Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Rangasami Nadar, instituted a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Judicature at Madras, Madurai Bench, seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents — the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vallioor; the Inspector of Police, Tisayanvilai Police Station; the Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Pollution Control Board; and the Principal Secretary, Government of Tamil Nadu, Ministry of Environment and Forests — to grant permission for a public hunger strike proposed to be held on 28.02.2017 behind the Arputha Vinayakar Temple, Tisayanvilai, Tirunelveli District, between 10:00 a.m. and 05:00 p.m. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 22.02.2017 seeking such permission, and presumably the authorities did not grant it, leading to the filing of the writ petition. During the pendency of the proceedings, Respondents 3 and 4 were impleaded by an order dated 12.11.2021. The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Hon’ble Mr. Justice M. Jothiraman. On the date of hearing, there was no appearance on behalf of the petitioner. The Court observed that the permission sought was for a hunger strike scheduled on a specific date, which had long since passed. Noting that the relief had become infructuous due to efflux of time, the Court held that the cause of action no longer survived and the remedy was no longer enforceable. A writ of mandamus is a discretionary remedy that requires a live cause of action; once the event for which relief is sought has passed, the court cannot grant effective relief, and the petition becomes academic. The Court accordingly disposed of the writ petition as infructuous, with no order as to costs. No substantive adjudication on the merits of the right to hold a hunger strike or the legality of the respondents’ refusal was undertaken. The judgment was reserved on 27.01.2025 and pronounced on 17.02.2025. The decision reaffirms the settled principle that courts will not adjudicate matters that have become purely academic or where the grant of relief would be futile.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Infructuous Writ - Constitution of India, Article 226 - The writ petition sought a mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission for a public hunger strike scheduled on 28.02.2017; by the time of final hearing in 2025, the date had long passed, rendering the relief sought academic and unenforceable. Held, on account of efflux of time, the relief had vanished and the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous without costs. (Para 2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition seeking permission for a public hunger strike on a specific date has become infructuous due to passage of time.
Final Decision
The writ petition is disposed of as infructuous. No costs.
Law Points
- Writ petition becomes infructuous when the event for which permission was sought has passed
- mandamus requires a live cause of action
