GIRISH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel. Perused the record of the case.

(2.) WE are sad to note that present case is an example of casual approach of the learned Counsel for the petitioner while discharging professional duties. Annexure-3 to the petition shows that some order was passed on 25th August, 2003, by the Commissioner for removed of the shops/in question.

(3.) PETITIONER has not filed relevant documents referred to in the said objection of Sanjai Yadav dated 18- 9-2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) wherein he has stated that petitioner had obtained extension of time for one month from September 1st, 2003.