RAJENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application, the petitioner is seeking permission of this Court to amend the writ petition because of the subsequent events occurred in the matter which have been stated in the application. It is submitted that reliefs as are prayed in para 2 of the writ petition can be granted in view of the subsequent events occurred in the matter. It is submitted by the petitioner that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in Sheshambal vs. Chelur Corporation Chelur Building [(2010) 3 SCC 470], this application deserves to be allowed.

(2.) LEARNED Senior Advocate appearing for the respondents opposed the prayer on the ground that the amendment is voluminous and is changing the nature of the case. Apart from this in the light of the order passed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 935 of 2007 dated 24.7.2012, this petition has rendered infructuous as the entire controversy has been decided by the Apex Court so not only the application but the writ petition itself may be dismissed. He has read over certain paragraphs of the order dated 24.7.2012 passed by the Apex Court, and also placed reliance to the judgment of the Apex Court in Narmada Bachao Andolan vs. Union of India and others [(2005) 4 SCC 32].

(3.) SO far as the contention of the respondent No.2 are concerned, those can be considered even after allowing the amendment in the petition, as these relates to merits of the case. This Public Interest Litigation has been filed for various reliefs and at the time of hearing we can very well examine all the contentions of the respondents including the objections that in view of the order passed by the Apex Court dated 24.7.2012, this petition has rendered infructuous or not. All these contentions will be considered at the time of hearing of the main case.