ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.
1. In response to the order and direction dated 3-11-2006 passed/issued by this Court calling upon the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondent No. 1 – Government of India to respond to the article capuoned “Medicines out of commoners reach’ published hi Deccan Herald, English News Daily dated 13-7-2006, Sri. Aravind Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General on instructions submits that the proposal for possible amendment to the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1949 (for short the Act’] has not been carried out; that the Act has not been amended so far as was apprehended in the article; that, in fact, in the light of considerable resistance from the various departments of the Government, as indicated in the very article, the meeting itself had not taken place and therefore no decision of the Government was taken for the purpose of amending the Act on the lines indicated in the article.
2. Sri. Muralidharan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that it is a fact as of now neither any such amendment has been carried out to the Act nor is there any pending proposal for such amendment; that the very article and the apprehension mentioned therein possibly could have been the expression on behalf of the concerned sectors in the drug industry, particularly, of the group of generic drug manufacturers and that even otherwise this group or lobby is quite an assertive and influential lobby that can take care of themselves and the very fact that no amendment has been carried out could be an indicator that they were vociferous enough to prevent any such amendment to the Act
3. Sri. Aravind Kumar, Learned Assistant Solicitor General and Sri. Muralidharan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 would agree that while no further enquiry is required to be made in the context of such article, the present writ petition also virtually does not remain for consideration any further, particularly an it is uncertain about the petitioner’s availability who has not prosecuted the petition with any keenness after the initial filing of the petition and with the learned Counsel for the petitioner also not evincing further interest in the hearings of this petition during the past several hearings.
4. Writ petitioner had approached this Court praying for relief complaining that his applications for grant of patent rights had not been dealt with promptly and that the tardy manner in which the applications were processed by the respondents was detrimental not only to the interest of the petitioner but all such entrepreneurs who had come up with inventions and particularly with the opening up of the economy and globalisation unless the authorities regulating and enforcing the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 which came to be amended later, acted with a sense of urgency and efficiency, there will be considerable adverse effects to entrepreneurs and also to the Nation at large. It is in that context, the petition had been examined at length and in the Interregnum, periodic directions had been issued to the respondents to place before the court as to the steps taken by the respondents to streamline and make the patent offices functional on efficient lines.
5. There was response from the respondents as and when such directions were issued and the orders passed in the above writ petition from time to time bear the testimony to such developments some of which read as under:
DVSKJ:
13.12.2002
Learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel far respondents 1,2 and 4 submits that an affidavit sworn to by Sri Woman Manohar Dhumane, Deputy Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, Chennai Branch, Teynampet, Chennai, is filed indicating the progress achieved by the Patent Office at the Jour Centres in India upto November, 2002 with details of applications processed upto the period of November, 2002. Learned Counsel for the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to furnish copies of the affidavit to the learned Counsel far the petitioner and other respondents. Call this matter for farther orders on 7.2.2003.
DVSKJ:
7-2-2003
Sri Dinesh Kumar learned Counsel appealing for the respondents 1 to 4 requests that the matter may be called after one month, with the assurance that the respondents will be able to show some real progress in the matter of disposal of applications received at the Madras Regional Office for registration of Patent rights.
2. A is far the past 1 1/2 years since, this matter is before the Court particularly in the context of the respondents having not shown proper progress in the matter of disposal of the applications and as it was submitted that certain steps were being taken for improving the infrastructure for consideration and disposal of the applications pending at the Patent Office. The case is being adjourned from time to time. The first such order was passed on 31-6-2001.
