1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAHJ.-These two appeals through special leave arose out of acceptance by the High Court of Baluchistan of the plea of the contesting respondents that they were entitled to admission to the M. B., B. S. 1st Year Class of the Bolan Medical College. Leave was granted to consider the questions: That High Court should not have exercised its Constitutional jurisdiction in favour of the contesting respondents: that the writ petitions should have been dismissed in proper exercise of its discretion in the "larger interest of the other contesting students", and that the High court had no jurisdiction to direct the appellants to admit the contesting respondents because "by allowing their writ petitions not only two deserving candidates have been denied admission to the Bolan Medical College, but the seats to which Imtiaz Bashir and Miss Farida Naz were given admission in Nishter Medical College, would be wasted to the great prejudice of the other reserving candidates".
2. At the time of hearing the appeals, learned counsel for the contesting respondents (Imtiaz Bashir and Miss Farida Naz) raised a preliminary point, namely that the deserving candidates, who seemed to have been prejudiced by the impugned judgment of the High Court. Are no more interested in seeking admission on the seats given to the respondents and that they have already been adjusted elsewhere. Learned Assistant Advocate-General Punjab, who appeared on behalf of the appellants, sought time to get instructions on this factual aspect. Instead of adjourning the appeals, after hearing both the sides, the judgment was reserved with direction to the Assistant Advocate-General to submit, in the meanwhile, the reply or. The aforesaid aspect of the case. He submitted in writing on 20-2-1980 that although he had "obtained the information orally" yet he was "checking and so far information in writing has not been received".
3. It is apparent from the office note dated 4-6-1980 that all efforts to obtain the relevant information have failed. No useful purpose would be served by postponing the matter any further. The point raised by the learned counsel for the contesting respondents seems to be based on facts. The legal question regarding `exercise of discretion' is being considered in other similar appeal filed by the appellants. Its discussion in these appeals would only be an academic exercise. We, accordingly, in the circum--stances stated above, dismiss these appeals. There shall be no order as to costs.