IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5851 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 18, 2009 Kamaldeep & Another .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & Others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for the petitioners. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for yet another adjournment. I find that the matter was filed and was got fixed for hearing on 21.4.2009 at the first instance. The petition itself was filed without giving advance notice to the respondents. Specific prayer has been made in the prayer clause for dispensing with service of advance notice. On 20.4.2009, the matter was adjourned, on request of learned counsel for the petitioners, to 21.4.2009, and again to 30.4.2009 CWP No.5851 of 2009 [2] and to 22.5.2009 on which date, none appeared for the petitioners. Even today, arguments are not being addressed and an adjournment has been sought. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners states that he wants to withdraw the petition with liberty to file a fresh petition while giving complete particulars and laying proper foundation to show that the petitioners have a right to invoke extraordinary writ jurisdiction. Dismissed as withdrawn, however, subject to Rs.2000/- as costs to be deposited with Lawyers’ Welfare Fund. Fresh petition would be entertained only on the receipt of deposit of costs. (AJAI LAMBA) December 18, 2009 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?