3. it indicates the sorry state of affairs which prevail at the deferent branches of Patent Offices in the country and the recalcitrant attitude exhibited by the officers at these offices who are all public servants. It is high time that respondents show some real results in the matter which could satisfy this Court, that citizens interest is being protected and safeguarded and not thrown to winds. It is very essential for the Government to protect the interest of entrepreneurs and dynamic persons who come up with new inventions and schemes. It is already made dear that unless such interest of the enterprising persons is protected, it is adverse for the interest of the Country itself
4. Unless the respondents are able to show any real A positive result by the next date of hearing, the matter will be viewed seriously and appropriate directions will be issued
5. Call this matter as requested after four weeks ie. on 7th March 2003.
VSKAJ: 7-3-2003
An affidavit is sworn to by Sri S. Chandrasekaran, Joint Controller of Patents A Designs, Patent Office, Chennai Branch, on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. The learned Counsel for these respondents submit that in this affidavit, ft has been indicated as to the progress achieved by the Patent Office, Chennai Branch and this affidavit also gives certain facts and figures which are sought to be placed on record. It is the submission of the teamed Counsel that these respondents have indicated through the affidavit that there has been substantial progress in the processing of the patent’s applications that have been received at the various Patents Offices in the country as indicated in the statement produced as Annexure ‘ R-1’ to the affidavit A graphical depiction of the output at the patent offices regarding processing the applications is also placed before the Court as Annexure ‘K-1(A) The performance of the Chennai Office is Indicated as per Annexure ‘R-1(B).
2. In so far as the application that had been filed by the petitioner is concerned, a status report is also placed before the Court as per Annexure ‘R-2’. The teamed Counsel for the petitioner disputes the correctness of the status report in so far as these applications are concerned and seeks time to file a counter to this affidavit to place on record the correct facts and position before the Court It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the status report does not give a true reflection of the position of the applications filled by the petitioner; the respondents had unilaterally indicated that some applications have been abandoned, even when the petitioner had not issued any such letter abandoning his application and it is also submitted that in respect of certain applications, the petitioner has not even been notified as to what defects the application suffer from or what compliances are required to be met by the applicant
3. This Court is dealing with the matter for the past about three years and the case is being adjourned after every hearing, only to enable the respondents to indicate that they are achieving commensurate progress to meet the demand of the rush of applications that patents offices receive in the light of the current liberalization policy of trade and economy and encouraging entrepreneurs of our country to compete globally.
4. it is to satisfy the Court about the appropriate measures taken by the respondents to ensure that applications filed for registration of patent rights are dealt with, within the time frame permitted by the statute and as expeditiously as possible, so that the applicants who are entrepreneurs in this Country are not placed at a disadvantage vis a vis entrepreneurs elsewhere in other parts of the world and that the interest of our country does not suffer only due to the lethargy and the manner in which the applications are processed by the patent authorities who are statutorily given such power to process and grant patent rights in our country that the hearing is being adjourned from time to time.
5. Unfortunately, the affidavit fled is vague and the submission that is made on behalf of the respondent has not satisfied this Court as to any such genuine effort that has been made nor as to the fact that the patent offices are now equipped and set up in such a manner that they are in a position to cope with the present requirements and demand, It still reflects a very sorry state of affairs with vast number of applications languishing at the various patents offices. Various explanations are sought to be given, such as that there is a spurt of such applications that are being received by them and that the patent offices were themselves either not equipped with sufficient machinery or necessary techniques and that the process of streamlining patent offices cannot be done overnight and it is a long drawn process involving finance, recruiting qualified manpower and equipping the patent offices with technical gadgets etc.,. These are all aspects which are to be taken care of by the Government and it is the responsibility of the State to ensure that the rights of the citizens are not negated due to the inefficiency of the system or the Government. It is not an answer to say that particular offices either do not have sufficient manpower or are not equipped and it is due to this reason that desired results are not forthcoming. It is a matter which has to be corrected by the respondents and the Government and it is high time that they set their house in order.
6. When this Court examines a petition brought before the Court by a citizen complaining that his rights are being denied by the inaction on the part of the State, it is for the State to come up with a satisfactory answer. It is only after looking into the realities of the situation and the various aspects involved, this Court had hesitated and it refrained from issuing a writ of mandamus so far. Once a writ of mandamus is issued and the writ is not obeyed, the respondents run the risk of exposing themselves to further legal proceedings. This Court is aware that merely allowing the petition and issuing a writ of mandamus in itself is not the remedy.
