HARIDWAR RAI Vs. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE MAU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is an Advocate, was engaged earlier by the Municipal Board, now known as Nagar Palika Parishad, Mau to appear on its behalf in the cases in Civil Courts. By order dated 7-2-1996, in place of petitioner another Advocate Sri Satish Chandra Gupta has been appointed. Being aggrieved by it, the petitioner has filed this petition.

(2.) WHEN this case was taken yesterday, we pointed out to the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sri Satish Chandra Gupta, who has been appointed in place of the petitioner is not a party to the writ petition. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner we adjourned the case yesterday. The petitioner has now moved an application for impleadment of Sri Satish Chandra Gupta. We have allowed the application and direct ed Satish Chandra Gupta to be impleaded as respondent No. 4 to the writ petition.

(3.) WITH the aforesaid directions, this writ petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed. .