RITUSACHDEVA.....PetitionersThrough & Anr. v. MUNICIPALCORPORATIONOFDELHI....RespondentsThrough & Ors.
Judgment
$~54*INTHEHIGHCOURTOFDELHIATNEWDELHI+W.P.(C)16736/2023,CMAPPL.67437/2023RITUSACHDEVA&ANR......PetitionersThrough:Ms.DiyaKapur, SeniorAdvocatewithMr.RaghavKumarandMr.AdityaLadha, AdvocatesversusMUNICIPALCORPORATIONOFDELHIANDORS.....RespondentsThrough:Ms.SunietaOjha-SCforMCDwithMs.PragtiBhatiaandMs.VasudhaPriyansha, Advs.CORAM:JUSTICEPRATHIBAM.SINGHJUSTICERENUBHATNAGARORDER%02.12.20251.Thishearinghasbeendonethroughhybridmode.2.Mr.RaghavKumar, ld. CounselforthePetitionersubmitsthatthePetitionershaveappliedunderthe“SumpattikarNiptaanYojana”i.e.,theSUNIYOSchemeandhaveavailedthebenefitofthesame.3.He,therefore, wishestowithdrawthepresentwritpetition.4.Accordingly, thepetitionisdismissedaswithdrawnintermsoforderdated1stSeptember,2025.Pendingapplications, ifany, arealsodisposedof.PRATHIBAM.SINGH,J.RENUBHATNAGAR,J.DECEMBER2,2025/tg/msh
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.