Madhya Pradesh High Court
Suraj Singh Kaurav vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 8 August, 2017
1
W.P. No. 5659/2016
08.08.2017
Shri H.D. Gupta, learned senior counsel with Shri
Santosh Agrawal, counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Praveen Newaskar, learned Government
Advocate for respondents/State.
Shri S.P. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2 & 5.
Shri Harish Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents No. 4 & 6.
Shri S.K. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the intervener.
Though, it is stated that the issue involved in this writ petition is similar to that of writ petition No. 5460/2016, however, taking into consideration the fact that present is a petition whereby the petitioner being aggrieved by NIT dated 23.06.2016 has filed this petition for quashment whereof, we are not inclined to accept this submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the issue raised in the present petition is similar to that of writ petition No. 5460/2016. Therefore, we direct for delinking the Writ Petition No. 5460/2016.
Learned senior counsel when called upon to address on the question of admission fairly submits that he is not ready with the matter. Though, an objection is raised on behalf of the respondents against the adjournment; it is stated that there is an interim order, but we are not commend to such order.
In view whereof, since the operation of impugned 2 NIT has not been stayed, the respondents are always at liberty to proceed with the same, if otherwise, no injunction by any court.
Since learned counsel for the petitioner is not ready with the matter, by way of indulgence one opportunity is granted.
List this case after fifteen days.
(Sanjay Yadav) (S.K. Awasthi)
Judge Judge
Aman