7. However the respondents an given time to pull up their socks and come up with positive results and show progress in the matter of processing such applications by the patent offices. While the affidavit filed on behalf of respondents is received on record today, it definitely does not answer the questions which the respondents were required to answer. Call after four weeks ie. on 4 April 2003 for further hearing in the matter.’
DVSKJ:
4.4.2003
Though the matter is heard on several occasions and various statements and affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respondents, particularly in the tight of the affidavit that was filed on the last occasion sworn to by Sri Chandrasekaran, Joint Controller of Patents A Designs, Patent office, Chennai Branch, which had indicated the present performance level of the Patent Offices and had also Indicated about the status of the various applications filed by the writ petitioner, the true and correct facts are still not before the Court and the respondents have not revealed as to what is the actual results they are producing as of now. It is the very material to apprise this Court as to how the so called increase of the man power and the equipment at the patent office in the Country and the up-gradation of the system has resulted in a better out put, particularly indicate the number of applications in respect of which the patent rights are granted. This information is not forthcoming in any of the earner affidavits or statements.
2. The learned Counsel Jar the petitioner also seeks some time to file the petitioner’s counter in so far as the affidavit explains the status of the various applications of the writ petitioner.
3. While it is the stand of the respondents that as many as five applications have virtually attained the status of abandonment, this version is disputed and sought to be countered by the petitioner on the premise that the petitioner had not received proper communication in respect of all his applications The teamed Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not come up with a counter affidavit to this as on today, as the learned Counsel was unable to meet his client due to some bereavement in the family and as such his client was not available to him and requests time to file counter an behalf of the petitioner.
4. Sri Muralidharan, learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent seeks time to place on record the suggestions as to in what manner such abandoned applications can be revived. The learned Counsel submits that such abandonment should not be construed as good for all times, but avenues should be left open to the applicants for revival of the same far the un- expired duration of the patent period, if it should have been granted and the applications could be treated as re-Issue patent which is in practice in many other developed countries. It is open to the respondents to come up with such suggestions which may be useful and helpful in the manner of processing the applications particularly as the processing and grant of patent registration is not well developed in our country and is in its infant stage.
5. The respondents had claimed that with the increase of manpower and the up-gradation of equipments and facilities, there will be phenomenal increase in the output of processing applications and granting registration. This is yet to be demonstrated before the Court
6. Though this Court is inclined to issue interim mandamus to put the respondents to a time bound schedule to come up with the results, in view of the request made by Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2, as also the request made by Sri Muralidharan, learned Counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, further hearing of this case is adjourned to 6th June 2003.
In the meantime, parties concerned may fee their affidavits.’
DVSKJ:
6.6.2003
An affidavit sworn to by one Sri S. Chandrasekaran, Joint Controller of Patents A Designs, Chennai Branch is filed today in Court Copy is yet to be furnished to the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri P.S. Dinesh Kumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel undertakes to furnish a copy today itself.
2. The affidavit interalia seeks to furnish information regarding the progress that has been achieved in the matter of processing of the applications seeking registration under the Patents Act and seeks to give the actual report of the functioning of the Office of the Controller of Patents A Designs.
3. Sri Dinesh Kumar, learned Central Gout. Standing Counsel also brings to the notice of the Court that the provisions of the Patents Act, 1970 (the Act’ for short) have now been amended by the Amending Act 38 of 2002 with effect from the 20th May, 2003 and certain provisions have been made in respect of pending applications as indicated in Section 11B of the Act. It is submitted that all pending applications are required to be processed under the Act only on a specific request made by the applicants by continuing their applications on payment of certain fees within a period of one year from the date of the Amending Act having come into effect. Learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel submits that even individual intimations as well as intimation through paper publications are being issued to the persons whose applications are pending as of now. It is also submitted that as many as 300 persons have already responded and have sought for pursuing their applications for registration.
4. Scrutiny by this Court in this writ petition was in the context of inaction on the, part of the respondents in respect of petitioner’s application seeking for grant of patent rights. Complaint of the petitioner was that even after a long lapse of time and repeated reminders, the respondents have not processed the applications and have not granted patent rights.
