HAR HATH RAM NATH Vs. PRESCRIBED AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. K. Yog,j J. This writ petition is premature, The impugned order dated 18-3-1999 (Annexure 13 to the writ petition) shows that the! Court had fixed 3rd April, 1999. The said) date is over. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the Court had again fixed 16th July, 1999. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to inform the Court respondent development and proceedings before the Court below on 16th July, 1999 and up-to-date, j

(2.) IN view of the above, there is no justification td entertain the writ petition which has already been rendered infruetuous due to laches on the part of the petitioner, j 3, IN the interest of justice he, how ever, direct Respondent No. 1 to ex peditiously decide the application filed by the tenant containing prayer for restoring possession of the accommodation in petitioner/tenant and all other applications f led by the parties which are pending before him. The respondent shall ensure that adjournments are hot granted lightly and proceedings before it are decided in ace ordnance with law at the earliest. Parties are also directed to cooperate and enable early decision. Cer tified copy of this order shall be filed by the petitioner before respondent No. 1 for information. Respondent No. 1 shall decide the case before it exercising its dis cretion independently on the basis of evidence before it and without being in fluenced, in any manner, by this judgment passed today. 4. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed subject to the observation made above. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to file a copy of this order before the Prescribed Authority within one week. A copy of this order shall also be sent within two weeks to the respondent No. 1 by registered post by the Registry. Petition dismissed. .