The court dismissed the writ petition as infructuous due to subsequent developments without elaboration.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
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.
CWP No. 3806 of 2008
Lawyers for Social Action and another Vs. State of Haryana and others
Present : Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate for the petitioners
Ms. Madhu Dayal, DAG, Punjab Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this writ
petition has become infructuous because of some subsequent developments.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed as infructuous.
03.09.2008 'ravinder'
(T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) JUDGE
Lawyers for Social Action and another
State of Haryana and others
T.S.Thakur
Surya Kant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
