This court dismissed a writ petition as infructuous since the petitioner's brother had safely returned to Chennai, rendering the petition no longer useful.
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous; liberty to take action against Opposite Party No.9.
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
WPCRL No. 30 of 2022
Deeptimayee Pattnaik …. Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India & others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, ASGI
CORAM: JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA JUSTICE M. S. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 20.07.2022
03.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has apprised this Court that the brother of the petitioner namely Sunil Kumar Pattnaik has returned safely to Chennai and as such, this writ petition has become infructuous.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
4. The petitioner will be at liberty to take any action under law, so far the Opposite Party No.9 is concerned.
(S. Talapatra) Judge
(M.S. Sahoo) Judge
RRJena/GS
Deeptimayee Pattnaik
Union of India
S. TALAPATRA
M. S. SAHOO
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
