Due to the petitioner's absence despite a revised call, the High Court dismissed the writ petition for want of prosecution and vacated any interim order.
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 - C No. - 965 of 2010
Petitioner :- Jagat Bahadur Respondent :- Adhishashi Abhiyanta Purvanchal Vidyut V. Nigam Ltd. And Anr.
Counsel for Petitioner :- S.D. Kautilya,Murtaza Ali,S.S.Kautilya,Suresh Chandra Varma Counsel for Respondent :- H.P. Dube,Mehboob Ahmad,S.C.
Hon'ble Siddhartha Varma,J. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
List has been revised.
No one appears for the petitioner to press the writ petition even in the revised call.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed for want of prosecution.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
Order Date :- 9.9.2022 PK
(Vikas Budhwar,J.).......(Siddhartha Varma,J.)
Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR Date: 2022.09.12 14:00:02 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Jagat Bahadur
Adhishashi Abhiyanta Purvanchal Vidyut V. Nigam Ltd.
Siddhartha Varma
Vikas Budhwar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
