The writ petition was dismissed in default. A restoration application was allowed, but the default dismissal stands as cost remained unpaid and no petitioner appeared today.
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.
$~R-7
versus
CONSOLIDATION OFFICER AND ANR. ..... Respondents Through :Mr. Anand Yadav and Ms. Anita Tomar, Advs. for respondent no. 2
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
O R D E R % 10.02.2016
This writ petition was dismissed in default on 6th July, 2015.
Petitioner filed CM Appl. No. 12329/2015 for restoration of the writ petition. Application was allowed and writ petition was restored at its original number, subject to payment of costs of `7,500/- to be paid to the respondent no. 2. It is submitted that cost has not been paid, inasmuch as no one appears for the petitioner today. Since cost has not been paid, order dated 6th July, 2015, whereby writ petition was dismissed in default, holds the field.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
FEBRUARY 10, 2016 rb
SUSHIL KUMAR JAIN
CONSOLIDATION OFFICER
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
