The petitioner was not present. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the prayer did not deserve to be granted in the writ jurisdiction based on facts on perusal of record.
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. 3626 of 2002
05. 17.02.2017 No one is present on behalf of the petitioner even on revised
call.
Having heard learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite part
ies, and on perusal of record, we are of the opinion that in the facts
of the case, prayer made in this 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
State
VINEET SARAN
DR. B.R. SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court