In this hybrid-mode writ petition, the petitioner informed the court of receiving no instruction from his client. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the petition while granting liberty to file a fresh application if the cause of action subsists.
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 WPC (TAC ) No.34 of 2016
Nabin Chandra Mohanta
Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
Opp. Parties
COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No
19.7.2022
1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2 . Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has received no instruction from his client.
3 . Accordingly, the WPC(TAC) is dismissed. However, liberty is given to the Petitioner that he may file a fresh application, if any cause of action still subsists.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge
sangita
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be dismissed for want of instructions from the client.
Nabin Chandra Mohanta
State of Odisha
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
