WA 69/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B. LOKUR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AK GOSWAMI Learned counsel says that all the respondents have been served. As such, service is complete. The challenge in this appeal is to an order dated 4.12.2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in a batch of cases. We are told that in respect of some of the writ petitions disposed by the learne d Single Judge on 4.12.2009, a writ appeal being WA No.138/2010 was filed. That writ appeal was disposed by a Division Bench by an order dated 30.4.2010. The sum and substance of the order dated 30.4.2010 passed by the Division Bench in WA No.138/2010 was to remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge for r e-consideration after providing an opportunity to the appellant to file a reply to the writ petition. It appears that in this case also, the appellant was not given any opportunity t o file a reply and that grievance is raised in this appeal by learned counsel fo r the appellant. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the correc t factual position is that no opportunity was given to the appellant to file a c ounter affidavit in the writ petition. Under these circumstances, following the order passed in WA 138/2010 and other c onnected cases, we set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 4.1 2.2009 and remit the matter back to the learned Single Judge for providing an op portunity to the appellant to file a counter affidavit and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. We may note that the connected writ petitions are - WP(C) Nos. 462 to 468 of 201 0. Registry should tag this case along with those connected matters, if those are p ending in the Principal Seat. In case, those matters have already been transferr ed to the Bench at Itanagar, the file of this case will also be transferred to I tanagar. With the above directions and observations, this writ appeal is disposed of.