Subsequent administrative action rendered the writ petition and intra-court appeal infructuous.

The appellants challenged the order dated 11 August 2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPMS No. 2378 of 2026.

The writ petition had been filed by respondent nos. 4 and 5, Atul Tripathi and Sandeep Kumar, against the order dated 15 July 2026 of the Deputy Labour Commissioner/Deputy Registrar, Trade Union, Udham Singh Nagar, by which registration of elections allegedly held in the trade union on 17 May 2026 was deferred until permission was obtained from the civil court in Civil Suit No. 3 of 2026.

The Single Judge directed the Registrar, Trade Union, to consider issuance of Form-J on a provisional basis during the pendency of the writ petition.

During pendency of the appeal, the Deputy Registrar passed a subsequent order dated 8 September 2026 refusing Form-J, inter alia, because several elected office-bearers had been transferred to Maharashtra and their transfer dispute was pending before the Labour Court.

Whether the intra-court appeal was maintainable against the Single Judge’s interim direction where the direction allegedly had the trappings of a final order and directed provisional issuance of Form-J despite there being no express provision for such issuance?

Whether the subsequent order dated 8 September 2026 rendered the pending writ petition and the present appeal infructuous?

Whether the respondents should be granted liberty to challenge the subsequent order dated 8 September 2026 in independent proceedings?

The Court applied the procedural principle that where a subsequent development removes the subject matter or necessity of the pending proceedings, the proceedings may be dismissed as infructuous.

It also recognised the general principle that an intra-court appeal against an interim order may be maintainable where the order has the trappings or effect of a final order; however, the Court did not finally adjudicate that question because the subsequent administrative order rendered the controversy academic.

No specific statutory provision or precedent was cited or relied upon in the judgment.

The appellants’ challenge concerned the Single Judge’s direction to consider provisional issuance of Form-J.

However, before the appeal could be examined on the merits, the Deputy Registrar passed a fresh order dated 8 September 2026 refusing Form-J on the ground that certain elected office-bearers had been transferred and lacked the requisite entitlement, with the transfer dispute pending before the Labour Court.

Since the respondents themselves accepted that the writ petition had consequently become infructuous, the Court found no surviving controversy requiring adjudication in either the writ petition or the appeal.

The Court therefore permitted the respondents to pursue an independent challenge to the subsequent order, without examining the correctness of the Single Judge’s interim direction or deciding the appeal’s maintainability on merits.

Consequently, Special Appeal No. 366 of 2026 was held to have become infructuous and was disposed of accordingly.

A copy of the order was directed to be placed on the record of the writ petition, and any pending application was also disposed of.