5. Developments with regard to recruiting additional manpower, updating or modernising the recruitment process in the patent office and even the march of law by such Amending Acts, should all be for the purpose of improving the efficiency of the system and should not be to the detriment of the applicants and for compounding their woes. Applications pending before the respondents for several years and which applications continue to He over because of the negligence of the respondents, cannot be wished away by introducing new provisions calling upon them to comply with new conditions. It is a matter which requires to be examined and the learned Counsel for the petitioner has seriously complained about this aspect of the matter. The learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel having brought to the notice of this Court certain changes in law during the pendency of this petition, the impact of the change in law, the consequence thereof and the manner of affectation of the petitioner’s right, are all matters which require to be looked into.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks two weeks’ time to file an appropriate application in this regard and also to apprise the Court of the situation in respect of his application. The core issue with regard to the progress that is required to be achieved by the respondents in the matter of processing the applications for grant of patent tights and what is the actual turn out by the respondents, is still. required to be looked into as the respondents have not shown commensurate results even as on today.
7. Call on 18th July, 2003 for further orders.
8. Furnish a copy of this order to Sri. Dinesh Kumar, teamed Senior Central Govt. Standing Counsel.
DVSKJ:
2-7-2004
Sri P.S. Dinesh Kumar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel files the affidavit of Sri Mannargudi Sudararaman Venkataraman which, it is submitted, inter alia contains information as was directed to be furnished in terms of the order dated 16-10-2003.
Sri Dinesh Kumar submits that the contents of the affidavit shows considerable progress in the manner of working at the Patent Offices in the country and at that last, the applicants’ request for issuing patents are being sealed. Certain figures and statistics also attached to the affidavit. These are all matters for verification.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner and other respondents are not available. Copies of affidavit is to be furnished to them also. Only after hearing all the learned Counsel for parties this Court can form an opinion as to whether the respondent organisation is realty functioning in a prompt and effective manner and as contemplated under the statute.
Sri. Dinesh Kumar undertakes to furnish copies of affidavit to all other counsel within a week’s time.
Call after three weeks.’
DVSKJ:
20-11-2004
Sri N. Devhadass, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel files an affidavit sworn to by Sri Mannargudy Sundararaman Venkataraman, Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, Chennai
2. The affidavit inter alia, seeks to provide information with regard to total number of applications received for the period 1998-99 to 2003-04 [Annexure-l to the affidavit], total number of applications that were examined from 1997-96 to 2003-04 [Annexure-2 to the affidavit]. Details regarding the outcome of these applications, such as number of applications in respect of which requests were received for examination and the actual number of applications examined and applications which remained processing for examination at the end of the year, beginning with the year 1997-88 [Annexure-3 to the affidavit], the outcome of the requests for examination at the four Regional Centres at Kolkata, Delhi, Chennai and Mumbai ([Annexure-4 to the affidavit].
3. The facts and figures relating to the applications that were accepted and that were sent for publication from 20-5-2003 to 30-9-2004 are furnished at Annexure-5 to the affidavit. Annexure-5 also indicates the number of requests for sealing and the actual number of patents sealed for the period from 20-5-2003 to 30-9-2004, which is indicated as 3672 and 3152 respectively.
4. Sri Devadass submits that as a result of modernization of these Patent Offices, equipping them with the qualified men and updated technology, the process of sealing patent applications has considerably improved and the capacity for examination of applications has also increased many folds as of now. Sri Devadass also submits that Patent Offices are as of now confidently equipped with sufficient infrastructural facilities for expeditious processing of applications seeking for sealing of patent rights.
5. However, learned Counsel for the petitioner and the other respondents, are not available. Learned Sr. CGSC to assure service of copies of the affidavit with annexures giving such information, on Sri K.N. Ravikumar, learned Counsel for petitioner, Sri. R. Muralidhar, learned Counsel for third respondent and Sri G. V. Shantharaju, learned Counsel for fourth respondent.
List the matter for further hearing after two weeks.
