Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
Abdul Quddhose, J.
S.S.Porchezhian - Petitioner
Versus
The Engineer in Chief WRD and Chief Engineer (General), Public Works Department-
Respondent
W.P.(MD)No.13442 of 2017
Decided On : 19-08-2024
INFRUCTUOUS - WRIT PETITION - The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous based on the petitioner's counsel's submission that the relief sought had become irrelevant, indicating that the legal provision under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not applicable in this instance due to the change in circumstances surrounding the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash an order and to be reinstated in their position.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted that the counsel for the petitioner stated that the relief sought had become infructuous, leading to the dismissal of the petition.
Issues: Whether the writ petition could be maintained given the petitioner's counsel's statement regarding the relief sought becoming infructuous.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that since the relief sought was no longer relevant, the petition could not proceed under Article 226.
Result: The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.
ORDER :
Abdul Quddhose, J.
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records of the respondent in C-II(3)/3145/2015-23 order dated 26.05.2017 and quash the same and further direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in the dame or other equivalent post within a time frame to be fixed by this Court.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the relief sought for in this Writ Petition has now become infructuous. She has also made an endorsement to that effect in the Court bundle.
2.Recording the same, this Writ Petition is dismissed as infructuous. There shall be no order as to costs.
A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable if the relief sought has become infructuous.
A writ petition under Article 226 becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or necessary.
A writ petition becomes infructuous when the relief sought is no longer relevant or actionable.
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to appear and show interest in the case.
Legal proceedings must address current and relevant issues; if an issue becomes moot, the court will dismiss the case.
The court has the discretion to dispose of a writ petition as infructuous based on the submissions made by the petitioner's counsel.
A writ petition can be rendered moot if the relief sought is subsequently granted through administrative action.
A writ petition can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the petitioner fails to show interest in pursuing the case.
The court reaffirmed that statutory remedies provided under the Advocates Act must be exhausted before seeking judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
