Uttarakhand High Court
WPMS/2580/2011 of PANKAJ SINGH DEOLIYA Vs CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION and ANR on 29 December 2011
COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2580 of 2011 Pankaj Singh Deoliya ….Petitioner Versus Central Board of Secondary Education and another ..Respondents Present : Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the respondents.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (M/S) No. 2580 of 2011
Pankaj Singh Deoliya
….Petitioner
Versus
Central Board of Secondary Education and another
..Respondents
Present:Mr. B.D. Pande, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gopal Narain, Advocate for the respondents.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
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.
1. The case of the petitioner is that he is not being given his High School certificate. The petitioner had filed the present writ petition with the following prayers :
“I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the High School Certificate of year 2010 having Roll No. 5343724 to petitioner forthwith.
II. Issue any other order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
III. Award cost of the petition.”
2. Counter affidavit was called from the Central Board of Secondary Education/respondents. Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate has appeared for the Central Board of Secondary Education and has filed the counter affidavit stating the reasons why the delay has been caused in giving the certificate to the petitioner. The same is taken on record.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Central Board of Secondary Education though has annexed the photo copy of the certificate along with the counter affidavit and has handed over the original certificate to the counsel appearing for the petitioner Mr. B.D. Pande.
4. In view of the above, the grievance of the petitioner having been redressed, the writ petition has now become infructuous and is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous.
5. No order as to costs.
Avneet
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.)
29.12.2011