On withdrawal application supported by a compromise, the single-judge court allowed the withdrawal and dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.
Allowed withdrawal application; dismissed writ petition as withdrawn.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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| WPMS No. 638 of 2020 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. Mr. Siddhartha Sah, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Yogesh Tewari, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Mr. Aviral Phartiyal, Advocate, holding brief of Mr. Tarun Lakhera, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 to 14. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Today, the matter is listed on a withdrawal application (I.A. No. 2580 of 2022). With the application, copy of compromise entered into between the parties has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, petitioner does not wish to pursue this petition any further. In view of the facts mentioned in the affidavit filed in support of withdrawal application, withdrawal application is allowed. Consequently, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. |
|||
( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 09.11.2022 Navin |
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
