Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/27413/2007 27/ 27 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 27413 of 2007
For
Approval and Signature:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
=====================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To
be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=====================================================
DASHRATHBHAI
AMBALAL PATEL & OTHERS
Versus
PRIYALAXMI
CO-OPERATIVE ESTATE LTD. & OTHERS
=====================================================
Appearance :
Mr.P.C.Kavina,learned
advocate, for MR TATTVAM K PATEL for
Petitioners.
Mr.Y.N.Oza,learned senior advocate, with Mr.Rutvij
M.Bhatt for respondent No.1
Mr.Jaswant
K.Shah,learned Assistant Government Pleader for Respondents Nos.2 and
4.
MR HS MUNSHAW,learned advocate, and Mr.K.R.Patel for Respondent
No.3.
=====================================================
CORAM
:
HON'BLE
SMT. JUSTICE ABHILASHA KUMARI
Date
: 03/07/2008
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. Mr.Rutvij
M.Bhatt, learned advocate, waives service of notice of rule for the
respondent No.1, Mr.Jaswant K.Shah,learned
Assistant Government Pleader, waives service of notice of rule for
the respondents Nos.2 and 4 and Mr.H.S.Munshaw, learned advocate,
waives service of notice of rule for the respondent No.3. In the
facts and circumstances of the case, and with the consent of the
learned counsel for the respective parties, the petition is taken up
for final disposal today.
2. This
petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has
been filed with a prayer to issue a writ of certiorari or any other
writ or order, quashing and setting aside the order dated 29-9-2007
passed by the Chief Secretary (Appeals), Revenue Department whereby,
the order dated 14-6-2007 passed by the Collector,Ahmedabad has been
upheld.
3. The
brief facts of the case, as emerging from a perusal of the averments
made in the petition, are that the land bearing Survey No.201 of
village Ranip (hereinafter referred to as ?Sthe said land??)
originally belonged to Mangaji Mathurji and Kalaji Mathurji, who were
the predecessors-in-title of the present petitioners. In the year
1996, the Chairman of the then proposed respondent No.1-Society,
filed a Civil Suit against the predecessors-in-title of the
petitioners, on the ground that Mangaji Mathurji and others had
executed an agreement for sale for the said land, in favour of the
proposed Laxmi Industrial Co-operative Society, which was
subsequently converted into Priyalaxmi Co-operative Estate Ltd.
(respondent No.1). An application for temporary injunction had also
been filed alongwith the Civil Suit, vide Exh.5. It is averred that
this application for injunction was dismissed by the trial court on
31-5-1997. Thereafter, the Chairman of the respondent No.1 filed
Civil Misc.Appeal No.106 of 1997 before the District Court, which
came to be withdrawn. According to the averments made in the
petition, these proceedings have now obtained finality. It is further
stated in the petition that the Chairman of the respondent No.1 again
preferred an application for injunction on 17-8-2001 vide Exh.61,
wherein a direction was sought against the defendants i.e. the
predecessors-in-title of the present petitioners, against the
transfer of the said land as well as construction thereupon. This
application was partly allowed, vide order dated 4-2-2003,whereby the
trial court directed the maintenance of status quo during the
pendency of the suit. It is further stated in the petition, that the
predecessors-in-title of the present petitioners preferred an Appeal
From Order No.304 of 2003 before the High Court, which was allowed by
order dated 2-12-2003. Against the order dated 2-12-2003 of this
Court, the Chairman of the respondent No.1 filed a petition for
Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.307 and 308 of 2004 before the
Supreme Court, which came to be dismissed by order dated 19-1-2004, a
copy of which is annexed as Annexure ?SC?? to the petition. It
further transpires from a reading of the averments made in the
petition, that the predecessors-in-title of the petitioners sold the
said land to the present petitioners Nos.1 to 5 by registered sale
deed dated 16-6-2004. Thereafter, the petitioner No.6 purchased the
land from petitioners Nos.1 to 5 by two separate, registered sale
deeds, dated 8-9-2006 and 20-9-2006, annexed as Annexure ?SD??
collectively to the petition.
