- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Standing Counsel. Perused the record of the case.
(2.) WE are sad to note that present case is an example of casual approach of the learned Counsel for the petitioner while discharging professional duties. Annexure-3 to the petition shows that some order was passed on 25th August, 2003, by the Commissioner for removed of the shops/in question. Neither copy of the said order has been filed nor relief to quash the said order has been sought. Moreover objection of the petitioner against alleged orders of the authorities dated 12-9-2003, 18-9- 2003, 20-9-2003 (endorsed on the extreme left side of the objection filed by Sanjai Yadav, (Respondent No. 6) Annexure-3 to the writ petition are still pending.
(3.) PETITIONER has not filed relevant documents referred to in the said objection of Sanjai Yadav dated 18- 9-2003 (Annexure-3 to the writ petition) wherein he has stated that petitioner had obtained extension of time for one month from September 1st, 2003. It is apparent that relevant and material facts, as well as order and other documents, have not been brought on record of the petition.;