The writ petition was dismissed for default and non-prosecution as the petitioner had withdrawn interest in prosecuting the matter and no one appeared on petitioners behalf.
None
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.
$~6
R.K.UGHY
..... Petitioner
versus
DELHI TRANSCO LTD. & ORS.
..... Respondents Through Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms. Palak Rohmetra, Advocates for R-1 to R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.HARI SHANKAR
None has appeared on behalf of the petitioner today. It appears that petitioner is no longer interested in prosecuting this matter.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for default and nonprosecution.
C.HARI SHANKAR, J
MAY 11, 2018 gb
R.K.UGHY
DELHI TRANSCO LTD.
C.HARI SHANKAR
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
