Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1249
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
Saravanan – Petitioner
Versus
The Director General, Highways Department, Chennai – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 23824 of 2018, W.M.P. (MD) No. 21578 of 2018
Decided On : 22-08-2024
Important Points
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous when the relief sought has already been granted, negating the need for judicial intervention.
Subject
Administrative Law - Writ Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
Writ Petition - Promotion Panel - The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous after noting that the petitioner had been promoted subsequent to the filing of the petition, indicating that the legal provision for mandamus was no longer applicable as the relief sought had been granted.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to include their name in the promotion panel for the post of Superintendent based on a representation made on 31.10.2018.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the submission from the learned Special Government Pleader that the petitioner had been promoted after the filing of the writ petition, leading to the conclusion that the matter was resolved.
Issues: Whether the writ petition for mandamus was maintainable after the petitioner received the promotion.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that since the petitioner had already been promoted, the writ petition was rendered infructuous and did not require further adjudication.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Suruli Raja, S. Deenadhayalan.
For the Respondents: D. Farjana Ghoushia.
ORDER :
Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Mandamus, directing the first respondent to include the petitioner's name in the promotion panel for the post of Superintendent on the basis of the representation of the petitioner dated 31.10.2018.
1. Learned Counsel for the petitioner requests this Court to record the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that subsequent to the filing of this Writ Petition, the petitioner was promoted. He would also submit that after recording the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader, this Writ Petition can be dismissed as infructuous.
2. Recording the submission made by the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents that subsequent to the filing of this writ petition, the petitioner has been promoted and that nothing survives for further adjudication, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