4. It
is the case of the petitioners that on 18-5-2002, the revised Town
Planning Scheme was sanctioned by the State Government and the said
land was included in the residential zone (Type I) as per the zoning
certificate, a copy of which is annexed as Annexure ?SE?? to the
petition. It is further averred, that the petitioners made an
application for the grant of Development Permission to the Ahmedabad
Urban Development Authority (?Sthe AUDA?? for short) and paid
development charges amounting to Rs.38,525/- to the said authority on
24-5-2006, as also betterment and other charges, to the tune of
Rs.7,53,015/- on 15-6-2006. It further transpires that the AUDA
(respondent No.3) intimated the petitioner No.6, vide communication
dated 17-6-2006, that the Development Permission, as sought by him,
has been principally granted and the order will be released upon the
production of Non-Agricultural use permission (?SNA permission??
for short). A copy of the communication dated 17? 6-2006 of the
respondent No.3 is annexed as Annexure ?SF?? to the petition. The
petitioners, thereafter made an application dated 20-6-2006 for
conversion of the said land for Non-Agricultural use before the
Collector, Ahmedabad (respondent No.4). According to the petitioners,
this application was not decided within the stipulated period of
three months by the respondent No.4 and as per the provisions of
Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code,1879 (?Sthe Code?? for
short), the said permission is deemed to have been granted.
Ultimately, the Collector decided the application by order dated
8-12-2006. The application of the petitioners was rejected on the
ground of pendency of Civil Suit No.235 of 2001, in respect of the
land in question, as well as pendency of R.T.S. Appeal No.79 of
2006.It is averred in the petition, that the petitioners filed a
revision application against this order of the Collector, which was
registered as Revision Application No.14 of 2006, which came to be
partly-allowed, vide order dated 4-4-2007, and the Collector was
directed to decide the application of the petitioners for grant of
NA permission, afresh.
5. It
further transpires from the statements made in the petition that,
after the receipt of the communication dated 17-6-2006 of the
respondent No.3, intimating the petitioner No.6 that Development
Permission has been granted but the order will be released on
production of the NA permission, the petitioners had started
construction upon the land in question, according to the sanctioned
plan. It further transpires that, in the meantime, the respondent
No.3, vide order dated 29-5-2007, annexed as Annexure ?SK?? to the
petition, rejected the application of the petitioners for the grant
of Development Permission, on the ground that construction has been
carried out without any formal order according Development
Permission. It is averred that, upon the remand of the matter
regarding the NA permission by the State Government to the
Collector, the application for grant of NA permission has been
rejected by the Collector by order dated 14-6-2007, on the sole
ground that Civil Suit No.235 of 2001 is pending. A copy of the order
dated 14-6-2007 is annexed as Annexure ?SL?? to the petition. The
petitioner filed a Revision Application against the above-stated
order, which has been dismissed by the respondent No.2 by order dated
29-9-2007, whereby the order dated 14-6-2007 of the respondent No.4
has been upheld. Being aggrieved by the rejection of the Revision
Application, the petitioners have approached this Court, by filing
the present petition.
6. Mr.P.C.Kavina
for Mr. Tattvam K.Patel, learned counsel for
the petitioners, has made the following submissions:
(a) That
the petitioners had filed an application for grant of NA permission
on 20-6-2006 before the respondent No.4 and as per the provisions of
Section 65 of the Code, the application is deemed to have been
granted, since there is no decision within 90 days of the filing of
the same. It is contended, that the order of rejection of the said
application was passed only on 8-12-2006 i.e. after a period of six
months, instead of three months, and, therefore, the application is
deemed to have been granted and the permission accorded.
(b) That,
in any case, even though the petitioners had made an application for
the grant of NA permission, the said permission is not required, in
view of the provisions of Section 488 of the Bombay Provincial
Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 and the petitioners are only
required to pay the altered assessment, which the petitioners are
ready to pay. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, that the land in question is situated in village Ranip
and all the lands of the said village are now included within the
limits of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, by Notification dated
20-7-2006 of the State Government and, therefore, NA permission in
respect of the land in question, is not necessary. It is further
elaborated by Mr.P.C.Kavina, that the land in question has now been
included in the Town Planning Scheme No.67 and in lieu of Revenue
Survey No.201, Final Plot No.112 is allotted and in view of the
inclusion of the said land in the residential zone, it is obvious
that the land can no longer be used for agricultural purposes and in
this view of the matter as well, the NA permission is not required,
as the construction carried out by the petitioners is for residential
purposes alone.
