A writ petition may be closed and disposed of without adjudication on merits where the petitioner, citing subsequent events, instructs their counsel to withdraw the relief sought, and there is no opposition from the respondents. This judgment reaffirms existing procedural principles for closure of petitions rendered infructuous due to subsequent developments, confirming binding precedent value for similar future cases in administrative and service law contexts.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWPOA/920/2019 of Subhash Chand Vs State of H.P |
| CNR | HPHC010342982019 |
| Date of Registration | 30-11-2019 |
| Decision Date | 30-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Justice Ranjan Sharma) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority within jurisdiction for procedural disposal on similar facts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on withdrawal/closure due to subsequent events |
| Type of Law | Procedural/Administrative Law |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The High Court may dispose of a petition without adjudication on merits when, due to subsequent events, the relief sought by the petitioner no longer survives. Upon express statement by counsel, supported by petitioner’s instructions, and in the absence of opposition by the State/respondents, the Court is justified in closing the proceedings. Pending applications also stand disposed of. The order does not enter into the substantive issues but is based solely on procedural developments. The scenario reflects standard practice where petitions become infructuous due to external developments. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions, stated that due to subsequent events, the relief claimed no longer survives. The petitioner instructed withdrawal/closure; the State did not object. The Court accepted the statement and disposed of the matter accordingly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the territorial jurisdiction of the Himachal Pradesh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts in India, in analogous procedural circumstances; potential persuasive value for similar cases |
| Follows | Follows established procedural practice of withdrawal/closure on account of supervening events rendering relief infructuous |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that where relief sought in a writ petition becomes infructuous due to subsequent events, and the petitioner so instructs, the Court will ordinarily accept withdrawal and close the petition.
- No need for detailed reasoning on merits if all parties consent and the relief does not survive.
- Petitioner’s counsel’s statement on instructions is sufficient for withdrawal/closure.
- Such procedural orders do not create substantive precedent but may be cited for efficient docket management.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The judgment records the statement of petitioner’s counsel, on instructions, that subsequent events have rendered the relief claimed infructuous.
- The State/Respondents did not oppose closure.
- The Court finds the prayer “innocuous” and, in the absence of opposition, closes and disposes of the petition, including any pending applications.
- The order is passed as a matter of procedural regularity, consistent with existing practice where supervening events remove the basis for judicial intervention.
- No adjudication is undertaken on the substantive issues raised in the petition.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Due to subsequent events, the relief claimed no longer survives as of the present date.
- On instruction, seeks closure of proceedings.
Respondent (State)
- Does not oppose the prayer for closure.
- No submissions made contesting the withdrawal.
Factual Background
The petitioner filed a writ petition registered as CWPOA/920/2019 before the High Court of Himachal Pradesh. During hearings, petitioner’s counsel, on specific instructions from the petitioner, stated that due to subsequent events, the relief originally sought no longer survives. The request was made for closure and disposal of the petition. The State did not object to this prayer.
Statutory Analysis
No statutory provisions were expressly interpreted or analyzed in the judgment. The closure was based on procedural grounds arising from subsequent events making the original relief infructuous, consistent with established judicial practices for writ petitions.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were delivered in this case. The judgment was authored solely by Justice Ranjan Sharma.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations or guidelines were established. The judgment followed the standard procedure for disposal of writ petitions when the relief sought becomes infructuous due to subsequent events, upon statement by counsel and absence of opposition.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment follows established precedent on procedural disposal of petitions rendered infructuous by subsequent events.