The single-judge Bench dismissed the writ petition, holding that the prayer did not deserve to be granted in writ jurisdiction on perusal of the record, despite the petitioners' non-appearance.
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.
OJC No. 4107 of 1991
08. 11.08.2016 No one is present on behalf of the petitioners even on revised
call.
On perusal of record, we are of the opinion that in the facts of the case, pra
yer made in this case does not deserve to be granted in writ jurisdiction.
The petition is accordingly dismissed. .......
( VINEET SARAN )
CHIEF JUSTICE
( DR. B.R. SARANGI )
JUDGE
dm
-2-
VINEET SARAN
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court