(c
) It is strongly urged by Mr.P.C.Kavina that the rejection of the NA
permission by the respondent No.4 is not in consonance with the
provisions of Section 65 of the Code, or the Circulars of the State
Government, issued from time to time. It is submitted that as per
Government Circular dated 15-11-2001 only three aspects are to be
verified for the grant of NA use permission in case the land is
situated in the Municipal limit i.e. (i) whether there is any breach
of road line control, (ii) whether the land is acquired by the State
and, (iii) whether the land is vested in the State Government under
the provisions of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act,
1976. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the NA
permission cannot be refused on any other ground,if these three
questions are answered in the negative and,therefore, the refusal of
the said permission, is not sustainable in law. Referring to order
dated 2-8-2005 of this Court rendered in Special Civil Application
No.7354 of 2005(Bankim Bipinbhai Desai v. State of Gujarat), the
learned counsel for the petitioners has contended, that the Division
Bench of the High Court has also taken a view that the Collector
cannot revise the NA permission on any other ground, other than the
grounds, stated in Circular dated 15-11-2001. It is strongly urged
by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Collector could
not have refused NA permission solely on the ground of pendency of
the Civil Suit, in view of the said decision of the High Court and,
even otherwise there is no circular of the State Government which
lays down that the NA permission ought to be rejected on the ground
of pendency of a Civil Suit and nor is such a stipulation to be
found in the provisions of Section 65 of the Code.
(d) That
even though the Collector has rejected the application of the
petitioners for grant of NA permission on the ground of pendency of
Civil Suit No.235 of 2001, he has lost sight of the fact that the
order dated 2-12-2003 of the High Court, whereby the appeal of the
petitioners against the grant of status quo, upon the application for
injunction vide Exh.61 filed by the Chairman of the respondent No.1,
has been allowed by the High Court and the SLP filed by the Chairman
of the respondent No.1 against the order dated 2-12-2003 of the High
Court, has been dismissed. In effect, the dismissal of the
application for injunction against the predecessors-in-title of the
petitioners has been upheld, upto the Apex Court. It is forcefully
argued that in view of the dismissal of the SLP filed by the Chairman
of the respondent No.1, the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit,
which has been taken by the Collector, is neither germane nor is it
in accordance with law or any circular of the State Government.
7. On
the strength of the above submissions, it has been submitted by
Mr.P.C.Kavina that the impugned orders be set aside, and the petition
be allowed.
8. Mr.Y.N.Oza,learned
senior counsel with Mr.Rutvij M.Bhatt,learned counsel for respondent
No.1, has submitted as under :
(a) That
the development permission granted by the respondent No.3 to the
petitioners, vide communication dated 17-6-2006, is subject to the
grant of NA permission under Section 65 of the Code and when the
Collector exercises power under the provisions of Section 65, he is
empowered to cancel or modify the plan sanctioned by the respondent
No.3 (AUDA) and the respondent No.3 is bound by the order of the
Collector passed under Section 65 of the Code.
(b)
It is submitted that the Collector is empowered to decide whether to
grant or not to grant NA permission and, in the case of the
petitioners, the said permission has rightly been refused.
(c
) That the petitioners does not deserve to be granted equitable
relief since the order dated 17-6-2006 of the respondent No.2 has
been flouted by them and they have embarked upon illegal
construction, on the land in question and, therefore, the respondent
No.3 (AUDA) has rightly cancelled the Development Permission in
favour of the petitioners, by its order dated 29-5-2007. It is
vehemently contended by the learned senior advocate, that one who
takes the law into his own hands does not deserve relief from this
court and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed.
