Prior to the impugned order dated 19 4 1994 made by Justice Kanakaraj of the Madras High Court holding that the writ petition was maintainable, earlier the same morning at 8 30 a.m. the appellant Respondent No.
9612 of 1994 were filed by one Ponnusami, Respondent No.
4167 of 1994 and writ Miscellaneous Petition No.
1 herein challenging his appointment as Advocate General.
In that writ petition, a preliminary objection was raised to the maintainability of the writ petition.
Writ Petition No.
Leave granted.
The appellant was Advocate General of the State of Tamil Nadu.
Heard.
The submission made by Shri Venugopal, learned Counsel for the appellant is, that having held that the writ petition was maintainable there was numberoccasion to make any observations on the merits of the allegations companytained in the writ petition without any enquiry there into, or a hearing given to the parties on the merits.
