The Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous after noting that the petitioner took no steps to prosecute the matter, and that the respondents had already acted on the termination order. This decision reaffirms that courts may dismiss writ petitions as infructuous if subsequent events make the relief sought redundant, upholding existing precedent and serving as binding authority for maintainability in the context of lease termination disputes involving statutory authorities.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPA/22927/2019 of A.R. TECHNOPACK INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. Vs W.B. SMALL INDUSTRIES DEVELOPMENT CORP. LTD. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0506012019 |
| Date of Registration | 09-12-2019 |
| Decision Date | 01-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE JUSTICE PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Precedent Value |
|
| Type of Law | Administrative/Procedural Law |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition challenging a termination order becomes infructuous if the petitioner fails to prosecute and the respondent acts meanwhile |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that as the petitioner failed to pursue the writ petition and there was a change in circumstance (respondents had taken possession post-termination), the petition had become infructuous. Hence, it was dismissed without costs. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Petitioner challenged an order terminating its lease under Rule 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. Respondents stated the petitioner did not commence business as per the lease; termination was effected and possession taken. Petitioner did not prosecute the case after filing. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in West Bengal |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that mere filing of a writ petition does not guarantee a stay or interim protection—petitioners must diligently prosecute their case.
- Demonstrates that courts may dismiss writ petitions as infructuous if circumstances change or action is not taken promptly by the petitioner.
- Serves as a warning for lawyers to pursue interim relief/press petitions or risk dismissal due to subsequent events.
- Useful precedent regarding maintainability of writ petitions when factual matrix has changed owing to delay or inaction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Respondents highlighted that petitioner’s non-commencement of business led to valid lease termination and possession was already taken.
- The Court examined the case record and found no efforts by the petitioner to advance the proceedings after filing.
- Citing the passage of time and the occurrence of events (possession taken), the Court reasoned that the petition no longer served a useful purpose.
- Accordingly, the writ petition was declared infructuous and dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
No specific arguments recorded in the present judgment excerpt, other than the challenge to termination order.
Respondent
- Petitioner failed to start business as per the timeline in the lease agreement.
- The lease agreement was terminated accordingly by the respondents.
- Possession of the land was subsequently taken by the respondents.
- The matter has become infructuous as the petitioner did not pursue the writ petition.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 27th July 2019, terminating its lease under Rule 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976, on grounds of non-commencement of business within the stipulated period. After termination, respondents took possession. The petitioner took no steps to pursue the case after filing.
Statutory Analysis
The order under challenge was passed under Rule 3(1) of the West Bengal Government Premises (Tenancy Regulation) Act, 1976. No detailed statutory interpretation or reading down was undertaken in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court follows and applies established law on dismissal of infructuous petitions due to delay and change of circumstances.