Petitioner challenged delay in appointing a retail outlet dealer. Respondent argued the outlet was already settled in favor of a third party via a Letter of Intent. Court dismissed writ as infructuous.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
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. - 32
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 12131 of 2020
Petitioner :- Amandeep Singh Garcha Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Deepak Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Piyush Agrawal,J.
This writ petition has been filed, inter alia, for the following relief;
"(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus Commanding and directing to the respondents to decide the matter of Appointment of the Retail Outlet Dealership in the State of Uttar Pradesh is pending before the respondent no. 2."
At the very outset, Sri Vikash Budhwar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation has submitted that the retail outlet in question has already been settled in favour of Respondent No. 3, Jodhvir Singh by a Letter of Intent dated 20.3.2020, as such, the writ petition has become infructuous.
In view of the above, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Order Date :- 9.9.2020 vinay
Amandeep Singh Garcha
Union Of India
Other Respondent
Other Respondent
Shashi Kant Gupta
Piyush Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
