W"? 1}'354,/2910 (BY SR1 N.K.GUPTA, ADV. FOR R1? SR} DVIJAYAKUMAR, AGA FOR R2} This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 1' 1 Constitution of India, praying to quash the imipng;neVd"~orde1" dated 11.5.2010. passed by the resporideijit Vide AnneXure»«N and etc. " This petition Corning on forspreiirninary' hearirig groiip" this day, the Court made the fO11OVV11'lgf'*~ 1. Heard the iearned Cot1nsei:fort'Vithe'V 2. Mr. for respondent
No.1 has fi1ed__a:ni.eh:ei.;._; that petitioner No.1
herein had:’:Vv_a1r_ea\ciytV-filed’VW;i%;:iiI.o_.17405/2010 challenging the
Very order dated is produced in this writ
petition” “p4(ineiV o.ri-22.11.2010 which order is Confirmed in
by dismissing the writ appeal vide order
;15.12.;fiO1(). Therefore, he contends that this writ
petition. deserves to be dismissed, as it does not SU.}:’V1’v”€ for
do eons_i.d.eratieni
,;
1 A1,?’
E
‘W1? l,’?354f2O E0
3. Orders passed by this Court in W.P.l\lo. ~ 3
eonfirined in W .A.Not4?’83 / 2010 are placed before the ll
perusal. On perusal of these two ordersjitllis’ ‘seen
order passed by the District Magistrate is ini.pugried–;:ii~1,l”
this Writ petition was called in ques’lti:oi:.ppin ‘K/’.i~3._.NoV,
which is filed by Salim S/opiate and. to} which
petitioner Nos.2 8: 3 are arrajiled as Nos.3 8:4.
4. After hearing’ ‘par:t_iesi,p
contentions urged’ and has upheld the
order passed’ or The order of the
learned Singgle tlil1dlge– writ appeal. Therefore, as
rightly oontendedby’ the learried Counsel for respondent No.1,
Cannotv-.b.e«’entertained again, though this writ
pe’titiorrWas”‘earlier in point of time and the one disposed of
this Courtliiltaslslfiled later suppressing the filing of this writ
petition. ‘Petition is accordingly dismissed’
Learneel Additional Government Advocate is permitted to
file: niernofof appearance within three weeks from today.
sa!~
EUBGE
KK