Sushil Harkauli, Vikram Nath, JJ. - (1.) This case was taken up on a mention being made from the respondents' side at 12.00 noon today. Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned counsel representing the petitioner stated at that time, that the matter would be argued by Sri Shashi Nandan, Senior Advocate, who was busy in another case in another court-room. We, therefore, told both sides that we would take up the matter at 3 :15 p.m.
(2.) When the matter was taken up at 3 :15 p.m., neither Sri Anoop Trivedi nor Sri Shashi Nandan were present. In the circumstances, we heard learned counsel for the respondents. However, we did not dictate the order immediately and continued to wait for the learned counsel for the petitioner till 3 : ", 40 p.m., hearing other cases in the meantime. At 3 : 40 p.m. Sri Anoop Trivedi appeared and asked for adjournment for the day.
(3.) Because, there was an interim order operating in favour of the petitioner which, due to the reasons given below, is wholly undeserved and because the learned counsel have been given enough time and notice, therefore, we decline to adjourn the matter.;