Petitioner withdrew the writ petition regarding amendment in tourist transport operator guidelines. Court disposed of the petition as withdrawn on withdrawal.
Petition disposed of as withdrawn.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.
$~15
PRANEET SINGH TANEJA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Bharat Arora, Mr.Lakshay Raheja, Mr.Shivam Thapar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA ..... Respondent Through: Mr.Akshay Makhija, CGSC with Mr.Ajay Gupta, Sr. Panel Counsel with Ms.Kirti Awasthi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
O R D E R
% 03.02.2020
The learned counsel for the respondent submits that by an Office Memorandum dated 31.12.2019, an amendment has been made in Clause 8(iii) of the Guidelines for Recognition/Renewal or Extension as an Approved Tourist Transport Operator (TTO) dated 18.07.2011.
In view of the amendment, the petition has been rendered infructuous and the learned counsel for the petitioner prays for leave to withdraw the same.
The petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
FEBRUARY 03, 2020 RN
Praneet Singh Taneja
Union of India
Navin Chawla
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
