When parties mutually agree that a writ petition has become infructuous, and the court disposes it accordingly, the judgment does not create binding precedent on substantive legal principles. This reaffirmation clarifies that such orders do not impact future cases on similar legal issues.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP/4405/2025 of SMT REDDY SANDHYA Vs THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH |
| CNR | APHC010069302025 |
| Date of Registration | 18-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 15-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, R RAGHUNANDAN RAO |
| Court | High Court of Andhra Pradesh |
| Bench | DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ; R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J |
| Precedent Value | Not binding as precedent; limited to the facts of the case |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding as precedent; limited only to the parties in this case |
| Persuasive For | No persuasive or precedential value on substantive issues |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that a writ petition dismissed as infructuous, upon consensus of parties, does not lay down any law or binding principle.
- Such orders carry no precedential value for similar disputes in future.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court recorded the mutual agreement of the parties that the writ petition had become infructuous.
- On this basis, the bench disposed of the matter as infructuous without entering into the merits or discussing any legal principle.
- No costs were imposed, and any pending applications were also ordered to be closed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Learned counsel agreed that the matter had become infructuous.
Respondent
- Counsel for all respondents, including the State, CBI, and others, concurred with the petitioners that the writ petition was infructuous.
Factual Background
The writ petition was filed before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. During proceedings, all parties through counsel agreed that the dispute no longer survived for adjudication, rendering the writ petition infructuous. Accordingly, the bench disposed of the writ petition without any order as to costs.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were analyzed or interpreted in the judgment, as the dismissal was solely on grounds of infructuousness by agreement of all parties.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There were no dissenting or concurring opinions. The order was unanimous and authored jointly by DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR, CJ, and R RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations were introduced in this judgment. The matter was disposed of per standard procedure when a petition becomes infructuous.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The order follows established practice regarding disposal of infructuous matters and reaffirmed that such orders do not create binding precedent.