GAUSUL AZAM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri M.M. Salam, learned counsel counsel for the petitioner, learned State Counsel and Shri Indrajeet Shukla, learned counsel representing the respondent no.5.

(2.) Since respondent no.6 is a proforma party, notice was not required to be issued to him.

(3.) A preliminary objection as regards the maintainability of the writ petition has been raised by the learned counsel representing the respondent no.5 to the effect that this writ petition has been filed against the orders passed in mutation proceedings, hence the same is not maintainable.