The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition in default due to the petitioner's continuous non-appearance at hearings, deeming him as having lost interest in pursuing the matter.
Writ petition dismissed in default for non-prosecution.
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.
$~4
JAI PARKASH ADVOCATE .....Petitioner Through: None.
versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Nitya Sharma, Advocate. Ms. Harshita Nathrani, Advocate for R-4.
CORAM:
SANJEEV NARULA, J
SEPTEMBER 5, 2024/ mk
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 09/09/2024 at 12:19:35
Jai Parkash Advance
The State of Bihar and Ors
Sanjeev Narula
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
