O.P.Srivastava, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 20.3.1990 whereby the Prescribed Authority, respondent No. 1, rejected the application of the petitioner for permission to cross examine the witnesses on their affidavits.
(2.) I have heard Sri Rajesh Tandon, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri R.N. Bhalla, learned Counsel for the respondent and have gone through the records.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the learned Prescribed Authority did not consider the matter on merits and passed the order in a very casual manner. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that the order being inter locutory, this writ petition is not maintainable. The learned Counsel for the parties respectively cited decisions in support of their respective contentions reported in Khushi Ram Dedwal v. Additional Judge, Small Causes Court, 1997 (2) ARC 674 and Harish Chand Gupta v. IIIrd Additional District Judge, Mainpuri and another (Civil Misc. Writ No. 21657 of 1989, decided on 12.12.1989). (Reported in 1990 (1) ARC 189) .;