Central Administrative Tribunal
Farooq Ahmad Mir vs D/o Forest Corporation on 30 December 2020
CENTR
HON’BL
1. Farooq A
Aged abo
S/o Moha
R/o Syeda
Tehsil Tra
2. Mian Ishf
Aged abo
S/o Amir-
R/o Ziyar
(Advocate: Mr.R.K
1.
State of Jamm
Through Com
Forest Depar
Civil Sectt., J
2.
Pr. Chief Con
J&K State, Ja
3.
Chief Conser
Kashmir, Sri
4.
Divisional Fo
Division Urb
Division, Sri
5.
Divisional Fo
Division Sho
6.
Farooq Ahm
Forester
C/o DFO Div
Sindh Divisio
RAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIB
JAMMU BENCH, JAMMU
Hearing through video conferencing
T.A./62/9312/2020
This the 30th day of December, 202
LE MR. RAKESH SAGAR JAIN, M
Ahmad Mir,
out 44 years
ammad Akram Mir,
abad (Pastoona),
al, District Pulwama.
faq Hussain Pampori,
out 47 years
-ud-Din Pampori,
rat Batamaloo, Srinagar.
...........
K. Jain )
Versus
mu & Kashmir,
mmr./Secy. To Government,
rtment, J&K,
Jammu/Srinagar.
nservator of Forests,
ammu/Srinagar.
rvator of Forests,
inagar.
orest Officer,
ban Forestry,
inagar.
orest Officer,
opian.
mad Khan (NKFC)
vision,
on Ganderbal.
BUNAL
20
MEMBER (J)
.............Applicants
:: 2 ::
7 .
Abdul Rashid Shah (NKFC)
Forester,
C/o DFO Urban Forestry,
C/o DFO Urban Forestry,
Division, Srinagar.
8.
Manzoor Ahmad Naseem (NKFC)
Forester
C/o DFO Division Urban Foretry,
Division, Srinagar.
9.
Noor Mohammad Bhat,
Forester,
C/o Chief Conservator of Forests,
Wullar Project, Srinagar.
10. Khurshid Ahmad Gul,
Forester,
C/o DFO, Shopian.
...................Respondents
(Advocate:- Mr. Rajesh Thappa, DAG)
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.
O R D E R
[O R A L] Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Rakesh Sagar Jain, Member (J): - Shri R.A. Jain, learned counsel for the applicant submits that TA has become infructuous by efflux of time as such, he do not wish to pursue this TA.
2. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, the TA is dismissed as having become infructuous. No costs.
(RAKESH SAGAR JAIN)
MEMBER (J) Ak/-
:: 3 ::