Petitioner filed a writ petition which the court dismissed as infructuous and withdrawn because the petitioner had expired.
Writ application dismissed as withdrawn and infructuous.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(C). No. 1861 of 2004
Suraj Prakash Srivastava … … … Petitioner
Versus
Deepika Sinha ... … ... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
For Petitioner :Mr. Rajesh Lala, Advocate For Respondent : None.
-----05/ 12.06.2017 Mr. Rajesh Lala, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this case has become infructuous as the petitioner has already been expired. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed as withdrawn.
(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.)
kunal/punit
Suraj Prakash Srivastava
Deepika Sinha
Dr. S. N. Pathak
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
