D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) When the matter is called out, learned Counsel for the petitioner is absent.
(2.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondents, who has vehemently submitted that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed with exemplary cost mainly for the reason that the impugned order is appellable order and the appeal is pending being a Miscellaneous Appeal No. 68 of 2008, before the District Court at Dhanbad, under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, and thus, two different matters have been preferred i.e., one before the District Court and another before this Court and no relief has been obtained in the appeal before the District Court and here this fact has been suppressed in this writ petition and interim relief has been obtained on 23rd of December, 2008.
(3.) In view of the aforesaid submission and looking to the counter-affidavit, especially, in Paragraph No. 6 thereof as the appeal has already been preferred against the impugned order, I am not entering into this writ petition, at this stage and without entering into the merits of this case, this writ petition is hereby, dismissed, only on the ground that the appeal has been preferred under section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971.;