Order The petitioner prays to quash an order, as contained in memo No. 722 dated 27th February, 1989 (Annexure-1) communicating to him through Respondent no. 6 certain orders passed by Respondent no. 2. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a similar order bad come for consideration before a Division Bench, consisting of one of us (B.K. Roy, J.) in C.W.J.C. No. 2348 of 1989, disposed of on 28.4.1989 and was quashed on the ground of it having been issued in violation of the principle of natural justice, giving liberty to the Corporation to proceed in accordance with law. 3. Mr. Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, prays to adjourn this case to ascertain the present position but when we indicated that in view of the fact that this matter is pending since long, and that adjournments was earlier granted to him and, thus, it will not be possible for us to give adjournment any further, he submits to this effect. The decision in C.W.J.C. No. 2348 of 1989 will not be applicable to this case, inasmuch as that facts 6re different, besides the petitioner is not entitled to the reliefs claimed for by him on account of his deliberate laches. 4. On the last date when this matter was heard earlier, this Court directed the production of the record of C.W.J.C. No. 2348 of 1989 before us. 5. Having perused the record of C.W.J.C. No. 2348/89, we are of the view that the petitioner is entitled to the same direction which this Court had made earlier. 6. Coming to the deliberate laches we find that the petitioner had made a representation before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of this Court as early as on 17.4.90 which has sent to the Legal Aid Section. Thereafter the petitioner was asked to submit all relevant papers for consideration by the Legal Aid Section and this writ application was filed. 7. It also appears that the earlier learned counsel through whom this application was filed, later on joined judicial service and there• after, the petitioner was informed of that fact and Shri Arvind Ujjwal was engaged. 8. It is also stated that a S.L.P. was preferred by the respondents against the order dated 28.4.89 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2348 of 1989, but was .dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. 8. It is also stated that a S.L.P. was preferred by the respondents against the order dated 28.4.89 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2348 of 1989, but was .dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 9. No counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents is regard to the laches furnished by the petitioner. 10. We, thus, do not want to throw out this application merely on account of the laches. 11. For the reasons stated above, taking into account the ratio laid down in C.W.J.C. No. 2348 of 1989 we also quash the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-1, leaving it open for the Corporation to proceed further against the petitioner in accordance with law. 12. Let a copy of this order be handed over to the Legal Aid Board.