Petitioners voluntarily did not press the writ petition asking the court to dismiss it without prejudice to future action.
The writ petition was dismissed as not pressed by the counsel.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 541 of 2013
Madhusudan Chaudhary & others … Petitioners Vs
State of Uttarakhand & another … Respondents
Mr. R.P. Nautiyal, Advocate, present for the petitioners. Mr. B.D. Pandey, Brief Holder, present for the State of Uttarakhand.
Hon’ble Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not want to press the writ petition.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as not being pressed.
However, it does not prevent the petitioners from bringing fresh action before the appropriate forum, as may be advised.
(K.J. Sengupta, J.)
19.03.2013 ASWAL
Madhusudan Chaudhary & others
State of Uttarakhand
Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
