Upset petitioner's petition by granting discharge after non-contact following a February letter, but ultimately dismissed the proceeding for default due to non-appearance.
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.
#13
$~
BAVA MAHDOOM ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Pavan Duggal with Mr. Somnath De, Advocates
versus
CONTROLLER OF CERTIFYING AUTORITIES & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Ms. Seema Sharma with Mr. Vakul Sharma, Advocates
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
O R D E R % 23.02.2016
Mr. Pavan Duggal, learned counsel for petitioner seeks a discharge. He states that despite the letter dated 6th February, 2016 being sent to the petitioner, no one has contacted him.
In view of the contents of the letter dated 6th February, 2016, Mr. Pavan Duggal is discharged from the present proceedings.
Since none appears for the petitioner, present petition is dismissed in default and on account of non-prosecution.
MANMOHAN, J
FEBRUARY 23, 2016 rn
Bava Mahdoom
Controller of Certifying Authorities
Manmohan
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
