Case Note & Summary
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant permission for a public hunger strike to be held on 28.02.2017, behind Arputha Vinayakar Temple, Tisyanvilai, Tirunelveli District. The petitioner had made a representation on 22.02.2017 requesting such permission. When the matter came up for hearing before the High Court, the date for the proposed hunger strike had passed several years earlier. The court observed that due to efflux of time, the relief sought had become infructuous. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of as infructuous without going into the merits of the claim. No costs were awarded. The court did not lay down any substantive legal principle beyond the procedural outcome that a petition becomes infructuous when the underlying cause of action no longer subsists.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability of Infructuous Petition - Constitution of India, Article 226 - Petition filed under Article 226 seeking a mandamus to grant permission for a public hunger strike scheduled on 28.02.2017 became infructuous because the date had long passed by the time of hearing - Held that the writ petition stands disposed of as infructuous (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition for permission to hold a hunger strike on a specific date remains maintainable after that date has passed
Final Decision
Writ petition disposed of as infructuous. No costs.
Law Points
- When the relief sought in a writ petition becomes infructuous due to efflux of time
- the petition is liable to be disposed of as infructuous
