Dismissal of a writ petition under Article 226 for default due to the absence of the petitioner and lack of representation during hearings scheduled for dismissal.
Writ petition dismissed for default. Miscellaneous petitions standing dismissed.
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.
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION No. 9469 OF 2005
ORDER:
When the matter was called on 26.02.2016, there was no representation on either side and, hence, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption of ‘for dismissal’ to this date. Even today, when the matter again appeared in the list, under the caption of ‘for dismissal’, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Hence, the Writ Petition is dismissed for default.
In consequence, miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition, shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
_____________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY, J
Date: 11-03-2016. Dsh
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
76
19032016
WRIT PETITION No. 9469 OF 2005
Date.11-03-2016
DSH
Petitioner
M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
