This order allowed a withdrawal application and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn, granting liberty to file afresh with better particulars.
Withdrawal application allowed; petition dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh with better particulars.
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.
| SL. No |
Date | Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures |
COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 | WPSB No. 353 of 2020 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Hon’ble Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J. |
||
| Mr. P.C. Petshali, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Pandey, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State. Heard on withdrawal application no.9475 of 2021. For the reason stated, the withdrawal application is allowed. The writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh with better particulars. |
|||
| ( Alok Ku m ar Ver m a, J.) ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 0 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 0 3 .0 9 .2 0 2 1 Mamta/ Neha |
Mamta
Neha
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Alok Kumar Verma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
