Held I.A.s seeking withdrawal of two writ petitions were allowed based on affidavit facts; consequently, the pending writ petitions were dismissed as withdrawn.
I.A.s allowing withdrawal were allowed; writ petitions dismissed as withdrawn.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| I.A. No. 1 of 2022 (Withdrawal Appl.) In WPMS No. 2302 of 2020 with I.A. No. 4523 of 2022 (Withdrawal Appl.) In WPMS No. 3146 of 2017 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. |
|||
| Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Lalit Sharma & Mr. D.C.S. Rawat, Standing Counsel for Union of India. Mr. Mayank Joshi, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocate for respondent no. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. These Withdrawal Applications have been filed on behalf of petitioner. In view of the facts mentioned in the affidavits filed in support of withdrawal applications, the same are allowed. Consequently, the writ petitions are dismissed as withdrawn. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 03.11.2022 Arpan |
Petitioner
Union of India
Respondent no. 3
Manoj Kumar Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
