The petition was not entertained by the single judge bench as similar reliefs had already been disposed of in a connected petition. The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. No legal principle or substantive ruling is set out.
Petition not entertained and dismissed.
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.
$~43
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Anil Dabas, Adv. for R-1. Mr. T. Singhdev, Adv. for R-2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK O R D E R % 21.04.2017
For the similar reliefs, as have been prayed in this petition, W.P. (C)
2650/2017 was filed, which was dismissed vide order dated 29th March,
same is dismissed. Miscellaneous application is disposed of as infructuous.
A.K. PATHAK, J.
APRIL 21, 2017 ga
Ram Lal Sharma
Union of India & Ors.
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
