Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PRAMOD KUMAR & ANOTHER versus STATE OF U.P. THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pramod Kumar & Another v. State Of U.P. Through Its Principal Secretary & Others - WRIT - C No. - 16613 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 16121 (28 September 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

"CJ's Court"

Civil Misc. Application No. 215947 of 2007.

IN

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.16613 of 2007.

Pramod Kumar & another Vs. State of U.P. and others.

**********

Hon'ble H.L.Gokhale, CJ.

Hon'ble Anjani Kumar, J.

Date : 28th September, 2007.

P.C.

1. Heard Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, holding brief of Mr. P.S. Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. G.C. Upadhyaya, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents as well as Mr. Dev Kant Pandey, holding brief of Mr. K.R. Sirohi, learned counsel for the applicant i.e. one Sudhir Kumar.

2. The applicant, namely Sudhir Kumar had applied for being impleaded in the present writ petition as one of the respondents, since he claims to have a cause in the matter and he was supporting the State Government by intervening in the matter. When that intervention application was made, by an order passed on 7th May, 2007 the intervenor was directed to deposit an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (rupees one crore) before the Registrar General of this Court and that amount has subsequently been deposited by the intervenor.

3. Today Mr. Dev Kant Pandey appearing for the applicant states that the applicant is no longer interested in pressing his intervention application and wants to withdraw his impleadment application along with an amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (one crore), which he has deposited with the Registrar General. The learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and the State Government have no objection for withdrawal of this amount, inasmuch as the impleadment / intervention application itself is withdrawn. Mr. Arun Kumar Singh appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Upadhyaya appearing for the State make this statement accordingly.

4. In the circumstances, this application to withdraw the impleadment application is allowed. The impleadment application (116480 of 2007) is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. The Registrar General of this Court will refund the amount of Rs.1,00,00,000/-(one crore) to the applicant, which has been deposited by him by 4th October, 2007.

5. With the aforesaid direction, this application is disposed of finally.

Dated : 12.09.2007.

Rks.

(Chief Justice)

(Anjani Kumar,J.)


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.