- (1.) IN re: CAN 4947 of 2011 With the consent of the parties, this application is treated as on day's list and the same is taken up as on days list.
(2.) THIS is an application for condonation of delay for taking up the review application No. 21 of 2011. Having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties as also considering the statements made in this application, this application is allowed and disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. In re: RVW21 of 2011 This an application for review of the final order dated May 14, 2011 passed in the Writ application bearing No. 12120 (W) of 2009. The operative portion of the above order is quoted below: "Having heard the learned counsel as also considering the materials on record, I find that in view of the order dated November 27, 2008 passed in W.P. No. 21762 (W) of 2007, the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding automatically came to an end after expiry of a period of three months from the date of communication of the above order. Therefore, there is no reasonable ground for keeping the petitioner under suspension by virtue of the impugned order of suspension. Therefore, the impugned order of suspension dated February 22, 2007 is quashed and set aside. This writ application is thus disposed of. There will be no order as to costs."
(3.) IT is submitted on behalf of the applicants/respondent Nos.1 and 2 that due to non-cooperation and/or inaction on the part of the learned Advocate engaged by them in the above writ application, the case of the respondents could not be placed before this Court at the time of disposal of the above writ application. IT is further submitted that an application for extension of the period to conclude the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was filed in writ application bearing No. WP 21762 (W) of 2007. But due to non-operation of the learned Advocate for the applicant, the same could not be dispose of. IT is also submitted on behalf of the applicants that due to the retirement of the enquiry officer from his government service, the enquiry proceeding against the writ petitioner could not be completed within the time fixed in WP 21762 (W) of 2007. This application is vividly opposed by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner.;