Ramesh Bag v. Collector,Nuapada
Case brief
What is this about?
The matter is taken up through video…
A compact analysis
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. 6944 of 2012
- 22.01.2021 The matter is taken up through video conferencing.
Heard Mr. M. Chand, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition calling upon the opposite parties no. 2 and 3 to show cause as to why the resolution to terminate the service of the petitioner as per the Annexure-3 shall not be declared as illegal, unconstitutional and thereby he seeks for quashing of the same.
On perusal of Annexure-3, that is with regard to removal of sales man. In the meantime more than 8 years have passed and by efflux of time the writ petition has become infructuous. Thereby, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application, accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
..…………….……………
(Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J)
Ajaya
2
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Opposite Parties No. 2 and 3
Coram
B.R. Sarangi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court