(d)
It is submitted by Mr.Y.N.Oza, learned senior advocate, that a public
interest litigation, being Special Civil Application No.15596 of 2007
was filed by the son of the Chairman of the respondent No.1 Society,
in which a prayer has been made for the issuance of a writ of
mandamus against the respondents Nos.1,2 and 4 i.e. State of Gujarat,
Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority and the Ahmedabad Municipal
Corporation, for stoppage of illegal construction being carried out
on Survey No.201, Final Plot No.112 T.P.Scheme No.67 of Ranip.
Drawing the attention of this court to the order dated 7-8-2007 of
the Division Bench, passed in the above mentioned petition, it is
urged by the learned senior advocate that the Division Bench had
directed the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Ahmedabad to hold an inquiry and
submit a report regarding the alleged illegal construction and,
although the execution of this order of the Division Bench has been
stayed by the Apex Court, the matter is still pending before the
Division Bench, and in view of the pendency of the same, this Court
may not like to entertain the petition since the illegal
construction mentioned in Special Civil Application No.27413 of 2007
is the same construction, which is being carried out by the
petitioners.
(e) That
the petition suffers from the vice of suppressio veri and suggestio
falsi, inasmuch as the petitioners have filed a false affidavit
before the Urban Land Ceiling Authority that there is no court case
pending,whereas the Civil Suit filed by the Chairman of the
respondent No.1 is still pending, in which the petitioners are the
defendants and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal. It is
submitted that this affidavit has also been submitted to the
respondent No.3, who has taken it into consideration while granting
permission in favour of the petitioners by order dated 17-6-2006 and,
therefore, the petition deserves dismissal on this ground as well.
9. On
the strength of the above submissions, it is strongly contended by
Mr.Y.N.Oza,learned senior advocate for the respondent No.1, that the
petition be dismissed.
10. In
rejoinder, Mr.P.C.Kavina, learned counsel for the petitioners has
clarified that the petitioners have not suppressed any facts which
are material or relevant for the adjudication of the issues that
arise in this petition, and since the affidavit referred to by the
learned senior advocate for the respondent No.1 was made in the
context of the proceedings under the Urban Land (Ceiling and
Regulation) Act, it has to be seen as such, and in that context the
litigation would mean any litigation between the State Government and
the petitioners, and not against any private litigant, and
therefore, there is no suppression,leave alone suppression of any
material fact, and therefore, the petition be allowed.
11. The
respondent no.1 has filed the first affidavit-in-reply dated
23-12-2007 and an additional affidavit-in-reply dated 27-12-2007, and
yet another additional-affidavit-in-reply dated 2-7-2008,which has
been submitted today, by Mr.Rutvij M.Bhatt,learned counsel for the
respondent No.1, and is taken on the record of the case. An
affidavit-in-rejoinder has been filed by the petitioners to the
earlier two affidavits-in-reply filed by the respondent No.1.
12. Mr.Jaswant
K.Shah,learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondents
Nos.2 and 4, has supported the order dated 14-6-2007 of the Collector
and the order dated 29-9-2007, of the State Government and has
submitted that since they do not suffer from any illegality, the same
may be upheld and the petition be dismissed .
13. In
the background of the above-mentioned submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the respective parties, it emerges that the
main question to be decided by this court is regarding the legality,
or otherwise, of the refusal of the Non-Agricultural use permission
by the Collector on the sole ground of pendency of a Civil Suit vide
order dated 14-6-2007, and the confirmation of this order by the
State Government, by order dated 29-9-2007.
14. As
per the provisions of Section 65(1)(b) of the Code, the competent
authority to grant Non-Agricultural use permission, is the District
Collector. The application for grant of NA permission in respect of
the land in question has been rejected by the Collector, vide order
dated 14-6-2007, solely on the ground of pendency of Civil Suit
No.235 of 2001. The provisions of Section 65 of the Code make it
clear that the Collector, upon receipt of an application for N.A.
