Petitioners withdrew writ petition after District Magistrate addressed their representations. Court disposed of miscellaneous application as infructuous.
Miscellaneous application disposed of as infructuous; writ petition disposed of due to withdrawal.
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.
$~8
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (SOUTH) & ANR ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Jayendra, Adv.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK O R D E R % 23.02.2016
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since District
Magistrate (South) has decided the representations of petitioners, the petitioners are not willing to pursue this writ petition any further as the said order will be challenged before the appropriate forum.
Disposed of as not pressed. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
FEBRUARY 23, 2016/ dk
Ashok Kumar & Ors.
Deputy Commissioner (South) & Anr.
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
