The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging observations in a CAT judgment alleging suppression of facts by the petitioner. The respondent stated no further action was required and the complained-of officer had retired, leading to the petition being dropped.
Petition disposed of as there is nothing left for adjudication.
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.
$~8
L. VISHWANATH ..... Petitioner Through: Mr.V.K.Misra, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR ..... Respondents Through: Mr.Ajay Digpaul, CGSC for UOI with Ms.Madhuri Dhingra, Advocate Ms.Padma Kumar S., Adv. for R-2
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI
O R D E R % 07.02.2018
page 1 of 3
W.P.(C) 2800/2014
page 2 of 3
W.P.(C) 2800/2014
HIMA KOHLI, J.
PRATIBHA RANI, J.
FEBRUARY 07, 2018 ‘hkaur’
page 3 of 3
W.P.(C) 2800/2014
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is required to be proceeded against for alleged suppression of material facts given that no action is proposed and the concerned officer has superannuated.
L. Vishwanath
Union of India
Hima Kohli
Pratibha Rani
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
