The court dismissed the writ petition because the cause of action no longer existed. The relief under challenge was a suspension order that had already been recalled by another order dated 11.09.2009 during the pendency of the petition.
The writ petition is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37559 of 2009
Petitioner :- Raghunath Prasad Gupta Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- R.O.V.S. Chauhan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,M.M. Sahai
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
None appears to press the writ petition on behalf of the petitioner.
Heard learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1 and Sri M.M.Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4.
Sri M.M.Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 to 4 submits that the order assailed in the writ petition dated 2.6.2009 is a suspension order. The order of suspension has been recalled during the pendency of the writ petition by order dated 11.09.2009.
The cause on which the writ petition was founded does not survive. The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.9.2018 Ashish Tripathi
Raghunath Prasad Gupta
State Of U.P.
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
