High Court of Judicature at Madras Closes Writ Appeal as Infructuous After Withdrawal of Original Writ Petition. Appeal against order in writ petition was closed after respondent withdrew original writ petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn.

High Court: Madras High Court Bench: Principal
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The matter arose from a writ appeal filed by the State, represented by the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, against an order dated 18.02.2022 passed in W.P. No. 23426 of 2014. The underlying writ petition had been filed by G. Ramaswamy seeking some relief against the State. When the appeal came up for hearing, the respondent's counsel, after arguing at length, submitted that the respondent had been subsequently terminated from service. Challenging that termination, a separate writ petition had been filed and was pending. The counsel sought permission to withdraw the original writ petition itself, stating that the respondent would approach the Competent Authority for redressal of his grievance, including monetary benefits. The counsel also made an endorsement in the case bundle to that effect. There being no opposition from the appellant's side, the court considered the submission. The court noted that the respondent desired to withdraw the writ petition and pursue an alternative remedy. Finding no impediment, the court granted permission to withdraw the writ petition. Consequently, W.P. No. 23426 of 2014 was dismissed as withdrawn. Since the foundation of the appeal disappeared with the withdrawal of the writ petition, the court held that no further consideration was required in the writ appeal. Accordingly, the writ appeal was closed. No order as to costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed. The judgment did not involve any examination of the merits of the original dispute or the appeal, focusing solely on the procedural disposal of the matter following the withdrawal of the underlying petition.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Writ Petition - Not mentioned - The respondent, after arguing the case, sought permission to withdraw the original writ petition and to approach the competent authority for redressal of grievances, including monetary benefits; the court permitted withdrawal, dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, and consequently closed the writ appeal with no costs - Held that no further consideration was required in the writ appeal upon withdrawal of the underlying writ petition (Paras 2-3).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the respondent could be permitted to withdraw the original writ petition and, consequently, what effect this would have on the pending writ appeal.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition W.P. No. 23426 of 2014 was permitted to be withdrawn and dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, the writ appeal was closed with no costs. Connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.

Law Points

  • Withdrawal of writ petition
  • dismissal as withdrawn
  • closure of writ appeal
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (07) 74

W.A.No.1414 of 2023 and C.M.P.No.13782 of 2023

2026-07-08

S.M. Subramaniam, N. Senthilkumar

Dr.R.Gouri (for appellant), Mr.V.Vijayshankar (for respondent)

The Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, DMS Compound, Teynampet, Chennai - 600 006.

G.Ramaswamy

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ appeal against an order in a writ petition, which was subsequently withdrawn.

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside the order dated 18.02.2022 in W.P. No. 23426 of 2014; respondent sought withdrawal of the writ petition.

Filing Reason

The original writ petition was filed presumably for some relief; after termination, the respondent sought to withdraw it to approach competent authority.

Previous Decisions

The order dated 18.02.2022 in W.P. No. 23426 of 2014 was the subject matter of appeal; no other previous decisions mentioned.

Issues

Whether the respondent could be permitted to withdraw the original writ petition.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant's counsel argued at length; respondent's counsel submitted that respondent had been subsequently terminated and a separate writ petition was pending, and sought permission to withdraw the original writ petition and approach competent authority for redressal including monetary benefits.

Ratio Decidendi

The court permitted withdrawal of the writ petition at the request of the respondent, holding that no further consideration of the appeal was required once the underlying petition was withdrawn.

Judgment Excerpts

Mr.V.Vijayshankar, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that respondent was subsequently terminated. Challenging the order of termination, a separate writ petition was filed and the same is pending. That apart, respondent may be permitted to withdraw original W.P.No.23426 of 2014 itself and he will approach the Competent Authority for redressal of his grievance, including monetary benefits. Accordingly, permission is granted to withdraw the writ petition. W.P.No.23426 of 2014 is dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, no further consideration is required in respect of the present Writ Appeal. Therefore, Writ Appeal is closed. No costs.

Procedural History

State filed writ appeal W.A.No.1414 of 2023 against order dated 18.02.2022 in W.P.No.23426 of 2014. During pendency, respondent sought withdrawal of the writ petition, which was allowed, and the appeal was closed.

Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Judicature at Madras Closes Writ Appeal as Infructuous After Withdrawal of Original Writ Petition. Appeal against order in writ petition was closed after respondent withdrew original writ petition, which was dismissed as withdrawn.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Bombay at Goa Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Labour Court Award in Service Dispute — Petitioner Failed to Prove Continuous Employment and Termination. The court held that the workman bears the burden of proving continuous service...