Single judge order disposing of a writ petition as infructuous because the respondent-workman allegedly died and no representation appeared.
Petition disposed of as infructuous.
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.
$~R-207
MGMT. OF CANTONMENT BOARD MERR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Arvind K.Sharma, Advocate
Versus
PREETAM SINGH ..... Respondents Through: Nemo.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
O R D E R % 10.12.2018
Counsel for petitioner submits that it is reliably learnt that respondent-workman has died.
For last several dates of hearing, none has appeared for respondent.
Today, also there is no representation on behalf of respondent.
In view of above, this petition is disposed of as infructuous.
SUNIL GAUR, J
DECEMBER 10, 2018
r
MGMT. OF CANTONMENT BOARD MERR
PREETAM SINGH
Sunil Gaur
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