DVSKJ:
10-06-2005
Sri N. Devhadass, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, places on record an affidavit dated 19-4-2005, sworn to by Sri Mannargudy Sundararaman Venkataraman, Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, Chennai
2. The affidavit inter alia, points out that sweeping changes have been brought about by the Amendment Act of 2005 to the parent Patent Act of 1970 and some major changes such as omission of Section 5 of the principal Act, having taken place and changed statutory position substantially alters the grounds on which the persons can either claim to be aggrieved or can seek relief etc.
3. A is also averred that there is substantial progress in the functioning of the different branches of the patent offices located at Kolkata, Chennai, Mumbai and Delhi; that the first respondent is quite hopeful of fulfilling the expectations of the general public on the aspect of granting patent rights in the light of such enhancement in the quality of facilities available at such offices as also increase of physical manpower and in the circumstance, it is prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
4. However, the learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that a copy of the Amended Act is still not available and can be procured through his client in about three weeks.
5. It is very necessary to examine the present statutory provisions to pronounce one way or the other on the merits of the petition as also the orders that are required to be passed in this petition, In order to appreciate the nature and the manner of functioning and about its current excellence, as domed by the first respondent, it is necessary to place on record the difference that has been brought about to the exisring applications in view of the change in law and the factual report as to the manner of functioning of the patent offices subsequent to the change of law.
6. While three weeks’ time is granted to the respondents to acquire necessary material as also to get a copy of the amended Act, a further affidavit indicating the aspects referred to above may be placed before the court to appreciate the present position
List the matter for further hearing after three weeks. Registry is directed to furnish a copy of this order to the learned Assistant Solicit General’
DVSKJ:
02-03-2006
Sri Aravind Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, submits that instructions in response to the order passed by this Court on 10-6-2005 have already been received and an affidavit of Sri Mannargudy Sundararaman Venkataraman, Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Patent Office, Chennai, sworn to on 16-12-2005 is ready to be placed before this Court. However, learned Asst Solicitor General would seek for some more time to ascertain if the affidavit requires to be submitted as of now or requires revision in the wake of subsequent development that had taken place in the 21/2 months intervening period thereafter.
Respondents to place the correct factual position as on date in the form of an affidavit as had been indicated in the order dated 1-6-2005 within a period of two weeks from today. list the matter for further hearing after three weeks’
DVSKJ:
21-4-2006
Sri Aravind Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General places additional affidavit swon to by Sri Kayappurath Venugopal functioning as Assistant Controller of Patents A Designs at the Chennai Office.
2. The affidavit, inter alia; discloses the significant changes that have been brought about in the Patents Act, 1970 by the amending Act of 2005; that the present procedure for processing the applications is now streamlined comparable to similar processing procedures undertaken elsewhere in other developed countries such as European Countries, Japan as also in United States of America, Comparative charts indicating the present procedure and the duration for completing the processing is indicated in Annexure-II while corresponding procedures followed in European countries, Japan and USA is as indicated in the chart at Annexure
3. It is also deposed in the affidavit that the turn out of work in the patent offices in the country which are hooted at Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Chennai has vastly improved not only in the number of applications received but also in the number of explications in respect of which patents are being granted and such figures are furnished as at Annexure-IV. The figures for the period 1-1-2005 to 31-12-2005 and from 1-1-2006 to 31-3-2O06 has been furnished,
4. Sri Aravind Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that this is proof of the vast improvements that have been effected in the functioning of the patent offices in the country; that the performance is comparable to the performances of the counterparts m any other part of the world.
5. As the learned Counsel for the petitioner and other respondents are not available, it is desired to hear them also before concluding the matter.
6. List the matter on 15-6-2006.’
DVSKJ:
14-07-2006
Sri Muralidhar, learned Counsel for the third respondent submits that he has received an information that the petitioner may not be alive any more, as informed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, who was appearing for the petitioner earlier, whom he had met incidentally.
