SHIV KUMAR AGARWALA Vs. STATE OF MEGHALAYA AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. M.D.Sangma, learned counsel on behalf of Mr. A.S.Siddiqui who was in this courtroom about 15 minutes ago prays for adjournment of this case because of the non-availability of the Senior counsel for arguing this case. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the court is not inclined to grant the prayer for adjournment. Heard Mr. N.D.Chullai, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the official respondents.

(2.) At the very outset of the hearing of the present, Mr. N.D.Chullai, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate appearing for the official respondents strenuously contended that this writ petition has become infructuous. This court, keeping in view of the submission made by Mr.N.D.Chullai, learned Sr. Govt. Advocate, is taking up this case.

(3.) For deciding the matter in issue in the present writ petition, it is not required to delve deep in the factual matrix leading to the filing of the present writ petition. Accordingly, a short fact leading to the filing of the writ petition is recapitulated. The relief sought for in the present writ petition are: