The writ court dismissed the petitioner's application after the petitioner failed to appear on a revised call, finding the prayer did not deserve grant in writ jurisdiction.
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.
W.P.(C) No. 3955 of 2006
05. 23.11.2016 No one is present on behalf of the petitioner even on revised
call.
Having heard Mr. S.Nanda, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 1 and 2 an
d on perusal of record, we are of the opinion that in the facts of the case, prayer made in th
is case does not deserve to be granted in the writ jurisdiction.
The petition is accordingly dismissed.
.......
( VINEET SARAN )
CHIEF JUSTICE
....
( DR. B.R. SARANGI )
JUDGE
dm
-2-
Petitioner
Opposite Parties
VINEET SARAN
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court