A High Court single-judge bench clarifies that if a writ petitioner repeatedly fails to appear and, owing to passage of time, obtains no interim relief, the matter can be dismissed as infructuous—thus upholding established principles. The decision restates that litigants must be diligent, and reaffirms available remedies in case of fresh cause of action. The judgment provides binding authority for subordinate courts within Chhattisgarh.
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPS/235/2023 of SMT. CHANDRA KIRAN SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010009022023 |
| Date of Registration | 07-01-2023 |
| Decision Date | 03-11-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Binding within the jurisdiction of the High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Type of Law | Procedural / Administrative (Service / Posting) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition can be dismissed as infructuous when the petitioner fails to appear and, due to passage of time, the impugned order has already been complied with? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that lack of prosecution and passage of time, which renders the relief sought redundant or unworkable, justifies dismissal of a writ petition as infructuous.
- Court clarified that liberty is available to approach the court again should a fresh cause of action arise.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court observed that the petitioner did not appear on two earlier dates and failed to appear or make representation when called again.
- The reliefs sought involved quashing an order and staying at a current posting, but no interim orders had been passed in favour of the petitioner.
- Since, by the time of hearing, the order had already been complied with and the reliefs sought had become redundant, the court found the petition infructuous.
- The court concluded there was no ground to continue the matter and accordingly dismissed the petition as infructuous.
- However, the court clarified that the petitioner could approach the court afresh in accordance with law if a new cause of action arose.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- No appearance; no submissions were made as per the order.
Respondent (State)
- Appeared through Mr. Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged an order of posting dated 28.08.2021 and sought quashing thereof, along with a stay to continue at the present place of posting. Despite repeated adjournments and calls on multiple occasions (13.01.2023 and the date of final hearing), the petitioner neither appeared nor pressed the petition. No interim order or stay was granted by the court. The petitioner already complied with the said order, and the underlying issues became redundant, prompting dismissal as infructuous.
Procedural Innovations
- The court explicitly clarified that a petition becoming infructuous—due to non-prosecution and subsequent compliance with the challenged order—warrants dismissal. Liberty to file afresh if a new cause arises was expressly stated in the operative order.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Existing law on dismissal of infructuous petitions is affirmed and reiterated.