Subrato Roy v. State of Chhattisgarh
Case at a glance
Outcome
Withdrawn
Consequentiy, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
Operative part
Subrato Roy, son of Late Shri S.K. Roy, Executive Engineer, State Agricultural Marketing Board, resident of C-161, Sector 1, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 52 years, Chhattisgarh VERSUS State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretary, Agriculture Department, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur, Chhattisgarh Managing Director, Chhattisgarh Rajya Krishi Viparan (Mandi) Board, Beej Telibandha, Bhawan, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Road, G.E. Inspector General of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt Office, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh •^ ^y,^w" PETITIONER RESPONDENTS . 1. -2. ^3. WRIT PETITIQN UjMDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OFAPPROPRIATE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND FOR ISSUANCE_QF OTHER SUITABLE WRITS, DIRECTION OR DIRECTIONS, ORDER OR ORD_ER_S ftirito HiGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH : BiLASPUR (\\Q W. P. (S) N0. 7361 OF 2011 PETiTlQNER Subrato Roy Versus RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh & Othsrs (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Singie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri Amrito Das, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Deputy Advocate Generai for the State. ORDER 4th (Passed on 24In day of August, 2012) i.A.No.4 Thls is an application for withdrawal of the writ petitlon on the grounds stated therein. Learned counsel appearing for other side has no objection. Application is aliowed. Consequentiy, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Atul Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Consequentiy, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.