- (1.) Heard Ms. Sapna Gupta the respondent no. 6 who has appeared in person.
(2.) We had taken up this petition on the mention made by the respondent counsel on 7th December, 2015 and had passed the following order:- "The petitioner's counsel has sent an illness slip today. On the previous occasion also an illness slip had been sent by him. We have heard Sri R.N. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent no.6, Sri Shikhar Anand for the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation and Sri Ajit Kumar Dwivedi for the opposite party no.1. Sri Gupta and Sri Anand both have filed their counter affidavits. An interim order was passed in this petition on 10.11.2014 taking notice of an alleged dispute pending before the Additional Commissioner in proceedings arising out of Section 198(4) of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act and an interim order was passed restraining the Corporation from finalizing the retail outlet dealership which is the subject matter of this dispute. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition in paragraph 9 very conveniently states that proceedings under the aforesaid provision were decided by the Collector on 14.7.2014 and a revision was filed before the Commissioner which is pending whereas the correct position is that vide order dated 14.7.2014 the claim was dismissed and not only decided. It is thus clear that there was no dispute with regard to the land offered by the respondent no.6. The status of the litigation was therefore incorrectly placed before the court at the time of grant of interim order. It has been further pointed out by Sri Shikhar Anand, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation through a supplementary counter affidavit that the petitioner Archana Singh has earlier filed Writ Petition No.9089 (M/B) of 2013 and in paragraph 18 of the said writ petition she has specifically raised a dispute about the land offered by the present respondent no.6 who is arrayed as respondent no.4 therein. He, therefore, submits that the present writ petition is a second writ petition for the same cause of action and is therefore not maintainable. A copy of the writ petition is on record. Since learned counsel for the petitioner has sent his illness slip today, it would be appropriate to adjourn the matter but for the last time. List peremptorily in the next cause list. Learned counsel for the respondents shall inform the learned counsel for the petitioner in writing about this order. "
(3.) The matter was again listed but the counsel for the petitioner had sent his illness slip and we were again compelled to list this case peremptorily.;