The High Court held that a writ petition filed on behalf of a petitioner admitted in a course now stands infructuous and was dismissed. The court also vacated any interim order.
The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous; interim order was vacated.
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.
| Noting by Officer or Serial Date Advocate No |
Office notes, reports, orders or Proceedings with signature |
|---|---|
| WP(C) 1304 of 2017 | |
08.11. |
BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA 2017 |
| Mr. A. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been admitted in the course. In view of this, this petition has become infructuous. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed as infructuous. Mr. T.D. Majumder, learned G.A. appears for the respondents. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. JUDGE |
Sabyasachi B
Page 1 of 1
The Petitioner
The Respondents
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
