The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution as the petitioner failed to appear on the listed date despite the absence on the previous date, indicating lack of interest in prosecuting the case.
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.
Item No. 23 21.2.2023 S.G.
W.P.A(P) 49/2023 Sandeepan Dutta
-Vs-
The Union of India & Ors.
Mr. Samrat Sen, Ld. AAAG, Mr. Nilotpal Chatterjee, Ms. Amrita Panja Maulick
… For the State
No one present for the petitioner.
No written request on behalf of the learned counsel
for the petitioner for adjournment is given.
On the previous date also no one was present for the petitioner. It appears that the petitioner is not interest in prosecuting the petition, which is accordingly dismissed for want of prosecution.
[Prakash Shrivastava, CJ.]
[Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.]
Sandeepan Dutta
The Union of India & Ors.
Prakash Shrivastava
Rajarshi Bharadwaj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
