A written application under Article 226 of the Constitution was received as a matter for revision. Since the former judge vacated the interim order, the present court found the cause of action no longer survived and dismissed the petition as infructuous.
Petition dismissed as infructuous; 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. - 34
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32135 of 2010
Petitioner :- Sarvesh Kumar Gupta Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Akhilesh Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Order Date :- 13.12.2019 AK
Sarvesh Kumar Gupta
State of U.P.
Sudhir Agarwal
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
