Writ petition under Art. 226 was dismissed as the petitioner's counsel stated that the Environment Board had voluntarily de-sealed the petitioner's premises, making adjudication of the closure unnecessary. The petitioner sought to withdraw the petition. The court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the writ.
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. 1231 OF 2019 Him Urja Pvt. Ltd. ….Petitioner.
Him Urja Pvt. Ltd.
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and others. ...Respondents
Sri D. Barthwal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri B.S. Parihar, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent nos. 1 & 4.
Sri Aditya Pratap Singh, learned counsel for respondent no. 2.
Dated: 10th May, 2019
Coram: Hon’ble Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. Hon’ble N.S. Dhanik, J.
Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J. (Oral)
Sri D. Barthwal, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that, since the Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board has, on their own accord, de-sealed the petitioner’s premises on 07.05.2019, they do not wish to seek an adjudication of the earlier action, of the Uttarakhand Environment Protection and Pollution Control Board, in closing down their premises; they intend to avail their other judicial remedies, if any; and they be permitted to withdraw the writ petition.
(N.S. Dhanik, J.) (Ramesh Ranganathan, C.J.)
10.05.2019 10.05.2019 Rathour
Him Urja Pvt. Ltd.
State of Uttarakhand
Ramesh Ranganathan
N.S. Dhanik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
