The petitioners sought to withdraw the writ petition. The respondents raised no objection. The court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
$~3
Through Mr Anand Mishra, Advocate.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR ..... Respondents Through Mr Sanjay Poddar, Sr Advocate with Mr Mukesh Gupta and Ms Parni Poddar, Advocates for respondent No.1. Mr G.S. Bagga, Advocate for respondent No.2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA O R D E R % 21.01.2016
The learned counsel for the petitioner has instructions to withdraw this writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1, on instructions from Mr Rajender Chauhan, Commercial Officer, states that she has no objection to the withdrawal of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also has no objection to the writ petition being withdrawn.
In these circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J
JANUARY 21, 2016 st
M/S ICONS OUTDOOR PVT. LTD.
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION
BADAR DURREZ AHMED
SANJEEV SACHDEVA
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
