The Union Of INDIA vs. Siyawar Sharan Sahay @ S.S. Sahai

Held

The Court accepted the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been complied with. Consequently, the Court found that the present writ petition had become infructuous. The reasoning is straightforward: if the underlying issue that necessitated the writ petition has been resolved by compliance with a prior order, then the petition itself is no longer necessary. The ratio decidendi is that a writ petition filed to challenge or enforce an order becomes infructuous upon proof of compliance with that order. The Court, therefore, disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn.

Facts

This case involves a writ petition filed by the Union of India and its officials against an individual, Siyawar Sharan Sahay. The specific tax period and the exact nature of the order or action under challenge, as well as the authority that passed it, are not detailed in the provided text. The amount in dispute is also not mentioned. The procedural history leading to this High Court writ petition is not elaborated upon. The core of the matter is that the petitioners, on instruction, informed the Court that an order from the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had been complied with, rendering the present writ petition infructuous.

Key Issues

1. Whether the present writ petition has become infructuous due to the compliance of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Petitioner's Contention: The learned counsel for the petitioners, on instruction, submitted that the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been complied with, and therefore, the present writ petition has become infructuous. Respondent's Contention: No specific contention is recorded for the respondent in the provided judgment text.