Permission, (a) shall send to the applicant a written acknowledgment
of its receipt, and (b) may, after due inquiry, either grant or
refuse the permission applied for. There is no stipulation in Section
65 to the effect that the N.A, permission can be refused, on account
of pendency of a Civil Suit. The order dated 29-9-2007 of the State
Government, whereby the order of the Collector dated 14-6-2007 has
been upheld, also does not throw much light upon this aspect i.e. the
reason why the non-agricultural use permission can be refused on
the ground of pendency of the Civil Suit. Since the conditions
under which NA permission can be granted or refused have not been
enumerated in Section 65, and in order to ascertain whether the State
Government has issued executive instructions in this regard, and, in
order to effectively adjudicate upon the question in issue, the
Collector, Ahmedabad,who was joined as respondent No.4 to the
petition, by order dated 21-2-2008 of this Court, was directed to
file an affidavit, detailing what are the conditions under which NA
permission can be granted or refused, and to produce on record the
relevant orders/instructions in this regard. Pursuant to order dated
21-2-2008 of this court, the Collector, Ahmedabad (respondent No.4)
filed an affidavit dated 27-3-2008,wherein certain averments have
been made, on internal page 10 of the affidavit, which are reproduced
below:
?SI
say that in addition to the aforesaid requirements, the competent
authority is required to ascertain and satisfy himself as to whether:
any
proceedings are pending in a Civil Court?
Any
order of injunction/stay granted by any competent Civil Court is
operating?
Any
charge created in favour of any private person or financial
institution is shown in the revenue Record?
Any
proceedings for breech of condition in respect of the land in
question are pending?
I
say that these enquiries are required to be made before NA Permission
is granted, in order to avoid any complications taking place in
future.??
15. After
perusing the above-quoted averments made in the affidavit dated
27-3-2008 of the respondent No.4, this Court, vide order dated
9-5-2008 requested the learned Assistant Government Pleader to
clarify whether the points, which have been enumerated regarding the
pendency of a Civil Suit, are supported by any Government Resolution
or Circular and, further, to clarify whether the pendency of a Civil
Suit debars an applicant from being granted non-agricultural use
permission. In compliance of the order dated 9-5-2008 the respondent
No.4 filed a further-affidavit dated 20-6-2008. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of
this affidavit are relevant and are quoted herein-below:
?S3.
In view of the above directions, I say and submit that as far as the
ascertaining or satisfying about the pendency of the civil suit and
other aspects are mentioned at page 129 is not based on any
Government Resolutions or Circulars,but the same is based on the
power vested with the authority under the Act as per Section 65 of
the Bombay Land Revenue Code and to prevent any kind of multiplicity
of proceedings by way of sound practice. All these aspects as
mentioned in page No.129 is taken into consideration while examining
every applications of NA Permission and it is also made a part of NA
Permission Form by which, the applicant is directed to produce 19
documents and the same are referred at Item No.14 of the NA
Permission Form. Copy of the NA Permission Form is annexed hereto and
is marked as Annexure-I to this further affidavit.
4. It
is further submitted that as far as the aspect that whether the
pendency of Civil Suit debars an applicant from being granted Non
Agricultural use permission, I say and submit that there is no
straight jacket formula or the guidelines, the same is required to be
seen case by case and appropriate decision is required to be taken
after considering the effect and pendency of any proceedings of
Suit.??
16. From
the above-quoted averments it transpires that the refusal of NA
permission on the ground of pendency of a Civil Suit is not based on
any Government Resolution or Circular but, according to the
respondent No.4, is based on the power vested with the authority
under the Act as per Section 65 of the Code, in order to prevent any
kind of multiplicity of proceedings and by way of sound practice.
According to the respondent No.4, there is no straight-jacket formula
or guidelines which bar an applicant from being granted NA
permission on the ground of pendency of a Civil Suit and the same is
required to be seen case by case, and appropriate decision
is required to be taken after considering the effect and pendency of
any proceedings of the Suit.
17. If
the case of the petitioners is considered in the light of the
averments made in the affidavit dated 20-6-2008 of the respondent
No.4, it has to be taken into consideration that in Civil Suit No.235
of 2001, the injunction sought by the Chairman of the respondent No.1
against the petitioners has been refused, and the refusal of the
injunction has been upheld by the High Court as well as by the Apex
Court. In the light of the fact that the Apex Court has upheld the
refusal of the injunction against the petitioners, it cannot be
disputed that there can be no further multiplicity of proceedings,
beyond the level of the Apex Court, which is the highest Court of the
land.
