Petitioner sought to withdraw a writ petition after some hearing, requesting that the question of the correctness of the Tribunal's view on Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 be left open. The High Court permitted withdrawal and disposed of the petition.
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.
$~16
DR. VISHAL BAPUSAHEB DESAI .....Petitioner Through: Mr. T. R. Mohanty and Mr. T. S. Taggar, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha, Mr. A.S. Singh and Ms. Shriya Sharma, Advs.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR
ORDER (ORAL)
% 01.07.2026
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. After some hearing, Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks leave to withdraw this writ petition but prays that the issue regarding the correctness of the view adopted by the Tribunal regarding Section 20 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 19851 may be left open.
2. Accordingly, leaving the question of Section 20 of the AT Act open for consideration in an appropriate matter, this writ petition is disposed of as withdrawn.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
VINOD KUMAR, J.
JULY 1, 2026 / dsn
1 “the AT Act” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJITW.P.(C) 8540/2026 KUMAR Signing Da te:0 2.07.2026 15:21:25
Page 1 of 1
Dr. Vishal Bapusaheb Desai
Union of India & Ors.
C. Hari Shankar
Vinod Kumar
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
