Where a petitioner conveys lack of interest in continuing with writ proceedings due to subsequent events, and the respondent raises no objection, the court may dispose of the petition without delving into merits. This judgment upholds the existing procedural precedent and affirms the non-adjudicative closure of cases in such circumstances. Practitioners should note this binding procedural clarity for withdrawal and closure in the Himachal Pradesh High Court.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CWPOA/965/2019 of Tribhushan Kumar Vs State of HP and others |
| CNR | HPHC010340622019 |
| Date of Registration | 30-11-2019 |
| Decision Date | 31-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma |
| Court | High Court of Himachal Pradesh |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench (Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjan Sharma) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within the Himachal Pradesh jurisdiction |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing procedural practice |
| Type of Law | Procedural/Administrative (Writ Jurisdiction) |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that where the petitioner, through counsel, expressly states lack of interest to continue with proceedings, and there is no opposition from the other side, it is proper to dispose of the writ petition in terms of the statement, without going into the merits or substantive rights. All pending miscellaneous applications are closed similarly. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The petitioner, via counsel, stated on instructions that due to subsequent events, they are not interested in continuing the case. The respondent did not oppose. The statement was taken on record and petition disposed accordingly. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within Himachal Pradesh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts for similar factual matrices, particularly regarding procedural closure at the instance of the petitioner |
| Follows | Affirms established procedural practice regarding closure on request of petitioner |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that writ proceedings can be closed on the express statement of the petitioner’s lack of interest, without deciding merits.
- The consent of the opposing party (respondent) is noted as relevant but not strictly essential where prayer is innocuous and unopposed.
- Miscellaneous applications pending stand closed automatically with the main petition.
- Useful citation for seeking non-adjudicative closure of proceedings where substantive relief is no longer required.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court recorded the specific statement from petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner was no longer interested in pursuing the petition due to subsequent events.
- The prayer for closure was found to be innocuous and not opposed by the respondents.
- Based on this, the court concluded that no purpose would be served by adjudicating the matter on merits and thus, in exercise of its procedural discretion, disposed of the proceedings without further inquiry.
- All pending miscellaneous applications related to the matter were also disposed of as a consequence.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Counsel, on instructions from the petitioner, stated due to subsequent events, the petitioner is not interested in continuing with the writ proceedings and seeks closure.
Respondent
- The State/respondents did not oppose the petitioner’s request for closure.
Factual Background
The petitioner had originally approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court with a writ petition. By the date of hearing, the petitioner, through counsel, communicated that due to subsequent developments, they no longer wished to prosecute the case. The respondents were given an opportunity to object, but raised no opposition. The court recorded the statement and disposed of the case accordingly, also disposing pending miscellaneous applications.
Statutory Analysis
No specific statutory provisions were interpreted in detail; the court exercised its procedural discretion under writ jurisdiction to dispose of the matter based on the petitioner’s withdrawal statement.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are recorded; judgment was delivered by a single judge.
Procedural Innovations
- None explicitly noted; the court’s action reflects continuity with routine practice for disposal upon withdrawal or non-prosecution.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision affirms established procedural law regarding voluntary withdrawal and non-adjudicative disposal of writ petitions.