1.       Further to the Order dated 20.04.2022, Mr. Bhim Sain, Executive Engineer and Mr. Pardeep Dhull, Executive Engineer are present in person along with the learned counsel for the petitioner corporation. 

2.       During the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner corporation requests for a brief interlude to seek instructions.

After an interlude the learned counsel submits on instructions that, as is evident from paras 9, 10 and 11 of the State Commission’s impugned Order, out of the three issues involved two have been decided in favour of the petitioner corporation and only one has been decided against it. This being a very old case, going back to the year 1999 when the complaint was filed before the District Commission, and considering the matter in its entirety, it has been decided by the petitioner corporation that the residual issue need not be agitated further and the petitioner corporation may accordingly be permitted to withdraw its petition. Mr. Bhim Sain, Executive Engineer and Mr. Pardeep Dhull, Executive Engineer both confirm. 

The learned counsel further submits that instructions to withdraw the case are in the peculiar facts and specificities of this case alone and as such the decision in this case may not be treated as a precedent.      

3.       In the wake of the above submissions, the instant revision petition no. 2051 of 2009 is dismissed as withdrawn. The decision in this case shall not be treated as a precedent.

4.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the petition and to their learned counsel as well as to Mr. Bhim Sain, Executive Engineer and Mr. Pardeep Dhull, Executive Engineer within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.