1. This appeal is by the aggrieved Writ Petitioners in W.P.No.17580/2006 which petition was short circuited by a overzealous government and its counsel, resulting in the following order by the learned Single Judge:

“The learned Government Advocate submitted that the order dated 12.08.2006 by virtue of which the impugned notification dated 17.11.2006 in this writ petition has been withdrawn. The notification dated 12.08.2006 has superceded the earlier notification. TYhere4fore, this writ petition does not survive for consideration.

The writ petition being infructuous, is accordingly dismissed.”

The appellants have questioned not only the legality of the ordr4 passed by the learned Single Judge but also the method and manner in which the order has been brought into existence.

2. Appeal has not only generated considerable debate and leading to heated arguments many a times as the impugned orders obtained by the State by recourse to sharp practices for getting the writ petition dismissed as having become infructuous.

3. Appellants had, by filing the Writ Petition questioned the legality of a Government Notification dated 17.11.2006 issued by the State Government through the