WP(C) 6078/2002 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY None appears for the petitioner when the case is called. Mr. C. Barua, learned Central Govt. Counsel points out that the writ petitioner challenged a notice under Section 3(2) of the Assam Requisition and Contral of V ehicle Act, 1968, whereby direction was issued for production of the petitioner’ s vehicle bearing Registration No. AMY 552, for army duty on 28.9.02 and that by an interim order passed on 24.9.02, this Court directed immediate release of th e said vehicle. Accordingly, Mr. Barua submits that the petitioner has already o btained relief in the matter on the strength of the Court’s interim order. Be that as it may, considering the absence of the counsels appearing for the pet itioner, the case is dismissed for default instead of on merit.