The petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition. The single judge allowed the withdrawal prayer but subsequently dismissed the writ petition against the State of U.P. on 1.11.2018.
Petitioner's prayer to withdraw the petition allowed; however, the writ petition was 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. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 36367 of 2018
Petitioner :- Parvez Ahmad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satish Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Verma
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.
Heard Sri Satish Chandra, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Vevek Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Nagar Nigam and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.
After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he does not wish to press this writ petition any further.
The prayer is allowed.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 1.11.2018 SKM
(Ajay Bhanot,J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)
Parvez Ahmad
State Of U.P.
Abhinava Upadhya
Ajay Bhanot
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
