under Article 226 must challenge the final order; intermediate or advisory recommendations are not sufficient grounds for maintainability.
- Courts may allow withdrawal of a prematurely filed petition with liberty to re-file once the impugned order is on record.
- Costs may be imposed even on withdrawal, with directions for payment to public welfare institutions.
- Counsel should verify that the exact impugned order is before the court when seeking relief under Article 226.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Prematurity of Challenge
- The petition attacked only the police recommendation, not the District Magistrate’s final parole rejection.
- Article 226 relief requires the actual order to be placed on record.
- Disposal as Withdrawn
- In absence of the final order, the Court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
- Liberty granted to re-file after procuring and placing the impugned order.
- Cost and Public Interest
- Rs. 2,000 imposed as costs, to be paid into the Government Multi-Disabled Home fund.
- Ensures public interest and procedural discipline.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Challenged the SP’s recommendation of 01.07.2025 seeking quashal and immediate parole for 14 + 2 days.
- Admitted the actual DM order was not on record; applied for withdrawal with liberty to re-file.
State (Respondents)
- Opposed neither maintainability nor costs; no specific submissions recorded beyond the hearing.
Factual Background
Harish Ganjir, a convicted prisoner, applied for parole and obtained a recommendation from the Superintendent of Police on 01.07.2025. The District Magistrate’s final order rejecting parole was neither challenged nor placed on record. The petitioner filed WPCR 478/2025, attacking only the SP’s recommendation and seeking immediate release. Upon realizing the omission, counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to file afresh.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The High Court followed established practice requiring challenge to the final order rather than interim recommendations.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44733-DB (Paragraph reference for key holding)