CWP No. 1038/2007 3.9.2008 Present: Petitioner in person. Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate, for respondent No. 1. Mr. K.D. Sood, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 3. Mr. K.B.Khajuria, Advocate, vice counsel for respondent No. 4. We have heard the petitioner for quite some time. His grievance is that the State Information Commission is not properly constituted, inasmuch as the alleged notification dated 4th February, 2006 regarding constitution of the said Commission was not published in the State Gazette. In fact, in the writ petition his allegation is that the notification constituting the Commission was not issued at all and, therefore, appointments of Chief Information Commissioner and the State Information Commissioner are bad and liable to be quashed by issuance of writ of quo warranto. We find from the record that in fact notification constituting the Commission was issued on 4th February, 2006 but the Deputy Controller, Printing Press to whom a copy was endorsed for publishing the same in the official gazette did not publish it. Also, we find from the record that earlier also the writ petitioner had filed a writ petition, being CWP No. 866 of 2006, in which he challenged the notification of constitution of Commission on the ground that the Commission constituted was One Man Body, whereas according to the provisions of CWP No. 1038/2007 Section 15(2) of the Right to Information Act, it was supposed to be two or more members body. That writ petition was allowed by this Court vide order dated 17.5.2007. It was after the passing of the judgment dated 17.5.2007, that the present writ petition was filed. On having been told by the Court that he was supposed to have challenged the constitution of the Commission on account of non-publication of the notification dated 4.2.2006, in the official gazette, in the earlier writ petition No. 866 of 2006 and that his having not done so amounts in law to his having raised such a plea and the same having been rejected by the Court, the petitioner says that he may be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition. We allow his prayer for withdrawal of the present writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed as withdrawn. In view of the dismissal of the main petition, the pending applications are also dismissed, as having become infructuous. (R.B. Misra), J. September 3rd, 2008(vs) (Surjit Singh), J.