- (1.) ADVOCATE for the private respondents submits that the petitioner served on the private respondents an incomplete copy of the WP, and that in spite of letter advocate for the petitioner did not give a complete copy of the WP.
(2.) ADVOCATE for the petitioner submits that she could not give a complete copy of the WP, because she mis -placed the notice.
(3.) THE explanation is unacceptable, because even if advocate misplaced the notice given by advocate for the private respondents, there was no difficulty in giving the private respondents a complete copy of the WP. It is not the case that advocate for the petitioner had no idea of the whereabouts of the private respondents. It is evident that the petitioner wanted to mislead the private respondents. As to the merits of the case, it has been submitted that the private respondents' mutation application was decided by the Corporation ignoring the petitioner's objection. Advocate for the Corporation submits that though the Corporation cannot decide whether the petitioner is occupying the premises in question as a thika tenant, there is no difficulty in giving the petitioner opportunity of hearing and deciding the private respondents' mutation request once again.;