IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 139 of 2010 Date of decision: 20.10.2010 Ramesh Chand & others …Petitioners. Versus Secretary, HPPWD & others …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate. For respondents No. 1 to 3: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Additional Advocate General. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, states that the applications filed before the learned trial Court for production of the documents do not give any reasons why these documents are relevant and he may be permitted to withdraw the said applications with the liberty reserved to the petitioners to file fresh application for placing and proving on record the documents attached with the said applications and in the fresh application, he shall 1 Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 give reasons why such documents are relevant and necessary to be proved in the case. 2. A perusal of the applications, Annexure P-4, filed with the petition, shows that no reason whatsoever was given to show why the documents sought to be produced are relevant. 3. In view of the aforesaid statement of Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, he is permitted to withdraw the two applications dated 17.08.2009 and 18.09.2009 and consequently, the order of the learned trial Court, rejecting the applications, is set aside. The petitioners shall be at liberty to file fresh application and the learned trial Court shall consider the fresh application on its merits and decide the same in accordance with law. The petition is disposed of, accordingly. Copy Dasti. (Deepak Gupta) Judge October 20, 2010 (rajni)