A writ petition by a petitioner against Coal India Limited was dismissed for non-prosecution after the petitioner filed a supplementary affidavit stating he did not wish to proceed with the hearing.
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.
WPA 24011 of 2014
N.22Sl
151/CL 03.09.24 Sl-57 Ct.33 (S.R.)
Tapas Ray
v.
Coal India Limited & Ors.
Mr. Arjun Roy Mukherjee Ms. Saheli Mukherjee … for the petitioner.
Mr. Puspal Chakraborty (online) Mr. Saptashi Mukherjee Mr. Tirthankar Nandi … for the respondent no.1.
The learned advocate for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit affirming the fact that the petitioner does not want to proceed any further with the hearing of the instant writ petition. Let the same be kept on record.
Under such circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
(Ananya Bandyopadhyay, J.)
Tapas Ray
Coal India Limited
Ananya Bandyopadhyay
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
