- (1.) On hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are not inclined to interfere with the discretion of the Chief Justice in respect of the matter in issue. However, we may note that in terms of the order passed on 27.11.2008, the learned Single Judge noticed that "the matter therefore needs to be reserved for orders". This is preceded by the expression "the matter was fully argued and the same was placed for written submissions". Thereafter, it is recorded that the written submissions were tendered on that date.
(2.) It would be appropriate for the parties to again jointly make a request to the Chief Justice in this behalf who may consider it in conspectus of the aforesaid at his discretion.
(3.) The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.;