Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/925/2022 of H.B. THANISON ANAL Vs STATE OF MANIPUR AND 3 OTHERS |
| CNR | MNHC010029012022 |
| Date of Registration | 31-10-2022 |
| Decision Date | 11-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed as withdrawn |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH |
| Court | High Court of Manipur at Imphal |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Manipur regarding similar procedural withdrawals |
| Questions of Law | Whether a writ petition becomes infructuous when the relief sought is overtaken by subsequent administrative action, and the appropriate method of disposal. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The petition was filed to challenge a transfer order. An intervening administrative order—posting the petitioner as Principal elsewhere—rendered the petition’s main grievance non-existent. Accordingly, the Court held the matter to be infructuous and permitted withdrawal with liberty to refile should further grievance arise. The order clarifies the procedural course where supervening events make a writ redundant. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Petitioner challenged a transfer from Principal in-charge, DIET Chandel to Lecturer, DIET Centre, Kakching. During proceedings, Government posted petitioner as in-charge Principal of DIET, Churachandpur, making the original writ unnecessary. The petition was then dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to file afresh. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Manipur on the principle of withdrawal of infructuous writs with liberty to refile. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts on procedural management of petitions overtaken by events. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Affirmation that a writ petition can be considered infructuous and withdrawn when subsequent administrative orders address the petitioner’s grievance.
- Express recognition of the petitioner’s right to withdraw with liberty to approach the court again if a fresh cause arises.
- Reinforces judicial practice to avoid unnecessary adjudication when core relief becomes redundant.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court considered submissions that an intervening Government order (dated 08.03.2024) had placed the petitioner in a position similar to or better than what was sought in the writ.
- It was observed that the petitioner’s grievance regarding the transfer was resolved by the new posting order.
- Upon request of the petitioner’s counsel and with the respondents’ agreement, the Court found the petition infructuous.
- Accordingly, in view of the new facts, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, explicitly granting liberty to refile should a fresh grievance arise.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner:
- Sought permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one, if so advised.
Respondents:
- Submitted that the writ petition had become infructuous as the petitioner was now posted as in-charge Principal at DIET, Churachandpur.
Factual Background
The petitioner challenged a transfer order dated 14.10.2022 by which he was posted as Lecturer at DIET Centre, Kakching, while previously serving as Principal in-charge at DIET Centre, Chandel. During the pendency of the petition, a subsequent Government order (08.03.2024) appointed the petitioner as in-charge Principal of DIET, Churachandpur. This rendered the original challenge redundant, prompting the petitioner to seek withdrawal of his writ petition with liberty to file afresh if necessary.
Statutory Analysis
The judgment did not discuss or interpret any statutory provision, as the matter was disposed of on procedural grounds due to supervening events resolving the subject matter of the writ.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
The judgment follows established practice regarding withdrawal of infructuous petitions with liberty to refile. No new procedural innovations were introduced.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court upheld established procedural precedent on dealing with infructuous writ petitions.