Rajiv Sharma, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and Sri. Vinay Bhushan for Respondent No. 2 and Sri. Waseequddin Ahmad for Respondent Nos. 5 and 6.
(2.) A preliminary objection has been raised by learned Counsel for the Respondents that relief claimed by the Petitioner are not clear insofar as on perusal of the relief, it is not clear that as to what relief, the Petitioner sought in the instant writ petition, to which learned Counsel for the Petitioner did not satisfy the Court as to what reliefs has been sought by him. On perusal of the reliefs claimed by the Petitioner, I find force in the submission of learned Counsel for the Respondents and as such, the writ petition was directed to be dismissed with liberty to file fresh petition but even then, learned Counsel for the Petitioner argued the matter and insisted the Court to pass an order after sympathy being provided the Petitioner.
(3.) IT is settled proposition of law that a party has to plead the case and produce/adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate his submissions made in the petition and in case the pleadings are not complete, the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas. (Vide Bharat Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors. : AIR 1988 SC 2181; M/s. Larsen and Toubro Ltd. and Ors. v. State of Gujarat and Ors. : AIR 1998 SC 1608; National Building Construction Corporation v. S. Raghunathan and Ors. : AIR 1998 SC 2779; Ram Narain Arora v. Asha Rani and Ors. : (1999) 1 SCC 141; Smt Chitra Kumari v. Union of India and Ors. : AIR 2001 SC 1237; and State of U.P. v. Chandra Prakash Pandey : AIR 2001 SC 1298).;