The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous because the respondent counsel stated that the relief sought by the petitioner had already been granted.
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 - A No. - 1516 of 2022
Petitioner :- Umesh Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vimal Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 and Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 & 3.
Sri Vivek Kumar Rai, learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 & 3 has made a statement that as per instructions, the relief sought by the petitioner has been granted.
Learned counsel for the petitioner does not disputes the aforesaid statement.
Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
Order Date :- 27.4.2022 Ruchi Agrahari
Digitally signed by RUCHI AGRAHARI Date: 2022.04.27 15:37:17 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Umesh Kumar
State Of U.P.
Others
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
