A writ petition challenging a transfer order becomes infructuous if the petitioner joins at the transferred place in the absence of any interim relief. The High Court of Uttarakhand reaffirms existing precedent, maintaining settled law and providing binding authority for similar administrative transfer cases in service law.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WPSS/1127/2023 of PRIYANKA SAH Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND |
| CNR | UKHC010106252023 |
| Date of Registration | 06-07-2023 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Kumar Tiwari |
| Court | High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on the issue of infructuous writ petitions in service transfer cases |
| Type of Law | Service Law (Administrative Law) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The writ petition, which challenged an order of transfer, was dismissed as infructuous because the petitioner, in the absence of interim relief, complied with the order and joined the transferred post. When the relief sought becomes impossible or unnecessary due to subsequent events (here, compliance by the petitioner), the Court may dismiss the case as infructuous upon a statement to that effect by counsel. This upholds the practice that administrative/judicial intervention is unwarranted once the petitioner accepts the transfer and no interim relief preserves the original position. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Dismissal based on the bar statement regarding change of circumstances; no further detailed reasoning or authorities expressly discussed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner challenged a transfer order but, having not secured interim relief, joined at the transferred location, leading to dismissal of the writ petition as infructuous on petitioner’s counsel’s statement. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and authorities under the jurisdiction of the High Court of Uttarakhand |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that once a petitioner joins the transferred post in the absence of any interim order, the writ petition against transfer becomes infructuous.
- Highlights the procedural standard that writs may be dismissed as infructuous if supervening events negate the original relief sought.
- Lawyers should ensure to seek and obtain interim relief in service transfer challenges if they wish to preserve the cause of action.
- Statements made by counsel at the bar regarding supervening events (such as compliance) are sufficient for dismissal as infructuous.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court accepted the statement of learned counsel for the petitioner that the writ petition had become infructuous since the petitioner joined the transferred place.
- Noted that the challenge pertained to a transfer order, and in the absence of any interim relief, the petitioner had complied with the order.
- Dismissed the writ petition as infructuous based on the change in circumstances and the statement made before the Court.
- No additional legal reasoning, precedents, or authorities cited as the case was disposed of on the basis of supervening factual developments.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Through counsel, stated that the writ petition had become infructuous because the petitioner had already joined at the transferred location in the absence of an interim order.
Respondent (State)
- No additional arguments recorded in the text of the order.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged an administrative order of transfer. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner did not secure any interim order staying the operation of the transfer order. Consequently, the petitioner joined at the transferred place. During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner declared that the writ petition had become infructuous because of this compliance.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were interpreted or analyzed in detail in this judgment, as the order was passed on account of factual developments rendering the petition infructuous.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
- No separate dissenting or concurring opinions recorded in this judgment.
Procedural Innovations
- No procedural innovations noted or introduced in this judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Reaffirms and applies established law and practice regarding the fate of challenges to administrative transfers once the petitioner complies with the order and no interim relief preserved status quo.