W.A. No. 368/2010
12.5.2010.
Shri Anoop Saxena, learned counsel for appellant.
Heard.
In the writ appeal the legality of the Order dated
21.4.2010 passed in WP No.12951/2008 has been assailed
by which the learned Single Judge has vacated the interim
stay which was earlier granted.
The learned Single Judge has vacated the stay on the
ground that petitioner's husband raised the controversy
and not the petitioner. Prima facie the objection with
regard to appointment of respondent no.7 could not be said
to be sustainable. The name of respondent no.7 was
mentioned in the electoral list which fact was mentioned in
the order impugned in the writ petition. Prima facie learned
Single Judge has found the order of Commissioner to be
proper as such vacated the order of stay. Dis-satisfied
thereby the writ appeal has been preferred.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant, in our opinion, as learned Single Judge has
assigned the reasons which prima facie appear to be
proper, order being interlocutory one does not suffer with
any such illegality so as to warrant interference in writ
appeal.
Prayer has also been made by the appellant’s counsel
that petition itself may be directed to be decided at an early
date.
Considering the aforesaid submission, we request the
Single Bench to decide the writ petition as early as possible.
No case is made out so as to grant status quo. No case for
interference in writ appeal is made out. Appeal is
dismissed.
(Arun Mishra) (S.C.Sinho)
Judge. Judge.
jk.