Petitioners sought revival of a writ petition disposed of with liberty, but after respondents rejected their representation afresh, they chose to challenge that rejection before the Tribunal instead. The application was dismissed as not pressed with liberty to file a fresh original application.
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.
$~62
versus
UOI AND ORS ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Raj Kumar Yadav, Adv., Mr. Abhigyan Siddhant, GP for UOI.
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE O R D E R % 08.05.2024
CM APPL. 27415/2024 -Revival of Pet
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:49:51
with liberty to the petitioner to assail the order dated 04.04.2024 before the learned Tribunal by way of a fresh O.A.
REKHA PALLI, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
MAY 8, 2024 al
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 10/05/2024 at 11:49:51
Naresh Kumar and Ors
UOI and Ors
Rekha Palli
Saurabh Banerjee
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
