The writ petition was dismissed as it had become infructuous. No substantive legal issues were addressed or resolved.
The writ petition was 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.
WPMS No. 2574 of 2007
Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J.
Sri Lalit Miglani, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Sri K.P. Upadhyay, Additional Chief Standing Counsel, present for the State-respondent no.2.
Sri C.K. Sharma, Advocate, present for the respondent no.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that this writ petition has become infructuous.
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(P.C.P., J.)
18.12.2008 NS
Petitioner
State
Respondent no.3
Prafulla C. Pant
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
