Sikkim High Court
WP(PIL)/4/2012 of Padam Bahadur Chettri Vs State Bank Of India Ors. on 20 February 2012
For For IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM clvlL junisDlcTioN wp ( plli J Noa .... „ ................ „.¢?.tr............................ „ ......... Of 20..+..?. PALDAM Bunroun cur.iiR| enenE Op slKKIM & ORs. two,1t- Petjtjoner (Advocate (s)) Despondent (Advocate (s)) 01.
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.
- - irt,-tr.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SIKKIM
clvlL junisDlcTioN
wp ( plli J Noa .... „ ................ „.¢?.tr............................ „ ......... Of 20..+..?.PALDAM Bunroun cur.iiR|froantsis)Petitioner (s}VersusenenE Op slKKIM & ORs.Plespondent (s)eppe9jtei"€)two,1t-Forin. pRftyAp lonl juiD us. pRmlIA su]unPetjtjoner(Advocate (s))DespondentForMR. d.B. pEunEN, ADDL. tovocIAT; GENERAL wmH(Advocate (s))Mrt. RARm THINLA¥. GoVI. ADvounE AND in. s.K.CHLmRI. ASSTT . Goon _ ZLr``r^-irri+`. GOVI . ADVOCATE .Order (s) with Signature (s)BEFOREHON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICEMR. JuSTICE PERMOD KOHLIHON'BLE MR. JuSTICE S. P,WANGDI, JUDGE01. 20.resent: Mr. Pratap Khati and Ms. Pritjma Sunam, Advocatesfor the Petitioner.Mr. J.B. Pradhan, Addl. Advocate General with Mr.Karma Thinlay Namgyal, Govt. Advocate and Mr.S.K. Chettri, Asstt. Govt. Advocate for State-respondents.This Public Interest Litigation seeks interference ofthis Court in exercise of jurisdictionunder Article 226 ofcourt/ 2oooNos/ 2.4.2009
x .. res Imet : Ye
Case No
Orders (s) with Signature (s)
the Constitution of India on the plea that the StateGovernment has made certain allotments in contraventionof the provisions of Sikkim Allotment of House Sites andConstruction of Building (Regulation and Control)Amendment Act, 2003 read with Circular dated28.04.2000. From the perusal of the petition, we find thatthe allegations are vague in nat:ure without any details andparticulars as to the beneficiaries of such allotment and thenature of allotment, In absence of such details, nointerference is warranted.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner seeksto withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fre`sh one onsecuring relevant information.
We grant the prayer.
Petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty prayed for.
Chief Justice20.02.2012