Petitioner sought to withdraw the writ petition with leave to approach appropriate alternative remedies. The court disposed of the writ petition as withdrawn and the miscellaneous application as infructuous.
Writ petition disposed of as withdrawn; miscellaneous application disposed of as infructuous.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.
$~40
versus
DY. COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) & ORS ..... Respondents Through :Mr. Premsagar Pal and Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, Advs. for respondent nos. 1 to 3 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R D E R % 19.01.2016
Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks leave to withdraw this writ
petition with liberty to take appropriate alternative remedies, as may be
available to the petitioner under the law.
Writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
JANUARY 19, 2016 rb
Jamil Khan
DY. Commissioner (South)
A.K. Pathak
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
