Oral order permitting petitioner to withdraw writ petition while agreeing to pursue alternative remedies, resulting in dismissal of the instant filing.
Permission to withdraw the petition was granted; petition stood dismissed 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 PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Sr.No.109
CRM-M No.49671 of 2021 Date of Decision: 26th November, 2021.
Mukesh Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & Others
...Respondents
( Heard through Video-Conferencing)
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Present: Mr. Yogesh Kumar Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner.
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J. (ORAL)
After arguing for a while, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the instant petition while submitting that the petitioner would be availing the alternative, appropriate and efficacious remedy, as may be permissible to him under law, for seeking redressal of his grievance as canvassed in this petition.
Mr. Aproorv Garg, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, who has joined the proceedings on behalf of respondents No.1 to 5 in this case in pursuance of the copies of the instant petition having been sent to the respondent-State in advance, has no objection for the same.
Resultantly, the petition in hand stands dismissed for having been withdrawn accordingly.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) JUDGE
26.11.2021.
seema
| Whether speaking/reasoned? | Yes |
|---|---|
| Whether Reportable? | No |
SEEMA SHARMA 2021.11.26 15:08 I attest to the accuracy of this order
Mukesh Kumar
State of Haryana
Meenakshi I. Mehta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
