AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Heard Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate raised preliminary objection indicating that the prayer sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted in view of the fact the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the orders dated 29.02.2019 and 09.03.2009, but such orders have not been made a part of the writ petition. Similarly though the petitioner seeks to declare Clause (b) of Para-3 of the guidelines dated 28.06.2000 as bad, illegal and nonest in the eye of law, but the same has also not been made a part of the writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner has challenged the order dated 26.02.2019 passed in O.A. No. 2518 (C) of 2009, but there is a wrong mentioning in the prayer portion and in place of order dated 26.02.2019, it has been typed as 29. 02.2019. So far as the order dated 08.03.2009 and the guideline dated 28.06.2000 is concerned, the same have been made a part of the Original Application, therefore, the petitioner has not annexed the said order separately.
But fact remains, if the petitioner wants to quash such orders and guidelines, the same should have been formed a part of the writ petition itself.
In view of the above, since the writ petition is defective one, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition. However, at this point of time, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner wants to withdraw the writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition stands disposed of as withdrawn.
…………………………………….