Delhi High Court
Uoi vs Naresh Kumar & Ors. on 6 April, 2011
Author: Anil Kumar
Bench: Anil Kumar, Veena Birbal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C) No.20307/2005
% Date of Decision: 06.04.2011
UOI .... Petitioner
Through Nemo
Versus
Naresh Kumar & Ors. .... Respondents
Through Mr. A.K. Singh, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE VEENA BIRBAL
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be NO
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in NO
the Digest?
ANIL KUMAR, J.
* No one is present on behalf of the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that the entire record of the Central Administrative Tribunal has not been filed by the petitioner along with the writ petition. Learned counsel has drawn our attention to the rejoinder filed by the respondent in the year 2004 and some of the misc. applications filed before the Tribunal, copies of which have not been filed along with the writ petition. It is W.P. (C) No.20307/2005 Page 1 of 2 also contended that copies of some of the documents have also not been filed.
The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed in default and for non- prosecution.
The interim order dated 21st October, 2005 is also vacated.
ANIL KUMAR, J.
April 06, 2011 VEENA BIRBAL, J.
'rs'
W.P. (C) No.20307/2005 Page 2 of 2