Petitioner sought to withdraw an admitted public interest litigation. Respondents accepted notice and declined to file a reply. The application was allowed and the main writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.
Application to withdraw the petition was allowed; the writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn.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.
$~12
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent Through Mr. Vikram Jetly, Advocate for UOI. Mr. Shravan Sahay, Advocate for R2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
O R D E R % 09.03.2016
CM Appln. No.7115/2016 & WP(C) No.9306/2014
By this application, the petitioner seeks to withdraw the instant petition which was admitted to hearing on 26.05.2015.
Issue notice.
Mr. Vikram Jetly, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of Union of India. Mr. Shravan Sahay, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2. They state that they do not wish to file any reply to this application.
Consequently, the application is allowed and the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J
MARCH 09, 2016 dr
MAHESH NAITHANI
UNION OF INDIA
SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA
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
