- (1.) Leave granted.
(2.) The main ground on which the writ appeal was dismissed was that the vakalatnama had not been signed by some of the persons who filed the writ appeal. The Division Bench of the High Court took the view that writ appeal has not been validly presented on account of the said defect. Learned counsel submits that a closer look on the vakalatnama would have shown that the parties have really signed it. We do not want to sent it back to the High court to make a closer look as the difficulty can be resolved by a simpler measure. We asked learned counsel for the appellant whether another uakalatnama could be filed so that there would be no room for doubting whether the earlier uakalatnama was signed or not. Learned counsel submitted that it would be done. Accepting the said offer made at the Bar we set aside the impugned order and remand the writ appeal back to the High Court for disposal of the appeal on merits. The vakalatnama offered to be filed in the High court shall be filed within 4 weeks from today, failing which the appeal would stand dismissed.
(3.) This appeal is disposed of accordingly. Appeal disposed of accordingly.;