Naresh Sharma v. Collectariate
Case brief
What is this about?
Petitioner requested withdrawal of writ petition filed in 2013 due to lack of brief. Court dismissed the matter as not pressed and disposed of the petition without hearing merits.
Petitioner requested withdrawal of writ petition filed in 2013 due to lack of brief. Court dismissed the matter as not pressed and disposed of the petition without hearing merits.
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. 2779 of 2013
Naresh Sharma S/o Late Tetar Sharma, Resident of villageNaya Lohmarwa, Sardari Circle-Jhopa, P.O Saraiyahat, P.S. Saraiyahat, District - Dumka …… Petitioner
Versus
…… Respondents
All resident of Village- Naya Lohmarwa, Sardari Circle-
Jhopa, P.O Saraiyahat, P.S. Saraiyahat, District – Dumka
…..Performa Respondents.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD
------For the Petitioner : Ms. Alpana Verma, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. A.K. Geasen, A.C to S.C. I
10 / Dated 1st March, 2021
The matter has been taken up through video conferencing.
Ms. Alpana Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner on record submits that her name may be deleted from the record as also from the daily cause list, since brief is not available with her.
Mr. A.K. Geasen, A.C to learned S.C. I appears for the respondents-State.
This Court, considering the aforesaid submission as also considering the fact that the matter is of the year 2013, deem it fit and proper to dismiss the instant writ petition as not pressed.
In view thereof, the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of.
(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)
Alankar/-
Naresh Sharma
State of Jharkhand
Sujit Narayan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court