The court accepted the petitioner’s request to withdraw their challenge against a transfer order after the competent authority issued a reasoned rejection of the petitioner’s representation; the judgment simply records the withdrawal and does not create or reaffirm precedent—its value is limited to its facts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWP/16342/2025 of YASHPAL SINGH SANDHU Vs THE STATE OF HP AND OTHERS |
| CNR | HPHC010633842025 |
| Date of Registration | 15-10-2025 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Bench |
| Precedent Value | Limited; merely records withdrawal of writ petition, does not create binding or persuasive authority |
| Type of Law | Service Law (specifically, challenge to transfer in police department) |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | None; case disposed as withdrawn, not a precedent |
| Persuasive For | None; does not address substantive issue or decide any legal principle |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The court permitted withdrawal of a writ petition after the competent authority passed a reasoned order rejecting the petitioner’s representation against transfer.
- No adjudication on merits; the withdrawal is recorded without creating precedent.
- Lawyers should note that withdrawal of petition in such situations leaves the underlying legal issue undecided.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The petitioner, after unsuccessfully challenging the transfer order and having his representation rejected by the competent authority, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition.
- The court allowed the withdrawal as requested by counsel for the petitioner, with all pending applications disposed of accordingly.
- No substantive discussion or legal reasoning on the merits of challenging a transfer order or the scope of judicial review in service matters.
- The order is procedural in nature, recording the voluntary withdrawal of the petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Argued the case for some time, ultimately sought permission to withdraw the petition.
Respondents:
- No specific arguments are recorded in the judgment text regarding the merits.
Factual Background
- The petitioner, an official in the Police Department, was transferred from PRS Daroh to CTS Headquarters Workshop Shimla by office order dated 24.07.2025.
- The petitioner made a representation against the transfer to the competent authority on 25.07.2025.
- The competent authority rejected the representation by an order dated 09.10.2025, giving reasons.
- The petitioner then sought to challenge that order in the present writ petition but chose to withdraw the petition.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions are discussed or interpreted in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded in the judgment; order follows standard procedure for withdrawal of petitions.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Standard procedure applied in allowing withdrawal of writ petition; no new law created.