While dismissing a petition which was referred to a larger bench to decide a substantial question of law, Rajasthan High Court held that mere formulation or reference of a substantial question of law did not, by itself, compel the Court to adjudicate the matter in case subsequent events had rendered the matter infructuous and the controversy merely academic.

The bench of Chief Justice Sanjay K. Agarwal, Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur and Justice Sameer Jain, opined that a constitutional court did not pronounce on question of law in factual vacuum, particularly when the answer did not alter the position of parties, neither resulted in any effective relief.

“The mere pendency of a reference for a long period cannot by itself justify adjudication of an otherwise academic question. The Court must first ascertain whether a live lis survives and whether determination of the referred question would have any operative consequence in the present proceedings. Where subsequent statutory developments, efflux of time and intervening circumstances have extinguished the controversy, the question ought to be left open for determination in an appropriate case where its adjudication would have an actual legal consequence.”

For context, the Court was hearing a reference in relation of a PIL which was filed by practicing advocates at Makrana regarding a road that was constructed by private party on which toll tax was also collected till 2011.

The construction period of the road was between 2001 to 2002, and the period of concession during which the builder was entitled to recover cost by imposing toll tax on the road, was of 125 months, which ended in 2011.

The PIL was instituted on the grounds that the delegation of the right to collect toll tax for a fixed period was void and illegal, as it amounted to delegation of sovereign function. It was prayed that the project be declared illegal, or be amended as per certain conditions.

On the contrary, the State argued that since the concession period for toll collection had already come to an end in 2011, the controversy had become infructuous due to the efflux of time.

Hence, the Court, while exercising powers under Article 226, ought not to adjudicate such questions in absence of any subsisting lis in which effective remedy was not capable of being granted anymore.

After hearing the contentions, the Court observed that none of the petitioners had appeared before the Court, neither any material was brought on record to demonstrate that irrespective of the expiry of the contractual and concession period, any effective executable relief survived.

The Court highlighted that the very contractual arrangement which formed the foundation of petitioners' challenge ceased to operate. It observed that the passage of time intervened in such a manner that the controversy had ceased to be capable of giving any effective relief in the present proceedings.

The Court considered various Supreme Court precedents in this regard to the effect that a where an issue had become purely academic and its determination would have no impact, judicial time ought not to be occupied in deciding the same.

It was opined the before undertaking any adjudication, it was necessary to examine whether the controversy continued to present a live lis between the Parties, and whether any effective relief could be granted to the petitioners.

“The maxim ubi jus ibi remedium - where there is a right, there is a remedy, presupposes the existence of a subsisting right requiring judicial protection. Conversely, where the controversy itself has ceased to survive and no effective relief can follow from the adjudication, the exercise of judicial power to pronounce upon such an issue would serve no practical purpose…The Court is concerned with adjudicating the dispute actually brought before it and not with answering questions merely because they may have assumed legal significance in the past.”

Hence, it was stated that in the present matter, much water had flown under the bridge, and in the peculiar circumstances, the petition was concluded to have become infructuous and merely of academic importance.

In this light, the Court disposed of the petition, while leaving the substantial question involved open for consideration in an appropriate case.

Title: Mohd. Sharif & Anr. v State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 397

Click Here To Read/Download Order