The High Court called the existing writ petition in revision. Noting the absence of the petitioner, the court dismissed the petition for want of prosecution and vacated any interim order.
Petition dismissed for want of prosecution; interim order 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. - 3
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 7912 of 2007
Petitioner :- T.C. Rao Respondent :- Prescribed Authority And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ch. N.A. Khan,Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,V.P. Gupta Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava,J.
Called in revise. None appeared for the petitioner.
Ms. Shubhra Singh, learned Standing Counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 is present.
The writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 26.8.2019 Shahroz
(Dr. Y.K. Srivastava,J.)
T.C. Rao
Prescribed Authority And Others
Dr. Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
