MC 1185/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE P.K. MUSAHARY Heard Mr. B.D. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicant. Also heard Mr . K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. M.K. Boro, learned counse l appearing for the writ petitioner. This application has been filed by the applicant/respondent No. 6 for striking o ut his name from the array of parties inasmuch as there is no such grievance aga inst him although allegation has been brought against him as the President of th e Managing Committee of the school concerned. Mr. K.K. Mahanta, learned senior counsel submits that since the applicant has fi led this application it has amounted to contesting the case in the writ petition and it will be proper if he has been made a party respondent in the writ petiti on. The statements made in paragraph 9.4 of the writ petition reflects some allegati on against the present applicant/ respondent No. 6 and in my considered view the applicant as a respondent has to deny or controvert the same. In fact the said allegation has been denied by the applicant in the present misc. case and such s tatement denying the allegation would assist the court in disposing the writ pe tition. From the statements made in the writ petition and the prayer made therei n it appears that no relief has been sought for against the present applicant/ r espondent No. 6. In that view of the matter, there is no necessity of striking out the name of th e present applicant from the array of the respondents in the writ petition. However, since the objection has been made by the applicant, in the interest of justice, he may be treated as proforma respondent without prejudice to the right of the writ petitioner. This misc. application stands disposed of. The Registry shall cause necessary correction in the cause title in respect of t he present applicant as proforma respondent.