Writ petition dismissed as infructuous upon endorsement by petitioner’s counsel.

The Petitioner, an Executive Assistant at the Principal District Court, Vellore, filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The petition sought a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order issued by the Registrar (District Judiciary) dated 10.09.2025 (R.O.C.No.49355/2024,C1) and requested a direction to the Respondents to consider her representation regarding potential future transfer orders.

During the hearing on 15.07.2026, the Petitioner’s counsel submitted that the grievance or subject matter of the petition no longer persisted.

1. Whether the Writ Petition seeking to quash the transfer-related order remains maintainable for adjudication given the subsequent change in circumstances.

The Court applied the doctrine of "infructuous" litigation, which dictates that when the issues in a case have been resolved, rendered moot, or the relief sought is no longer necessary due to intervening events, the Court shall not exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The Court also relied upon the procedural practice where an endorsement by the Petitioner’s counsel to withdraw the matter or acknowledge its infructuous nature serves as sufficient grounds for dismissal.

The Court did not engage in a merits-based analysis of the transfer order or the Petitioner's representation. Instead, the Court founded its reasoning entirely on the statement made by the Petitioner's counsel.

The counsel specifically submitted that the issue involved in the writ petition had become "infructuous" and corroborated this by making a formal endorsement in the Court bundle. Consequently, the Court determined there was no longer a live controversy to be decided between the parties.

No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition (W.M.P.No.39776 of 2025) was closed.