18. The
State Government, in the impugned order dated 29-9-2007 has taken
note of the factual position as per the record. Admittedly, under the
provisions of Section 211 of the Code, the State Government is
empowered to call for the record in respect of proceedings before it
and to examine the same.The pendency of Civil Suit No.235 of 2001 has
been taken note of, as well as the refusal of the development
permission by respondent No.3 in favour of the petitioners. Moreover,
it has been noticed that the petitioners have carried on construction
upon the land in question without there being valid non-agricultural
use permission, in their favour. On the above grounds, the State
Government has upheld the order of the Collector, whereby the NA
permission has been refused only on the ground of pendency of the
Civil Suit. A perusal of the order dated 29-9-2007 of the State
Government reveals, that no convincing or cogent reasons have been
assigned for upholding the finding of the Collector that NA
permission is required to be refused on the ground of pendency of the
Civil Suit. Merely, by stating that the order of the Collector is
just and proper and does not require interference, will not answer
the question whether the Collector, who is the competent authority
under the provisions of Section 65 of the Code, can legally refuse to
grant NA permission on the ground of pendency of a Civil Suit. The
rejection of the application for NA permission on the ground of
pendency of the Civil Suit, has to be viewed in the background of the
fact that the application for injunction against the petitioners
filed in the said Civil Suit has been refused and the refusal has
been upheld upto the Supreme Court.
19. Moreover,
the express provisions of Section 65(1)(b) of the Code do not
enumerate the conditions under which NA permission can be granted or
refused, and a perusal of both these affidavits dated 27-3-2008 and
20-6-2008, make it evident that there are no executive instructions
or circulars of the State Government to the effect that NA
permission should be refused on the ground of pendency of a Civil
Suit. Even if the averments made in the affidavit by the respondent
No.4 to the effect that, power under Section 65 has to be used to
prevent multiplicity of proceedings, and there is no
straight-jacket formula or guidelines for refusal of NA permission
but, the same is required to be seen case by case,is taken at its
face value, it transpires that the culmination of the litigation
regarding the injunction against the petitioners in the Civil Suit,
has reached upto the Supreme Court, and matter has ended there.
20. In
the background of the above facts and circumstances, I am not
inclined to go into any other question or deal with any other
submission of the learned counsel for the respective parties except
regarding the legality and validity of the order dated 14-6-2007 of
the respondent No.4 as confirmed by order dated 29-9-2007 of the
respondent No.2.
21.
It is relevant to note that the only reason assigned by the
respondent No.4 for refusal of NA permission, is the pendency of the
Civil Suit. No reason has been assigned why such pendency precludes
the grant of NA permission in the case of the petitioners. Similarly,
no provision of law or any executive instructions/circulars of the
State Government have been pointed out, to support this view. The
respondent No.2 vide order dated 29-9-2007, has also not given any
reason for upholding the order of the respondent No.4 on this ground.
The other aspects gone into by the respondent No.2 in the impugned
order are not the reasons for which NA permission has been refused by
the respondent No.4. The crux of the matter, i.e. the legality and
validity of the order dated 14-6-2007 of the Collector, regarding
rejection of the NA permission on the ground of pendency of the
Civil Suit, has not been supported by giving any cogent reasons,
either factual or legal.
22. I
have given serious and thoughtful consideration to the issue that
arises for adjudication, in this petition. In the light of the
factual and legal situation discussed hereinabove, in my considered
view, the matter deserves to be remanded to the respondent No.4, to
decide afresh, in accordance with law.
23. For
the afore-stated reasons, the order dated 29-9-2007 of the respondent
No.2, and order dated 14-6-2007 of the respondent No.4, are quashed
and set aside. The matter is remanded to the respondent No.4, to
decide afresh in accordance with law. While deciding the matter, the
respondent No.4 shall keep in mind the reasons for remand, as stated
in this order, the provisions of Section 65 of the Code, as well as
the relevant Government circulars/executive instructions.
24. The
petition is, therefore, partly allowed. Rule is made absolute to the
above extent. There shall be no orders as to costs.
(Smt.Abhilasha Kumari,J)
arg
Top