DHARMENDRA Vs. INDORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners seek the relief that by issuing appropriate writ, direction or order, order no. 20097 dated 31.3.98, issued by the respondent no. 2 on behalf of respondent no. 1 (Annexure P/16) be quashed; any other relief which is deemed fit be also granted and cost of the petition be also awarded in favour of the petitioners.

(2.) THE facts in the factual matrix are that -

(3.) A notice was issued to the respondents to show cuase as to why the petition be not admitted for hearing. The said notice was issued on 20.4.98; the matter was listed for hearing on 1.7.98, but as name of the counsel for the respondents was not mentioned in the daily cause list, the case was adjourned to 2.7.98. Shri S.J. Dhanji, learned counsel for respondents appeared in the Court. The respondents were directed to file their reply by the next date. Respondents filed their reply on 9.7.98 on 2.7.98, it was also directed that the notice Anneuxre P/16, issued by respondent no. 2 showed that the issuing authority did not care to take into consideration the injunction order issued by the competent Court, therefore, the said officer should also remain present in the Court. Accordingly the said officer with the complete records appeared in the Court on 9.7.98. On 9.7.98, Shri Sethi, learned counsel for petitioners argued the matter, the respondents were represented by Shri Anand Agrawal, Advocate. Respondent no. 2, as observed above, was present with the records.