Super Bazar writ revived after Delhi High Court finds former liquidator lacked authority to withdraw it

The writ petition had been dismissed as withdrawn on 18 May 2018 on the instructions of Dr. A.K. Mishra, who represented himself as the Official Liquidator (“OL”) of Super Bazar.

The petitioner subsequently sought recall of that order and condonation of a delay of 1,600 days in filing the recall application.

It contended that Dr. Mishra’s tenure as OL had expired on 15 May 2018 and had not thereafter been extended; consequently, he lacked authority to instruct counsel to withdraw the writ petition on 18 May 2018.

Since Super Bazar was under liquidation and the writ proceedings potentially affected claims involving substantial public funds, the petitioner argued that the petition should be restored.

Whether the writ petition could validly be withdrawn on the instructions of Dr. A.K. Mishra after his tenure as Official Liquidator had expired on 15 May 2018.

Whether sufficient cause existed to condone the delay of 1,600 days in seeking recall of the dismissal order.

Whether the order dated 18 May 2018 dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn ought to be recalled and the writ petition restored for adjudication on merits.

An officer holding a statutory or fiduciary office may exercise the powers of that office only during the subsistence of the authority conferred upon him; expiry of the tenure, without a subsequent extension, terminates his competence to act on behalf of the concerned entity.

A proceeding affecting a liquidation estate and substantial public funds should not remain withdrawn on the basis of instructions issued by a person lacking authority to represent the estate.

The Court may condone substantial delay where sufficient cause is established, particularly where refusal to do so would prejudice public funds, creditors, workmen, and other stakeholders.

The Supreme Court’s order dated 26 September 2018 was relied upon as contextual support concerning Dr. Mishra’s conduct after expiry of his tenure.

The Court held that although an application bearing the date 7 May 2018 was filed while Dr. Mishra was still OL, the filing details showed that it was filed only on 16 May 2018, after his tenure had expired.

In any event, that application merely sought disposal of the writ petition in view of proceedings before the Supreme Court and did not seek withdrawal of the petition.

The actual withdrawal occurred on 18 May 2018, when Dr. Mishra no longer held office.

The Court rejected the argument that a separate order was necessary to terminate his authority, holding that his tenure had only been extended up to 15 May 2018 and there was no subsequent extension.

Given the allegations concerning his conduct, the liquidation status of Super Bazar, and the potential impact on substantial public funds and stakeholders, the Court found it inappropriate to allow the withdrawal to stand.

These circumstances also constituted sufficient cause for condoning the delay, notwithstanding the negligence or laxity in pursuing the recall application.

The delay of 1,600 days was condoned; the order dated 18 May 2018 dismissing W.P.(C) 9114/2007 as withdrawn was recalled; and the writ petition was restored to its original number for consideration on merits.

The Court clarified that it had adjudicated only the competence of Dr. Mishra to withdraw the petition and had not examined the merits of the underlying dispute or the respondent’s other contentions.

The matter was listed for further arguments on 6 November 2026.