CH.. IJAZ AHMAD, J.--- The applicant has challenged the vires of the order dated 30.12.1999 in a Constitution Petition No. 1075/2000 and by typographically mistake the word impugned notice was held in abeyance in the last para of the judgment. Legal Advisor of the respondents submits that there is no typographic mistake in the judgment of this Court as the applicant has also challenged the vires of the demand notice.
2. 1 have gone through the judgment dated 3.3.2000 in which writ petition was dismissed only on the ground that the applicant has alternative remedy to agitate the matter before the Appellate Authority. In this view of the matter it appears that the impugned notice was mentioned in the last para of the judgment is a typographically mistake. Therefore, same is modified to the extent that the impugned notice be substituted with the order dated 23.12.1998. C.M. Disposed of.