No further writ adjudication remained after the authority disposed of the petitioner’s representation.

The petitioner challenged the outcome of a second draw of lots for an IOCL rural retail outlet, alleging that she had not been informed of the draw and that her representations had not been properly considered.

She had earlier filed a writ petition seeking the same reliefs; that petition was withdrawn with liberty to pursue other permissible remedies and to represent to the appropriate authority, with all questions of fact and law left open.

The petitioner subsequently made a representation.

IOCL submitted that it had disposed of that representation by order dated 21 December 2022.

1. Whether the present writ petition required further adjudication after IOCL had disposed of the petitioner’s representation.

2. Whether the petitioner could challenge the authority’s order disposing of that representation.

The Court cited no statute, precedent, or specific legal doctrine.

It applied the procedural principle that where the relief sought in a writ petition has been overtaken by the disposal of the relevant representation, no further adjudication may be necessary; the affected party remains at liberty to challenge the resulting order.

The Court noted that the petitioner’s earlier writ petition, seeking the same reliefs, had been withdrawn with liberty to pursue permissible remedies and make a representation.

IOCL stated that it had thereafter disposed of the petitioner’s representation by order dated 21 December 2022. On that basis, the Court held that nothing remained for adjudication in the present petition; it did not determine the merits of the petitioner’s allegations concerning notice of the draw or the selection process.

It left the petitioner at liberty to challenge the order dated 21 December 2022 if she remained aggrieved.