O.P Verma, J. - (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE contention of the petitioner is that she was denied exemption on the basis of the Notification No. 175/86 -CE dated 1st March, 1986 (Annexure -I to the Writ Petition), which according to her is discriminatory. Shri Bhartji Agarwal, learned Counsel for the petitioner relying on M/s. Machine Well Engineers v. Union of India , urged that a division bench of this Court has held that the aforesaid Notification is discriminatory and on that basis the exemption can not : 1994ECR443(Allahabad) be denied to the petitioner. This is a how the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned show cause notice dated 16th March, 1996 (Annexure -2 to the Writ Petition). Since the matter has already been decided by this Court, the petitioner may show cause to respondent No. 2 placing reliance on the case of M/s. Machine Well Engineers.
(3.) FOR the reason, the petition is disposed of finally.;