Disposed of: The writ petition was declared infructuous due to the passage of time and was dismissed accordingly.
The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
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. 209 of 2016 Hon’ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.
Mr. Saurabh Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anurag Bisaria, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand.
A statement has been made at the bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner that with the passage of time, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed as having rendered infructuous.
(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 03.04.2019
Mahinder/
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand
Sharad Kumar Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
