The writ petition was dismissed by this Court for non-appearance of the petitioner, who was deemed no longer interested to proceed. The rule is discharged and any interim order stands 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.
14-09-2022
Item No.7 Subrata Bhattacharyya
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side
WPCR No.3345 of 2000 with
CAN No.1 of 2000
(Old CAN No.10498 of 2000) arising out of WPA No.1388 of 2000 Bimala Cinema
-vs-
District Magistrate & Collector, 24 Parganas (North) & Ors.
None …for the petitioner
None appears for the petitioner as well as for the respondents.
I feel that the petitioner is no longer interested to proceed with the instant writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-appearance of the petitioner.
Interim order, if any, stands vacated.
In view of the above, the rule is discharged.
Connected application, if any, stands disposed of.
[Rabindranath Samanta, J]
2
Bimala Cinema
District Magistrate & Collector, 24 Parganas (North)
Rabindranath Samanta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
