Appeal was found to have become infructuous because the Appellant was not present and the Respondent No.2 had already completed his tenure, leaving nothing left for adjudication. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Appeal dismissed as having become infructuous.
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.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 204 of 2016
---- Appellant
Versus
---- Respondents
__________________________________________________________________ For Appellant : None present For State / Respondent No.1 : Shri J. K. Gilda, Advocate General assisted by Shri Prasun Bhaduri, Government Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Shri (Dr.) N. K. Shukla, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Rakesh Kumar Jha
Hon'ble Shri Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per, Ajay Kumar Tripathi, Chief Justice
11.10.2018
Sd/Sd/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi) (Parth Prateem Sahu) Chief Justice Judge
Chandra
Virendra Pandey
State of Chhattisgarh
Narayan Singh
Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Parth Prateem Sahu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
