High Court Dismisses Writ Petition as Infructuous — No Stay Granted. The petitioners' application for transfer of a case was rejected, and the writ petition became infructuous due to the lack of a stay order.

  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved a writ petition filed by the petitioners seeking a writ of certiorari to quash an order dated 1.10.1999 passed by the Additional Commissioner Consolidation, Lucknow, which rejected their transfer application concerning a case pending before the Consolidation Officer. The petitioners had moved for the transfer of Case No. 881, which involved plots in village Pamdari, Tehsil Kichcha, District Udham Singh Nagar, under Section 9(1)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act. The writ petition was initially filed in 1999 before the Allahabad High Court; however, no stay order was granted during the proceedings. As time passed without resolution, the court determined that the writ petition had become infructuous. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition without any order as to costs, indicating that the matter could no longer be adjudicated effectively due to the lapse of time.

Headnote

A) Writ Jurisdiction - Certiorari - Quashing of Order - U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, Section 9(1)(a) - Petitioners sought to quash the order rejecting their transfer application for a case pending before the Consolidation Officer. The court found that the writ petition had become infructuous due to the passage of time and lack of a stay order, leading to dismissal without costs. Held that the petition was no longer maintainable (Paras Not mentioned).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order rejecting the transfer application should be quashed.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous due to the lack of a stay order and the passage of time.

Law Points

  • Writ of certiorari
  • Transfer application
  • U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act
  • Infructuous petition
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

Writ Petition No. 1103 of 2001 (MS)

2004-08-25

Rajesh Tandon

Km. Meenakshi Agrawal & others

Additional Commissioner Consolidation Lucknow & others

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking to quash an order rejecting a transfer application.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought to quash the order of the Additional Commissioner.

Filing Reason

The petitioners filed for transfer of a case pending before the Consolidation Officer.

Previous Decisions

The writ petition was filed in 1999, but no stay order was granted.

Issues

Whether the order rejecting the transfer application should be quashed.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued for the transfer of the case. Respondents' position not detailed.

Ratio Decidendi

The writ petition became infructuous as no stay was granted, and the matter could not be adjudicated effectively.

Judgment Excerpts

The writ petition has been filed in the year 1999 before the Allahabad High Court but no stay order has been granted. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructious.

Procedural History

The petitioners filed a writ petition in 1999, which was later dismissed as infructuous on 25.8.2004.

Acts & Sections

  • U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act: 9(1)(a)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Appellant's Appeal in Army Act Case Due to Judicial Review Errors. High Court's Quashing of Court Martial Findings Found Erroneous Except for One Charge.
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC's Order Condoning Delay in Consumer Complaint — Delay Condoned Prior to Constitution Bench Judgment. The NCDRC's discretion to condone delay was upheld as the order was made before the Constitution Bench's ruling.