A writ petition was dismissed as infructuous after counsel for both the petitioner and respondent filed statements at the bar, indicating the matter became stale due to the efflux of time.
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. 2598 of 2016 Hon’ble Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J. (1) Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner. |
|---|---|---|---|
| (2) Mr. Suyash Pant, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. |
|||
| (3) Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. |
|||
| (4) Mr. Pradeep Kumar Chauhan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner makes a statement at the bar that the writ petition has become infructuous by efflux of time. (5) Mr. Ghanshyam Joshi, learned counsel for respondent no. 2 makes the similar statement. (6) In view of the statement made by learned counsel for the petitioner, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. |
|||
| ( Man oj Ku m ar Tiw ar i, J.) 03.06.2024 Aswal |
Petitioner
State of Uttarakhand
Respondent no. 2
Manoj Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
