- (1.) BY an order dated 26 May 2014 this Court disposed of an earlier writ petition (W.P. Civil No.27641 of 2014) filed by the petitioner in the following terms: - "The grievance of the petitioner is that though the Commissioner and Director of Industries, Uttar Pradesh had by an order dated 31 March 2013 concluded the issue in regard inter alia to the constitution of the firm, a letter has been addressed on 23 April 2014 by the Deputy Secretary virtually amounting to a direction to recall the earlier decision. The contention is that the Deputy Secretary had no such jurisdiction and could not have issued any such direction without notice to the petitioners. We have perused the communication dated 23 April 2014 of the Deputy Secretary to the Commissioner and Director of Industries. The communication merely refers to a representation submitted on 15 April 2014 by the fourth respondent, Sunil Kumar Bansal. After summarizing the grievance, the letter merely states that the representation may be disposed of after hearing all the parties. Reading the letter as it stands, it appears that there is no direction of any nature whatsoever which has been issued by the Deputy Secretary. We need only to clarify that in considering the representation, in pursuance of the letter dated 23 April 2014 of the Deputy Secretary, the Commissioner and the Director of Industries would be at liberty to take his own independent decision and would have to give an opportunity of being heard to all the affected parties. Since the letter dated 23 April 2014 would not contain any direction to decide the matter one way or the other, we are not inclined to entertain this petition. We also clarify that we have not entered upon the merits of the grievance raised by the petitioners. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of."
(2.) SUBSEQUENT to the order of the Court, a notice has been issued to the petitioner on 2 June 2014 and again on 5 June 2014. The first notice indicates that the petitioner had not remained present for a hearing while the second notice gives a further opportunity.
(3.) THE petitioners have absolutely no reason or justification to file a petition on the basis of the notice dated 2 June 2014 which is sought to be questioned in these proceedings. This Court has already observed in its order dated 26 May 2014 that the Commissioner and Director of Industries would take his own independent decision after furnishing to the parties an opportunity of being heard and has clarified that the communication dated 23 April 2014 of the Deputy Secretary does not contain any direction whatsoever. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents in fact states that on 20 June 2014 after hearing the parties, orders have been reserved by the Commissioner.;