ORDER:- Special leave granted. Heard counsel for the parties.

2. The High Court has committed a serious error in dismissing the writ petition instituted by the Appellant, though the real contesting party, Respondent No. 2, had not even controverted the averments and allegations made in the Writ Petition, and not even appeared to resist the petition. The real dispute was between the appellant on the one hand and Respondent No. 2 on the other and even so Respondent No. 2 did not care to file an affidavit and even did not care to resist the petition. It is difficult to comprehend how the High Court could have dismissed the Writ Petition of the appellant in these circumstances. As notice was issued on the Special Leave Petition Respondent No. 2 appeared through its counsel and stated that under certain circumstances it could not appear before the High Court and could not file an affidavit and resist the writ petition. We think, for the ends of justice, Respondent No. 2 should be permitted to file an affidavit and to resist the petition if so desired, though as the matter stands the Appellant would be entitled to succeed in view of the fact that there is no affidavit in reply by Resp