Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/406/2021 of STATE OF UTTARAKHAND Vs DAN SINGH BIRODIA on 31 December 2021
Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS SPA No. 406 of 2021 Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ. Shri Ravindra Maithani, J. Mr. C.S. Rawat, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State/appellant. Mr.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Conclusion
|**SL.**<br>**No.**|**Date**|**Office Notes,**<br>**reports, orders**<br>**or proceedings**<br>**or directions**<br>**and Registrar’s**<br>**order with**<br>**Signatures**||**COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS**| |---|---|---|---|---| |||||SPA No. 406 of 2021<br>**Shri Sanjaya Kumar Mishra, ACJ.**<br>**Shri Ravindra Maithani, J.**<br>Mr.<br>C.S.<br>Rawat,<br>learned<br>Chief<br>Standing<br>Counsel<br>for<br>the<br>State/appellant.<br>Mr. Harshit Sanwal, learned counsel<br>for the respondent.<br>Having perused the records, we are<br>of the opinion that the order dated<br>06.07.2020<br>passed<br>by<br>the<br>learned<br>Single Judge in the Writ Petition No.<br>2857 (S/S) of 2019 allowing the writ<br>petition of the respondent herein, is<br>correct<br>and<br>in<br>the<br>disciplinary<br>proceedings, there has been violation of<br>the statutory provision of Sub Rule 4 of<br>Rule 9 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules<br>2013. There appears to be no reason to<br>believe that there is subtle probability of<br>allowing the appeal. Hence, we are not<br>inclined to entertain this appeal. The<br>appeal is dismissed.<br>**(R. Maithani, J.) (S.K. Mishra, ACJ.)**<br>31.12.2021<br>A/-|