Summary:
He (Mishra) submits that he had intimated respondents about advancing of this matter. Under this misconception, we passed the order on August 13 that the registrar and secretary were not responding to our notices. It’s not possible for us to digest this for the reason that the petitioner is appearing before this court in person for so many years. We feel that he is conversant with the procedures, more than lawyers appearing in HC,” the judges tersely stated.“We put specific question to the petitioner on whether he informed the HC that he got the matter advanced, although notice was made returnable on September 4. In view of the factual position, we dismiss the writ petition,” the judges ruled.While directing registry not to implement the August 13 order, the judges noted that there was no occasion for Mishra to get the matter advanced without giving notice to the other side..