WPCRL/1793/2021 of RANDHEER SINGH NEGI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND — WPCRL/1793/2021 of RANDHEER SINGH NEGI Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Parties

SL. NoDateOffice Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with SignaturesCOURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS (PETITIONER)
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (RESPONDENT)

Cites (1)

DEEPAK GULATI versus STATE OF HARYANA (2013)

Statutes cited (12)

Full text

solid underline = linked page · dashed underline = case is in our corpus, page not published yet · dotted red = recognized reference, not in our corpus

Show all Conclusion

|**SL.** **No**|**Date**|**Office Notes, reports, orders or** **proceedings or directions and** **Registrar’s order with** **Signatures**|**COURT’S OR JUDGES’S ORDERS**|
|---|---|---|---|
||||WPCRL No.1793 of 2021 **Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J.** Mr. Abdul Ali, Advocate holding brief of Mr. Bhupesh Kandpal, Advocate for the petitioner. 2. Mr. B.C. Joshi, A.G.A. with Ms. S.B. Dobhal, B.H. for the State. 3. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a writ of mandamus, commanding the respondents to take appropriate action against respondents and further to decide the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law, in light of the principles laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. 4. It is contended by learned State counsel, on instructions, that preliminary investigation was conducted by the Revenue Sub Inspector and, on the basis of that investigation, no offence was found against the private respondents. 5. In view of the subsequent development, the writ petition is rendered infructuous. 6. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. **(Pankaj Purohit, J.)** 04.03.2025 SK|