Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the seizure of a Bolero Pickup vehicle bearing registration No. KA-12-B-2993 by forest authorities of Virajpet Division, Kodagu District, in connection with Forest Offence Case No. FOC 27/2019-20. The petitioner, the owner of the vehicle, submitted an application to the Authorized Officer and Deputy Conservator of Forests for release of the vehicle. When the application was not acted upon to his satisfaction, he approached the High Court of Karnataka under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his application and release the vehicle. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Authorized Officer passed an order on 6 January 2020 directing release of the vehicle subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.50,000. A copy of this order was sent to the petitioner's advocate. At the hearing of the writ petition, the Government Advocate for the respondents placed this development before the court, and the petitioner's advocate expressed satisfaction with the order. The court observed that the very relief prayed for in the writ petition had already been granted by the respondent authority. Therefore, the cause of action for the writ petition no longer survived, and the petition had become infructuous. As there remained no live controversy for adjudication, the court did not examine the merits of the case. It is a settled principle of writ jurisdiction that when the grievance of the petitioner is remedied by the respondent authority during pendency of the proceedings, the writ petition loses its purpose. The court accordingly disposed of the petition as infructuous, without any order as to costs. The brief order reflects a common procedural conclusion in matters where the authority against whom relief is sought takes the necessary action, rendering judicial intervention unnecessary.
Headnote
A) Writ Jurisdiction - Infructuous Petition - Constitution of India, Articles 226 and 227 - The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking release of a vehicle seized by the forest department. During pendency, the authorized officer passed an order releasing the vehicle subject to the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee of Rs.50,000. The petitioner's advocate expressed satisfaction with the order. Held, the petition became infructuous and was disposed of without costs. (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition has become infructuous in light of the respondent's order releasing the vehicle on bank guarantee
Final Decision
Writ petition disposed of as infructuous. No costs.
Law Points
- When the relief sought in a writ petition has already been granted by the respondent authority
- the petition becomes infructuous and is liable to be disposed of
