AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
10 paragraphs · 209 wordsMr. Pramath Patnaik, J.—I.A. No. 1909 of 2016
This interlocutory application has been filed for amendment of the prayer made in the writ application.
It has been submitted that due to inadvertence, the petitioner could not specify for quashing of order dated 02.06.2013 (Annexure-7) in the prayer portion of the main writ application and the same needs to be challenged in the instant writ application.
It appears that the amendment, sought for, in the interlocutory application is formal in nature and it will not change the nature and character of the main writ application.
Mr. Rakesh Kumar Shahi, learned J.C. to A.A.G. appearing for the Respondent-State has no serious objection if the amendment, sought for, in the interlocutory application is allowed.
Accordingly, the prayer made in the interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 1909 of 2016 stands allowed and the interlocutory application shall be treated as part of the main writ application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to incorporate the amended prayer in the writ application within a week''s time.
Learned counsel for the Respondent-State may file counter affidavit to the amended writ application, if he so chooses.
W.P. (S) No. 6772 of 2007
Put up the matter after ''Summer Vacation.