Per Incuriam. The petition was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner after instructions, with the liberty to approach the Tribunal subsequent to a review DPC. No substantive legal proposition is elaborated beyond the procedural disposition of the withdrawal.
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.
$~26.
VIJAY SINGH & ORS ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Anil Singal, Advocate. versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents Through: Ms. Saroj Bidawat & Mr. Anirudh Shukla, Advocates for respondents No.1 & 2.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI
O R D E R
% 01.05.2019
C.M. No. 20585/2019
Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 4627/2019 and C.M. No. 20584/2019
After some arguments, Mr. Singal, on instructions, states that the petitioner shall withdraw the petition, and after the review DPC is held – in case the petitioner has any grievance, the petitioner would approach the Tribunal.
Dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for.
VIPIN SANGHI, J
REKHA PALLI, J
MAY 01, 2019
B.S. Rohella
VIJAY SINGH
UNION OF INDIA
VIPIN SANGHI
REKHA PALLI
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
