The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the writ petition. The Court granted permission, observed that no opinion was expressed on the maintainability or merit of a potential review application, and dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Permission to withdraw the writ petition granted; petition dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
$~45.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Sanjay Jain, ASG with Mr. Anurag Ahluwalia, CGSC, Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Mr. Shreshth Jain & Ms. Aastha Jain, Advocates.
versus
SUCHITRA GOSWAMI ..... Respondent
Through Nemo.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SUNITA GUPTA
O R D E R
% 04.10.2016
After some hearing, learned Additional Solicitor General, who appears for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition. He states that the petitioner may file a review application. While we grant permission to the petitioner to withdraw the present writ petition, we clearly observe that we have not expressed any opinion whether or not any review application would be maintainable or whether any review application if filed will merit acceptance.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
SUNITA GUPTA, J.
OCTOBER 04, 2016 VKR
UNION OF INDIA & ANR
SUCHITRA GOSWAMI
SANJIV KHANNA
SUNITA GUPTA
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
