A civil writ petition was disposed of as the petitioner was absent. The learned advocate for the respondent submitted that the tender period had expired, leading the court to dismiss the petition.
The writ 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10249 of 2018 (Through hybrid mode)
Hemanta Kumar Sukla
…. Petitioner
-versus-
Sr. Divisional Commercial …. Opposite Parties Manager, East Coast Railway, Khurda Road Davison & another Mr. N.N. Mohapatra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA ORDER 23.11.2021
Order No.
04. 1. None appears on behalf of petitioner.
2. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of opposite parties and submits, period to submit tender has expired.
3. On 16th November, 2021 following order was made:-
“ 1. None appears on behalf of petitioner. 2. Mr. Mohapatra, learned advocate appears on behalf of railways. He submits, there is nothing to be adjudicated in the writ petition.
Page 1 of 1
// 2 //
3. List on 23rd November, 2021. In the event petitioner continues to be absent, the petition is likely to be dismissed.”
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Prasant
Page 2 of 2
Hemanta Kumar Sukla
Sr. Divisional Commercial Opposite Parties Manager, East Coast Railway, Khurda Road
Davison & another
Arindam Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
