2024 Supreme(Mad) 1341

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J.
V. Arul Prakasam – Petitioner
Versus
The District Collector, Ramanathapuram – Respondent
W.P. (MD) No. 11063 of 2017
Decided On : 08-08-2024

IMPORTANT POINT
A writ petition becomes infructuous when the circumstances that necessitated the petition no longer exist, such as the retirement of the respondent.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Mandamus - The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous since the third respondent had retired from service, indicating that the legal remedy sought was no longer applicable or necessary.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a Writ of Mandamus to direct an enquiry into the production of a bogus certificate by the third respondent and to initiate legal proceedings against them for illegal appointment.

Finding of the Court:

The court noted the petitioner's counsel's submission that the relief sought had become infructuous due to the retirement of the third respondent, leading to the dismissal of the petition.

Issues: Whether the writ petition seeking a mandamus for enquiry and legal proceedings against the third respondent was maintainable after the respondent's retirement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that since the third respondent had retired, the petitioner's request for an enquiry and legal action was no longer relevant, rendering the petition infructuous.

Result: The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous, with no order as to costs.