Lalit Mohan Goyal v. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home and Personnel Affairs, New
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
With the above liberty, the writ petition is dismissed as
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 55. With the above order, CLMA No. 8903 of 2005 also stands dismissed as withdrawn. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.)
Judgment
Lalit Mohan Goyal S/o Late Sri Dayasharan, Presently working as Junior Engineer, National Highway Division, P.W.D., Roorkee, District Haridwar. .......... Petitioner Versus
Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home and Personnel Affairs, New Delhi. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs, New Delhi. Union of India through Secretary, Finance, New Delhi. State of U.P. through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. State of Uttaranchal through Chief Secretary, Civil Secretariat, Dehradun. Chairman, State Level Advisory Committee, (Under the U.P. Reorganization Act 2000), Gate No. 31, Jawahar Lal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi. .......... Respondents Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) for respondent No. 4. Mr. N.B. Tewari, Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon’ble Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon’ble J.C.S. Rawat, J. RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. (Oral) Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate on behalf of Mr. M.C. Pant, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. Standing Counsel (Central Govt.) for respondents Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 6. Ms. Beena Pandey, Standing Counsel (U.P. Govt.) for respondent No. 4. Mr. N.B. Tewari, Chief Standing Counsel for respondent No. 5. 2
Mr. N.K. Papnoi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw the writ petition with the liberty of filing another property drafted writ petition.
Permission granted.
Operative part
With the above liberty, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
With the above order, CLMA No. 8903 of 2005 also stands dismissed as withdrawn. (J.C.S. Rawat, J.) (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.)
30.08.2006 30.08.2006 G
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: With the above liberty, the writ petition is dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
U.P. Reorganization Act, 2000.
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.