PetitionersWithdrawnWritPetitionCoramGSSistaniVKKameswarRao
Writ petition and all applications are dismissed as withdrawn with leave to the petitioners as prayed for.
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.
$~57
Through Ms. Anamika Ghai Niyazi, Advocate for petitioners no.2, 4 and 5 along with petitioners no.2, 4 and 5.
versus
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS..... Respondents Through Mr. Mukesh Gupta, Standing Counsel for SDMC.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.S.SISTANI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
O R D E R
% 23.10.2017
Ms. Ghai submits that she has instructions to appear on behalf of petitioners no.2, 4 and 5. She has no instructions on behalf of petitioners no.1 and 3. At this stage, she seeks leave to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition.
The writ petition and all applications are dismissed as withdrawn with leave as prayed for. The objections of the respondents are kept open.
G.S.SISTANI, J
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
OCTOBER 23, 2017 pst/
DINESH KUMAR & ORS.
SOUTH DELHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ORS.
G.S. Sistani
V. Kameswar Rao
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
