The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn. Consequently, connected applications were rendered infructuous and dismissed.
Petition dismissed as withdrawn; connected applications dismissed as infructuous.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.
$~13
MS. SAVITRI DEVI ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Natwar Rai, Adv.
versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rakesh Mittal and Mr. Kamlesh Anand, Advs. for R1. Mr. Arjun Mitra and Ms. Jaskaran Kaur, Advs. for R2 and R3. Mr. Siddharth Panda, Adv. for Land & Building. Ms. Rachna Aggarwal, Adv. for R10.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
O R D E R
% 02.02.2018
Mr. Natwar Rai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states, the grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition stands satisfied and he wishes to withdraw the petition.
The petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
CM. Nos. 14701/2013 and 9697/2014
In view of the order passed in the writ petition, these applications have become infructuous and dismissed as such.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
FEBRUARY 02, 2018 /jg
MS. SAVITRI DEVI
DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
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
