A writ petition under WPCRL No.37 of 2013 was heard wherein the counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petition has become infructuous due to subsequent events, which was uncontested. The court dismissed the petition accordingly.
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.37 of 2013
Sri Shyama Sundar Maharana ..……. Petitioner Mr. B. Mohapatra, Adv. -Versus- Superintendent of Police, Puri & another ..…….. Opp. Parties Mr. J.P. Patnaik,
Government Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER 02.08.2022
Order No.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical Mode).
2. Heard Mr. B. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing on instruction of Mr. A.K. Mohapatra-1, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the subsequent event, this petition has become infructuous.
3. Mr. J.P. Patnaik, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State has not contradicted that statement.
4. Accordingly, this petition stands dismissed as infructuous.
(S. Talapatra) Judge
(M.S. Sahoo) Judge
Subhasis
2
3
Sri Shyama Sundar Maharana
Superintendent of Police, Puri
another
S. Talapatra
M.S. Sahoo
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
