N.L. DUBASIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Besides that the pleadings of the petitioners were noticed to be casual, clumsy and wanting in legal quality, as there was no express prayer clause in the petition, learned advocate for the petitioner No. 2 Mr. Jainish Shah was asked at the outset about it. While learned advocate for the petitioner was entirely at his receiving end, he tried to point out paragraph 10 of the petition reflecting a prayer, further submitting that as he has not drafted the petition and earlier the petitioner had been appearing as party-in-person, the petition suffers from want of proper pleadings, in particular the prayer.

(2.) Upon perusal of paragraph 10, it could not be said to be containing prayer. Not only vague expressions were made, it was requested to award relief prayed for in some other writ petition which was Special Civil Application No. 1472 of 2003. It was submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that in the present petition the very prayers prayed for in the said Special Civil Application of 2003 have been asked for. As this petition was devoid of proper prayer, virtually with no prayer, the same could have been dismissed on the said ground alone. Resisting to deprecate the state of affairs, since the party-in-person had originally appeared, it was leniently looked at.

(3.) What the petitioners seek herein, are thus the same prayers as made in Special Civil Application No. 1472 of 2003. This petition was withdrawn as per order dated 18th October, 2004. The prayers made, and re-sought in the present petition are reproduced hereunder.