Dr. Udai Shankar v. State of Uttaranchal, Through Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Uttaranchal
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- U.P. Reorganisation Act s. 73(2)
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of this fact, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such. (P.C. Verma, J.) 15.02.2006 (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 15.02.2006 G
Judgment
Dr. Udai Shankar, S/o Sri Hari Shankar, Veterinary Officer, Sultanpur Patti, District Udham Singh Nagar. Versus State of Uttaranchal, Through Secretary, Department of Animal Husbandry, Govt. of Uttaranchal, Dehradun & 24 others. ……… Petitioner …….. Respondents Mr. Anil Dabral, Advocate representing Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. Standing Counsel (Central Govt.). Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate for respondents Nos. 8 to 14, 20, 22 to 25. JUDGMENT Coram: Hon. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Hon. P.C. Verma, J. P.C. VERMA, J. (Oral)
#1. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the Order dated 22.09.2005 passed by Respondent No. 4 annexed as Annexure No. 1. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to Respondents to finally allocate to State of Uttaranchal with all the petitioner consequential benefits. III. Issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. IV. Award cost of the petition is favour of the petitioner.”
#2. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Union of India has placed on record a fax message of notification dated 13th February, 2006 whereby the petitioner has been allocated to the State of Uttaranchal under Section 73(2) of the U.P. Reorganisation Act.
#3. In view of this fact, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such. (P.C. Verma, J.) 15.02.2006 (Rajeev Gupta, C.J.) 15.02.2006 G
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.
Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.