The Patna High Court dismissed the writ application as infructuous, holding that the period of appointment of the Adhoc Mandi Handling Contractor had expired.
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.
Patna High Court CWJC No.8216 of 2011 (5) dt.14-02-2013
| IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8216 of 2011 ====================================================== |
|
|---|---|
Arun Kumar Agrawal .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The Union Of India & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== |
|
| 5 | CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA ORAL ORDER 14-02-2013 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ |
| application has become infructuous because the period of | |
| appointment of Adhoc Mandi Handling Contractor has already expired on 31.3.2011. |
|
| The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed as infructuous. |
(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J)
spal/-
Arun Kumar Agrawal
The Union Of India
Ramesh Kumar Datta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
