Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Uttarakhand · body

2024 DAILYLAW 715 (UTT)

DEEPAK SETHI v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

WPMS/2153/2024 · 2026-02-12

Pankaj Purohit

body2024

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPMS No.2153 of 2024 Hon’ble Pankaj Purohit, J. Dr. K.H. Gupta with Ms. Irum Zeba, learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, learned Dy.A.G. for the State. 3. Mr. Rahul Consul, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3. 4. Mr. M.C. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the intervener. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the compounding application moved by him has now been rejected by the respondent-MDDA, and therefore, the said order requires to be challenged. This new fact has rendered the writ petition infructuous. 6. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly as infructuous. It is open to the petitioner to avail the remedy as per law against rejection of his compounding application. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 12.02.2026 R.Dang