The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution due to the non-appearance of the petitioners' counsel to press the matter. The order does not engage with substantive legal questions.
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. - 1
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19732 of 2019
Petitioner :- Sattar Ahmad And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mohd Naushad,Syed Irfan Ali Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ravindra Singh
Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha,J. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
The case has been called out in the revised list but learned counsel for the petitioners is not present to press this writ petition.
Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.4 is present along with learned Standing Counsel.
The present writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
(Ajit Kumar, J.) (Ramesh Sinha, J.) Order Date :- 25.11.2019 Gaurav
Sattar Ahmad
Another
State Of U.P.
Ramesh Sinha
Ajit Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
