The petitioner in person sought withdrawal of the writ petition. The connected exemption application was allowed. The court dismissed the petition as withdrawn.
Exemption allowed; writ petition dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
$~2
RAJESHWER KUMAR GUPTA ..... Petitioner Through: In person.
versus
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Arnav Sanyal, Adv. for Mr. Manish Srivastava, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO O R D E R % 11.07.2019
CM. No. 28463/2019 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 6803/2019 & CM. No. 28462/2019 (for direction)
Petitioner who appears in person states, he wishes to withdraw the
writ petition.
The petition and the connected application are dismissed as withdrawn.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
JULY 11, 2019 /jg
RAJESHWER KUMAR GUPTA
BSES RAJDHANI POWER LTD
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
