A petition seeking relief was withdrawn at the preliminary stage; the High Court dismissed it as “not pressed” without adjudicating any legal issue. Such dismissals do not establish precedent or clarify substantive law and cannot be cited as binding or persuasive authority.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/5707/2025 of JHARKHAND INCOME TAX BAR ASSOCIATION, THRO ITS SECRETARY CUM AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY DEEPAK KR. PATEL Vs UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE NORTH BLOCK |
| CNR | JHHC010337992025 |
| Date of Registration | 07-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed As Not Pressed |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Divisional Bench (HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None (no precedential value) |
| Persuasive For | None (no persuasive value) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The petition was expressly dismissed “as not pressed” at the request of counsel.
- No legal questions were adjudicated; the court did not render any finding or reasoning.
- Such orders carry no precedential or persuasive value and cannot be relied upon for legal propositions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court records the submission of the petitioner’s counsel that instructions were received not to press the writ petition.
- On that basis, the court dismisses the writ petition as not pressed.
- There is no discussion or decision on facts, questions of law, or substantive or procedural rights.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before the court that he has got instruction not to press the present writ petition.
Respondent:
No submissions are recorded or mentioned.
Factual Background
The Jharkhand Income Tax Bar Association, through its Secretary-cum-Authorized Signatory, filed a writ petition against the Union of India and the Central Board of Direct Taxes. At the hearing, before any substantive proceedings occurred, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that he had instructions not to press the petition. The High Court, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition as not pressed.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were discussed, interpreted, or analyzed in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; the order was unanimous by both judges.
Procedural Innovations
No procedural directions, innovations, or departures from the normal process were recorded.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Routine dismissal “as not pressed” without adjudication; confirms that such dismissals create no precedent.