The petitioners failed to appear on the revised call. After hearing the State counsel and perusing the record, this court held that the prayer in the writ petition does not deserve to be granted in the writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
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. 703 of 2007
07. 07.03.2017 No one is present on behalf of the petitioners even on revised
call.
Having heard learned Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite part
y no.1,
Sri P.K.Mohanty, learned counsel for opposite parties no. 2 to 5 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-
Petitioners
State
Opposite parties no. 2 to 5
VINEET SARAN
DR. B.R.SARANGI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court