This is a short order disposing of a writ petition. The court directed the respondent to treat the allegations as a representation. Subject to exceptions, the petition was allowed.
Direction to respondent to look into allegations by treating them as a representation and take appropriate action if true.
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.
$~2
ANSHU RAJESH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Pawan Sharma with Mr.Abhishek Sharma, Advs.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Kailash Golam, Adv. for R-1. Mr.R.C. Chawla, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
O R D E R % 16.09.2016 CM No.33131/2016 (exemption)
Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
W.P.(C) No.7996/2016
CHIEF JUSTICE
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL, J
SEPTEMBER 16, 2016 / pmc
ANSHU RAJESH
UNION OF INDIA
RESPONDENT NO.2
SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
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
