The writ petition was found infructuous by the Court due to subsequent developments prior to bar proceedings, and the petition was dismissed accordingly.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| W PMS 1 1 6 0 / 2 0 1 7 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. |
|||
| Mr. Pankaj Semwal, Advocate, i/ b Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Phartiyal, Additional CSC, for the State/ respondents. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner makes a statement at the bar that this writ petition has become infructuous in view of the subsequent developments taken place after filing of the same and it may be dismissed as such. In view of the statement so made, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 1 3 .3 .2 0 2 3 Pr |
petitioner
State of Uttar Pradesh
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
