Dismissed

The Principal Indian School of Learning v. the Union of India Represented through Secretary Deptt of Secondary and Higher Education and Ors.

Jharkhand HC4 Aug 2016LPA/336/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a Letters Patent Appeal withdrawn by the appellant, the Principal of Indian School of Learning, with a liberty to press an intervention application. A separate intervention application was also disposed of as withdrawn.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate application; intervention application also dismissed as withdrawn.

The Principal Indian School of Learning Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Jharkhand HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

L.P.A. No. 336 of 2016

¶3

with

¶4

I.A. No. 4872 of 2016

¶5

with

¶6

I.A. No. 4935 of 2016

¶7

The Principal, Indian School of Learning, ISM Annexe, PO, PS & Distt.- Dhanbad..................

¶8

Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

The Union of India represented through Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Human Resources Development (Department of Secondary and Higher Education) New Delhi

¶11

The Indian School of Mines, through Director, Dhanbad

¶12

The Estate Officer, Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad

¶13

Sub-Divisional Officer, Dhanbad

¶14

Indian School of Learning, Jharia, A society registered under Societies of Registration Act, Dhanbad………… Respondents

¶15

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shree Chandrashekhar

¶16

…… For the Appellant : Mr. Rahul Gupta, Advocate Ms. Niyati Sah, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate Mr. Amit Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Intervenor : Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

¶17

Order No. 02 /Dated : 4th August, 2016 Per Virender Singh, C.J. :

¶18

1. Mr. Rahul Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset states that he may be allowed to withdraw the instant Letters Patent Appeal with a liberty to press his intervention application, already filed before the Writ Court and not decided till the disposal of the main writ petition which in fact, came to be disposed of as withdrawn on an application moved by the writ petitioner or to file review petition.

¶19

2 . The statement is taken on record.

¶20

3 . In view of the above, the instant Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to file an appropriate application. I.A. No. 4872 of 2016 also stands disposed of.

¶21

4 . Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel has also moved an interlocutory application for intervention on behalf of one Deepak Kumar

¶22

¶23

Singh, who represents the students of Indian School of Learning- the writ petitioner and their parents projecting the plight of and inconvenience faced by them. He states that since the main appeal stands dismissed as withdrawn, he may also be now allowed to withdraw this application with a liberty to have a recourse available to him, in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly .

¶24

5 . Since the interlocutory application has not been numbered, it shall now be numbered.

¶25

6 . I.A. No. 4935 of 2016 stand disposed of as such.

¶26

(Virender Singh, C.J)

¶27

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J)

¶28

Mukund/-

The Principal Indian School of Learning v. the Union of India Represented through Secretary Deptt of Secondary and Higher Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Principal Indian School of Learning v. the Union of India Represented through Secretary Deptt of Secondary and Higher Education and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bijay Shankar Singh Vs Dept of Art Culture Sports

State of Jharkhand through Dy. Commr., H.Bagh Vs Keshav Dayal Agarwal

Samajik Parivartan Kendra through Its Secretary Sunita Devi Vs Land Reforms and Revenue Department

Masomat Sobarni Devi Vs Bihar State Food And Civil

Jharkhand Legal Advisory And Development Organization Through Its President Om Prakash Vs Drinking Water And Sanitation

Upendra Kumar Vs Sanju Devi and Anr.