Writ petitions were disposed of as withdrawn by the Court without proceeding further after the Advocate General raised a preliminary objection.
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.
WP(C) NO.1002/2017 WP(C) NO.1067/2017 WP(C) NO.1011/2017 WP(C) NO.1068/2017 WP(C) NO.1012/2017 WP(C) NO.1069/2017 WP(C) NO.1056/2017 WP(C) NO.1070/2017 WP(C) NO.1057/2017 WP(C) NO.1089/2017 WP(C) NO.1058/2017 WP(C) NO.1090/2017 WP(C) NO.1059/2017 WP(C) NO.1093/2017 WP(C) NO.1060/2017 WP(C) NO.1094/2017 WP(C) NO.1061/2017 WP(C) NO.1095/2017
BEFORE
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. T. VAIPHEI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
Present:
For the petitioner : Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, Sr. Advocate, Ms. S. Chakraborty, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. B.C. Das, Advocate General, Mr. T.D. Majumder, G.A.
30.08.2017.
Heard Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, the learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. T.D. Majumder, the learned Govt. Advocate appearing for the State.
At the outset, Mr. B.C. Das, the learned Advocate General, has raised preliminary objection only on the maintainability of the writ petition.
As the learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner likes to withdraw this case, the same stands disposed of as withdrawn.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Pulak
WP(C) NO.1002/2017 & OTHERS
Page 1 of 1
Petitioner
State
T. VAIPHEI
S. TALAPATRA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
