Piar Singh v. State
Case brief
What is this about?
This one-line order disposed of CWP(T) No. 1706 of 2008 as infructuous due to the passage of time without any substantive reasoning.
What did the court decide?
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
What the court decided
CWP(T) No. 1706 of 2008.
3.11.2009. Present: Mr. Trilok Jamwal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. R.K. Sharma, Senior Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. Advocate General, for the respondents.
Mr. Jamwal, learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the present writ petition has become infructuous with the passage of time. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
3rd November, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J.
(tr)
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Respondents
Coram
Rajiv Sharma
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Himachal Pradesh HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- CWPOA/1706/2008
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court