STATE OF UTTARKHAND THR. CHIEF SECRETARY vs M.C.BHANDARI — C.A. No. 1614/2011
Case under Appointment of Constitutional Functionaries : Appointment of Governors/lt. Governors, Ministers, Attorney General, Advocate General, Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commissioners, Chairman and Members of Union Public Service Commission and State Public Service Commissions and Other Constitutional Functionaries Section III-A. Status: Pending.
CNR: SCIN010247852010
Filing Date
06-Aug-2010
Registration No
C.A. No. 1614/2011
Diary Number
24785/2010
Order Date
23-Jan-2023
Document Type
ROP - of Main Case
Last updated 06-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.STATE OF UTTARKHAND THR. CHIEF SECRETARY
Adv. ABHISHEK ATREY[P-1]
Respondent(s)
-
1.M.C.BHANDARI
Adv. VANDANA SHARMA BHANDARI[R-1]
Case History
-
23-Jan-2023
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Jan-2023
Fixed Date by Court
Registrar (Court)
-
18-Dec-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Dec-2019
Fixed Date by Court
Registrar (J) - II
-
03-Oct-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Oct-2019
Fixed Date by Court
Registrar (J) - II
-
04-Jul-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Jul-2019
Fixed Date by Court
Registrar (J) - II
-
28-Mar-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Mar-2019
Fixed Date by Court
Registrar (J) - II
-
14-Feb-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Feb-2019
Fixed Date by Court
Registrar (J) - II
-
14-Dec-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Dec-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
27-Feb-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Feb-2013
ROPView PDF
-
06-Nov-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
04-Apr-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
11-Feb-2011
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
29-Nov-2010
ROPView PDF
-
24-Sep-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
24-Sep-2010
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
06-Aug-2010
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 1614/2011
Case Summary: C.A. No. 1614/2011 On 23-01-2023, the Registrar heard Civil Appeal No. 1614/2011 filed by the State of Uttarkhand against M.C. Bhandari. The Court directed parties to file statements of case within the stipulated period, noting that Respondent No. 1 was duly represented while Respondent No. 2 had been served but did not appear. The Registry was instructed to process the matter for listing before the Hon'ble Court as per rules. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts