Disposed

State of Uttarakhand v. Kailash Chandra Raturi

Uttarakhand HC13 May 2019SPA/307/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge, observing that the cause of action in the underlying writ petition regarding the respondent's teacher eligibility test qualification had become infructuous as the respondent succeeded in a subsequent 2018-19 test, set aside the order under appeal, restored the writ petition, and dismissed the writ as infructuous, disposing the special appeal. (Paragraphs 13-17)

What did the court decide?

The order under appeal is set-aside; Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1780 of 2018 is restored to the file and dismissed as infructuous.

State of Uttarakhand Vs Kailash Chandra… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Uttarakhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

Special Appeal No. 307 of 2019 With

¶3

Delay Condonation Application No.4629 of 2019

¶4

State of Uttarakhand & others …….Appellants Versus

¶5

Kailash Chandra Raturi …….Respondent

¶6

Mr. Vikas Pande, Standing Counsel for the State/appellants. Mr. Sanjay Raturi, Advocate for the respondent-writ petitioner.

¶7

JUDGMENT

¶8

Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J.

¶9

Dated: 13^th May, 2019

¶10

RAMESH RANGANATHAN, C.J. (Oral)

¶11

Application to condone the delay in preferring the appeal is not opposed by Mr. Sanjay Raturi, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner and the delay is, therefore, condoned. Delay Condonation Application stands disposed of.

¶12

Mr. Vikas Pande, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State-appellants, would submit that the order under appeal was passed, based on another order passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No.290 of 2014 dated 16.07.2014; and Special Appeal No.556 of 2014, filed against the said order, is pending on the file of this Court.

¶13

Mr. Sanjay Raturi, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, would submit that the cause in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1780 of 2018, against which Special Appeal No.307 of 2017 has now been filed, has itself become infructuous; the dispute in Writ Petition (S/S) No.1780 of 2018 related to the respondent-writ petitioner’s qualification in the Teachers Eligibility Test; the respondent-writ petitioner has since appeared for another test in the year 2018-19, and was successful therein; and he does not wish to press for an adjudication of the validity of the earlier qualification obtained by him.

¶14

As Mr. Sanjay Raturi, learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner, states that the cause in the Writ Petition itself has become

¶15

¶16

infructuous, suffice it to set-aside the order under appeal, restore Writ Petition (S/S) No.1780 of 2018 to file, and to dismiss the said Writ Petition as infructuous.

¶17

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, disposed of. No costs.

¶18

(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C. J.) 13.05.2019 13.05.2019

¶19

NISHANT

State of Uttarakhand v. Kailash Chandra Raturi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Uttarakhand v. Kailash Chandra Raturi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pt Purnanand Tiwari Intermediate College and Others Vs Sunil Kumar Agrawal and Others

Him Urja Private Limited Vs State of Uttarakhand

Sunil Kumar Vs Meharban

Director Primary Education Uttarakhand and Others Vs Dharamveer Singh

State of Uttarakhand Vs Manmohan Singh

Pratap Narain Negi Vs State of Uttarakhand