Clarifies that a writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn at the request of the petitioners once their grievance is redressed, with no objection from other parties; judgment upholds existing precedent and holds no precedential value for contentious questions of law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPC/975/2025 of RAJESH YADAV Vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY |
| CNR | JHHC010425922024 |
| Date of Registration | 21-02-2025 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed as Withdrawn |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR |
| Court | High Court of Jharkhand |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | None (Not a pronouncement on merits; not binding) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding; no precedent set (disposed as withdrawn, no merits discussed) |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive (no legal reasoning or principle pronounced) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- No new legal principle, clarification, or legal precedent has been set by this judgment.
- Confirms that a writ petition can be withdrawn by petitioners if their grievance is no longer subsisting and the other parties do not object.
- No findings on facts or law; the disposal is purely administrative.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted the petitioners’ submission (through counsel) that their grievance had been redressed and that they do not wish to pursue the writ petition.
- Permission to withdraw the writ petition was sought.
- Counsel for the other sides stated “no objection” to withdrawal.
- The High Court accordingly dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
- All pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Instructed counsel that their grievance has already been redressed, and sought permission to withdraw the writ petition.
Respondents
- Learned counsel for the other sides raised no objection to the withdrawal of the petition.
Factual Background
The petitioners had initially approached the High Court of Jharkhand via writ petition. By the time the matter was listed, their grievance had already been redressed. The petitioners informed the court, through their counsel, of their intention not to pursue the writ petition. The other respondents did not object, resulting in the dismissal of the writ petition as withdrawn.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were interpreted or discussed in the judgment.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered; the judgment was by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural rule or innovation introduced in this matter.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Standard withdrawal/disposal procedure confirmed; no legal precedent altered.
Citations
No legal citations provided or relied upon in the judgment.