C.A NOS.              of 2010 @ SLP(C) 24416-17 of 2009 1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 6119-6120 OF 2009 [arising out of SLP(C) No. 24416-24417 of 2009]

   JARULLMIYA ISMAILMIYA MALEK ..... APPELLANT

VERSUS

   VIKRAMBHAI VIJAYBHAI PATEL & ORS. ..... RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. Respondent No. 2 who is the main affected party  

has been served but has not put in appearance.   

3. We  have  heard  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant and respondent Nos. 2 to 4.   

4. We see from the impugned judgment that while the  

matter was pending and being argued before the Division  

Bench,  the  petitioner  before  the  High  Court  who  is  

respondent  No.  1  herein  had  made  a  prayer  for  the

C.A NOS.              of 2010 @ SLP(C) 24416-17 of 2009 2

withdrawal of the writ petition.  This permission had  

been declined for the reasons which we quote herein  

below:

“While  issuing  notice  on  this  petition  returnable  on  25.8.2009,  it  was  made  clear  that  the  notice  was  for  final  disposal.  Yesterday, the final hearing  commenced  and  the  matter  was  substantially  heard,  and  was  adjourned  till today only to permit the petitioner  to  move  an  amendment  which  has  been  granted by a separate order passed today.  Thereafter, the arguments of the learned  counsel  for  the  parties  including  respondent  Nos.  4,  5  and  respondent  6  Cooperative Society were heard yesterday.  The learned Advocate for the petitioner,  under instructions of the petitioner who  is  present  before  the  Court,  makes  a  request  for  permission  to  withdraw  the  petition.  Since several important issues  of  public  interest  arise  in  this  petition, and looking to the particular  circumstances  in  which  the  request  is  made,  we  do  not  grant  the  permission  sought for.”

5. With due respect, we must state that once the  

petitioner before the High Court had made a prayer for  

withdrawal of the writ petition it was not necessary  

for the High Court to have gone into the merits of the  

controversy.  We are, therefore, not called upon to  

opine on the merits of the case but permit respondent  

No. 1 before us to withdraw the writ petition.

6. As  a  natural  consequence  thereof,  the  order  

passed by the High Court will have to be set aside  and  

rendered  nonest  qua  the  parties  herein.   The

C.A NOS.              of 2010 @ SLP(C) 24416-17 of 2009 3

consequential order made by the Registrar, Cooperative  

Societies  dated  30th November,  2009  pursuant  to  the  

order of the High Court shall also be set aside.

7. The  appeals  are  disposed  of  in  the  aforesaid  

terms.  

    ..................J      [HARJIT SINGH BEDI]

    ..................J      [C.K. PRASAD]

NEW DELHI JULY 27, 2010.