Single-paragraph order dismissing a writ petition as infructuous since the matter was already decided by the department via an order dated 12.01.2017.
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.
$~24
versus EAST DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ..... Respondent Through Ms. Biji Rajesh and Ms. Pushkar Taimvi, Advs
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that inspite of an order dated 04.11.2016 having been passed in W.P. (C) No.10376/2016 to decide the representation of the petitioner within an outer limit of six weeks, no action has been taken by the Department.
At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent has put in appearance. Her submission is that the representation of the petitioner stands decided by an order dated 12.01.2017. Copy of this order has been furnished to the learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
Petition has become infructuous. It is disposed of.
Needless to state that if the petitioner has a fresh cause of action, he may take action in accordance with law.
INDERMEET KAUR, J
JANUARY 16, 2017 A
Joginder Singh Wadhwa
East Delhi Municipal Corporation
Indermeet Kaur
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
