Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/1590/2004 of RAJESH SRIVASTAVA Vs STATE and ORS. on 24 December 2004
(SS) 2004 Hon’ble M.M. Ghildiyal, J Heard Sri S.S. Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Smt. Beena Pandey for respondents no. 2 and Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 to 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
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.
Arguments
Heard Sri S.S. Chaudhary learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel, Smt. Beena Pandey for respondents no. 2 and Sri D.S. Patni, learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 to 7.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the question raised in the present writ petition is squarely covered by the judgement dated 5.10.2001 of this court passed in Writ Petition No. 860 (SB) of 2001 (Sukh Dev Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others).
Learned counsel for the respondents is also agreed that the case be decided in terms of aforesaid judgement provided that the options of the petitioners submitted before the Department are found to be genuine.
In view of the aforesaid statement, the writ petition is decided in terms of Judgement dated 5.10.2001 passed by this court in Writ Petition No. 860 (SB) of 2001 (Sukh Dev Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others) provided that the options of the petitioners submitted before the Department are found to be genuine.
24.12.2004 (M.M. Ghildiyal, J.)S.K.S