The court confirms that when a petitioner submits a formal statement and communication expressing their intention to withdraw a writ petition due to settlement, the petition may be disposed of accordingly. This judgment upholds existing practice and may be cited as binding authority in Himachal Pradesh for similar scenarios involving withdrawal after settlement.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWPOA/911/2019 of Barjinder Kumar Marwaha Vs State of HP and Ors |
| CNR | HPHC010341122019 |
| Date of Registration | 30-11-2019 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Precedent Value | Binding (within Himachal Pradesh) |
| Type of Law | Procedural / Administrative Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court disposed of the writ petition upon a clear and voluntary statement from the petitioner, supported by a communication on record, that the issues were settled. The court confirmed that, in such scenarios, proceedings may be closed without further substantive adjudication, and pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of. The judgment reiterates the court’s practice of honouring settlements and voluntary withdrawals by petitioners. The court did not enter into merits or legal arguments beyond the petition’s closure on settlement grounds. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, through counsel, communicated to the court that he no longer wished to pursue the petition due to the dispute being settled/solved; the statement and supporting communication were taken on record. The court then disposed of the petition accordingly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts seeking procedural guidance on withdrawals |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that the court will dispose of writ petitions upon the petitioner’s explicit statement and documented communication expressing intent to withdraw due to settlement.
- The court’s closure of proceedings includes pending miscellaneous applications, even where substantive issues are not adjudicated.
- Lawyers should ensure a clear on-record statement and supporting documentation for smooth withdrawal and disposal of such matters.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the statement from petitioner’s counsel—on instructions and supported by a written communication—that the petitioner did not wish to continue the proceedings due to settlement.
- The statement and the communication were taken on record by the court.
- On this basis, the court disposed of the writ petition and pending miscellaneous applications, acknowledging the effect of amicable settlement and the petitioner’s intent.
- No substantive adjudication was carried out, with the court exercising procedural discretion to give closure.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Instructed counsel to communicate intention to withdraw the writ petition.
- Cited the fact that the case had been settled/solved.
Respondent
- No specific stand or argument recorded in the order regarding merits or process after receipt of withdrawal communication.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. During the pendency of proceedings, petitioner’s counsel communicated to the court, based on petitioner’s instructions and written communication, that the petitioner did not wish to pursue the case further as the matter had been settled or solved. The court took the statement and communication on record and proceeded to close the proceedings accordingly.
Statutory Analysis
- No specific statutory provisions interpreted or discussed in the judgment.
- The court followed standard procedural discretion for allowing withdrawal and disposal of proceedings on the basis of a filed statement and supporting communication from the petitioner.
Procedural Innovations
- The court emphasized the acceptance of on-record statements and written communication as sufficient for disposing of petitions due to amicable settlement.
- All pending miscellaneous applications are also disposed of in such closure orders.
- No additional procedural requirements or innovations established.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Court adhered to established practice for disposal upon settlement and withdrawal.