The writ petition was disposed of as infructuous because the petitioner conceded that the tender period had already expired, making the challenge pointless.
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
SNEH TOURIST CORPORATION ..... Petitioner Through: Mr Rana Parween Siddiqui, Advocate
versus
POLICE COMMISSIONER DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr Naushad Ahmed Khan, ASC with Ms Neelam Dholkiya for R-1
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR O R D E R % 04.08.2016
Mr Naushad Ahmed Khan appearing on behalf of respondent No.1 submits that this writ petition has become infructuous as the period of the tender has already expired.
The learned counsel for the petitioner also does not oppose this statement.
In view of the same, the writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J
AUGUST 04, 2016 ns
Sneh Tourist Corporation
Police Commissioner Delhi
Badar Durrez Ahmed
Ashutosh Kumar
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
