Writ Petition Closed as Rendered Infructuous Upon Redressal of Petitioner's Grievances by Respondents

The petitioner, a Track Maintainer Grade III in the Southern Railway, filed a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus challenging an interim order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench, in O.A. No. 569 of 2026.

The CAT had rejected the petitioner’s request for a stay on an order dated 24.02.2026 directing him to vacate railway quarters and deferred the decision to refer him to a Railway Medical Board to evaluate his fitness for his post until the final hearing.

The petitioner sought a direction to the 3rd respondent to evaluate his fitness due to continuous ill health since January 2026.

During the High Court proceedings, the petitioner’s counsel informed the court that the grievances had been redressed by the respondents.

1. Whether the interim order of the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting the stay on eviction from quarters and deferring medical board evaluation required judicial interference under Article 226.

2. Whether any further adjudication was necessary given the voluntary redressal of the petitioner’s grievances by the respondents.

The Court exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which allows High Courts to issue writs for the enforcement of rights or for any other purpose.

The court followed the procedural principle of "mootness," wherein a petition is closed without further adjudication if the relief sought has already been granted or the underlying grievance has been redressed by the opposing party during the pendency of the litigation.

The Court did not delve into the merits of the CAT's interim order or the medical fitness of the petitioner.

The analysis was centered on the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, who stated that the respondents had already provided the relief sought in the writ petition.

Since the administrative authorities (Southern Railway) redressed the petitioner’s grievances—presumably regarding the medical board reference or the quarters occupation—the cause of action no longer survived for judicial determination.

Consequently, the Court found that no further adjudication was required to resolve the dispute.

No orders as to costs were made, and all connected miscellaneous petitions (WMP Nos. 21399 and 21400 of 2026) were also closed.

The Court effectively disposed of the matter as infructuous based on the respondent's subsequent actions.