The High Court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear, and no counsel was engaged despite service of notice.
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. - 40
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 32588 of 2005
Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Respondent :- Basic Shiksha Adhikari Etah And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- P.S. Baghel,Arvind Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Notice was issued to the petitioner on 17.11.2018 to engage another counsel.
The office has sent service report dated 3.1.2019, which says that neither unserved notice nor vakalatnama has been received in the office as yet. Service is deemed sufficient.
No counsel appears to assist this Court on behalf of the petitioner.
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Order Date :- 4.1.2019 Md Faisal
Amit Kumar
Basic Shiksha Adhikari Etah
Sangeeta Chandra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
