Dismissed¶18

Ku. Shikha Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Mar 2024WPC/452/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court, Bilaspur; Writ Petition (C) No. 452 of 2019; Ku. Shikha Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh, Atal University and Principal, D.P. Vipra College; decided 13.03.2024 by Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey; petition dismissed as infructuous by efflux of time after counsel stated the grievance had been redressed; withdrawal of writ petition; no merits decided; no statutes or precedents cited; no quantum involved.

What did the court decide?

Taking into consideration the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is dismissed being rendered infructuous. ¶18

Ku. Shikha Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Chhattisgarh HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

Writ Petition (C) No. 452 of 2019

¶5

Ku. Shikha Pandey, D/o Shri Ravishankar Pandey, Aged about 22 years, R/o C/o Harish Chabra, Narayan Niwas, Punjabi Colony, Dayalband, Police Station – City Kotwali, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralay, Mahanadi Bhavan, Atal Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

Atal University, Through its Registrar, Old High Court Building, Police Station – City Kotwali, Tehsil and District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶10

Principal, D.P. Vipra College, Old High Court Road, District Bilaspur (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner	:	Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1/State	:	Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General
For Respondent No. 2	:	Mr. Yogesh Netam, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3	:	Mr. Vivek Kumar Agrawal, Advocate

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

13.03.2024

¶15

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that by efflux of time, this petition has become infructuous, therefore, he prays for withdrawal of the petition.

¶16

Learned counsel for the respective respondents would submit that grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed.

¶17

Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsel for the

¶18

parties, the present petition is dismissed being rendered infructuous.

¶19

Sd/-

¶20

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶21

vatti

Ku. Shikha Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ku. Shikha Pandey v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shrimati Rizwana Siddiqui, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrimati Rizwan Siddiqui Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrimati Rizwana Siddiqui Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manoj Tupatkar Vs Idbi Bank Limited

Radhelal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Lahre Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India