The petitioner moved to withdraw the writ petitions due to formal defects. The court disposed of the matter as withdrawn, subject to liberty to file a fresh petition.
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) 1333 OF 2016 Along with WP(C) 1334 OF 2016 Along with WP(C) 1335 OF 2016 Along with WP(C) 1336 OF 2016 Along with WP(C) 1337 OF 2016 Along with WP(C) 1338 OF 2016 Along with WP(C) 1339 OF 2016 Along with WP(C) 1340 OF 2016 Along with WP(C) 168 OF 2017
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
25.08.2017
Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there are some formal defects in the writ petition and as such he has instruction to withdraw the writ petition.
Mr. P.K. Pal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents does not oppose his prayer.
In view of the statement made by Mr. C.S.Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, this writ petition stands dismissed as withdrawn subject to liberty reserved for filing fresh petition if the situation so demands.
JUDGE
S. Talapatra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