As the petitioner was only the cause for examining the manner and method of the functioning of the patent offices in the country in the light of several changes in the patent laws and as the petitioner had served this cause in a significant manner, as submitted by Sri Muralidhar, as also Sri Aravind Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the first respondent, that ever since the filing of this petition, there has been qualitative improvement in the functioning and also in the service provided by the patent offices in the country. Writ petition was being heard from time to time, awaiting the appraisal of such developments to the court by the learned Standing Counsel for respondents, through affidavits sworn to by the officials working at the Regional Patent Office at Chennai
Notwithstanding the informing of such development, which is required to be verified, the writ petition will have to be formally brought to an end recording the developments hitherto.
In the circumstance, list the matter for further hearing on 25-8-2006.’
DVSKJ:
19-09-2006
Learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as respondents are to be furnished with copies of newspaper article published in Panorama section of the Deccan Herald daily dated 13-7-2006 in the heading “Medicines out of the Commoners reach .
Copies of the article are given to Sri Thimmanna, learned Counsel appearing for Sri Muralidhar, counsel for third respondent. Sri Thimmanna undertakes to pass on the copies to Sri Aravind Kumar, learned ASG appearing forR-1; Sri V. Shantharaju for M/s Kesvya & Co., counsel for fourth respondent and Sri K.N. Ravikumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner
List this matter for further hearing on 11-10-2006.
DVSKJ:
3-11-2006
Sri Aravind Kumar, learned Assistant Solicitor General, appealing on behalf of the first respondent, draws the attention of the court to the affidavit dated 21-4-2006 sworn to by Sri Kayappurth Venugopal, Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs, Chennai
A copy of the special article captioned as Medicines out of the Commoners’ Reach, published in the Deacon Herald English daily in its issue dated 13-7-2006, is handed over to Sri Aravind Kumar
The respond of the central government may be placed before the court in response to the development indicated in this article, particularly concerning the genetic drug manufacturing in the country.
List the matter for such purpose and for further hearing in the second week of December, 2006.
6. Learned Assistant Solicitor General would submit that the writ petition has virtually served the purpose of improving and streamlining the patent offices in the country; that they have all been equipped with sufficient modern tools and the quality of services has also vastly improved and the processing of the applications for action for sealing of patent rights are being disposed of promptly and in an efficient manner.
7. Sri. Muralidharan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 also would submit that there is a perceptible difference in the manner of functioning of patent offices in the country in the light of developments that had taken place pursuant to the directions issued by this Court in this writ petition.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents would submit that the petition having virtually served its purpose and with the petitioner not evincing any further interest, it is proper that the petition is brought to an end noting these developments.
9. However, Sri Muralidharan, learned Counsel for respondent No. 3 would submit that certain allegations leveled against the respondent No. 3 in the writ petition pleadings are not justified; that the 3rd respondent being an organisation which is service oriented and in research and development, is not one to indulge in such activities as are alleged in the petition and this is an incorrect and mischievous statement made against the respondent No. 3 -Organisation.
10. Submission is noted. It is not necessary for this Court to go into this question as that was not the main purpose of the petition itself and it was only incidental that the petitioner had made such averments in the writ petition.
11. The petitioner acted as a cause for issue of direction by this Court from time to time which in turn has resulted in vast improvement in the efficiency and performance of the patent offices in the country. Petitioner has rendered yeoman services to the entrepreneurs of this country in this regard though ultimately petitioner himself is not getting any individual relief or benefit in this petition. That is because it is submitted by learned Counsel for the respondents that while some of the applications of the petitioner for grant of patent rights has lapsed, the petitioner himself has not evinced any interest in pursuing other applications and therefore no need for issue of any particular direction in favour of the petitioner at this point of time. However, the petitioner’s efforts, which in turn has produced such good results is appreciated and placed on record.
12. I place on record my appreciation of the services of the learned Assistant Solicitors General and other Central Government Standing Counsel who appeared for respondents from time to time and have been instrumental in ensuring that the organisation of the respondents was streamlined, was made efficient and is made responsive and inventor friendly. That in fact was the real purpose of the petition and if that purpose is served to any degree, the petition has virtually served its purpose.
13. I also place on record my appreciation of the valuable services of all other learned Counsel who appeared in this writ petition for the parties.
14. In the circumstances, writ petition is disposed of as not warranting any further orders.