IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9273 of 2010 Date of Decision: July 28, 2011 Mrs.Kaushlya Yadav ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana & another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for the State. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. In an additional response filed to the writ petition, the respondents have disclosed that earlier impugned order has been withdrawn and a fresh order has been passed by the competent authority, a copy of which is annexed with the additional reply as Annexure R-1. The counsel for the petitioner would have to impugn this order. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner prays for time to amend the writ petition. In my considered opinion, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to file a fresh petition as this is not only a fresh cause, but the impugned order would have to be challenged entirely on different grounds. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to challenge the fresh impugned order, copy of which is already on record. July 28, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE