Public Information Officer High Court of Delhi v. Bs Mathur

ORDER %

01.11.2011 Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate for the appellant states that, considering the peculiar facts of the cases, the appellant has agreed to provide the documents as directed by the learned Single Judge. He thus seeks liberty to Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. withdiaw the appeals,withoutprejudiceto the rights and contentionsof the appellant therein. Leaving the legal issues open, the appeals ai'e permitted to be withdi'awn. Dismissed as withdrawn. CHIEF JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW, J NOVEMBER 01, 2011 'gsr'

9&10$-^ * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LPA 637/2011 & CM No. 14527/2011 (for stay) PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Ms. Neetu Sahay, Advs. Versus B.S. MATHUR Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Aditee Mathur & Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advs. AND + LPA 638/2011 & CM No. 14530/2011 (for stay) PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, HIGH COURT OF DELHI Appellant Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal & Ms. Neetu Sahay, Advs. Versus B.S. MATHUR Respondent Through: Mr. Amit Chadha, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Aditee Mathur & Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW