The High Court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous because the petitioner had lost interest and was not present for the call.
Writ petition dismissed; interim order, if any, vacated.
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. - 45050 of 2008
Petitioner :- Ram Krishna Shukla Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Pandey,Ravi Kant Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,B.K.Ojha,Q.H. Siddiqui
Hon'ble Abhinava Upadhya,J. Hon'ble Rajiv Gupta,J.
List has been revised. None is present for the petitioner to press this writ petition even in the revised call.
It appears that the petitioner has lost interest in the case. That apart the writ petition appears to have become infructuous.
It is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 29.8.2018
C. MANI
(Rajiv Gupta, J.) (Abhinava Upadhya,J.)
Ram Krishna Shukla
State Of U.P.
Abhinava Upadhya
Rajiv Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
