HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ…
petition dismissed as infructuous due to lack of specific opposite party representation
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) 348 of 2011
Mithilesh Dubey
.......….......Petitioner
-versus-
Additional District Judge/FTC, Dehradun and others
……...Respondents
Date of hearing and Judgement : 13.12.2021
Advocates appeared in the case:-
For Appellant : Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the petitioner For Respondents : Mr. Yogesh Pande, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Sri S.K.Mishra, J.
1. Heard Ms. Sheetal Selwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State. None appears for the private opposite party.
2. A memo has been filed in the Court today indicating that the matter has become infructuous. Hence, the same may be dismissed as infructuous.
3. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous.
(S.K.Mishra) Judge
KKS
2
Page 2 of 2
Mithilesh Dubey
Additional District Judge/FTC, Dehradun and others
S.K.Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
