The writ petition was dismissed as infructuous. No substantive issue was decided and no proposition of law was laid down.
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 01.09.2025 | WPSB No.139 of 2020 Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. |
||
| Mr. Maneesh Bisht, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Vipul Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. K. N. Joshi, learned DAG for the State. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the writ petition has rendered infructuous. 4. The writ petition is dismissed as infructuous accordingly. |
|||
| (Alok Mahra, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.) 01.09.2025 BS |
Ravindra Maithani
Alok Mahra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
