Dismissed
Shreeballav v. State
Orissa HCOJC/1452/1996
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The court dismissed a writ petition registered as public interest litigation in 1996 as infructuous after 20 years, noting the absence of the petitioner's counsel even on revised call.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
O.J.C. No. 1452 of 1996
¶2
09. 05.08.2016 No one is present on behalf of the petitioner even on
revised call.
¶3
This writ petition has been registered as public interest litigation on the ba
sis of letter petition.
This matter relates to the year 1996.
In our view, after 20 years this writ petition has become infructuous.
The petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous.
¶4
........
( VINEET SARAN )
CHIEF JUSTICE
¶5
....
( DR. B.R. SARANGI )
JUDGE
dm
¶6
-2-
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
AI extract
Whether a writ petition registered in 1996 should be entertained after 20 years since no one appeared.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Public Interest Litigation
Coram
AI extract
VINEET SARAN
DR. B.R. SARANGI
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court