At t_ Btanggaiore -- 560 001
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25m DAY or JUNE 2oo9_'t: T.
PRESEET
THE I-ION'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN; CHIEF J'£fVS:"I'.I_¢VI'.-27*
AND _
THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIcE:V.G. sAEHm?--11T1T;'Vt'
WRIT PETITION No.994s %oT£'t2eGéj§gM--MMT4s'1tV
Between:
M /s. Sri. Shanthijeffirai'Mtner'al's.§(P}.I;tci;-;
Registered under the"-C.p»mpanie's-- Act, 1956,
Represented .Manafg'er, ' GPA Holder,
Sri. Ramakrishna CVh§;a~n_a1n»Settyvm' -
S / o. Venkateshwara Raogy -~
Aged about 33 years, '
Hospet. -V ' PETITIONEJR
(Eyes. D...i}'.,RaQ -- AdV.""fo'r Petr.)
AND' t
State
Represe1nte'd' its Secretary
.. 'Department of Forest, Ecologr 85 Environment
V Building,
'Bf; Ambjé;-dkar Veedi
2. The Forester,
N.E.B. Division,
Sandur Range, Bellaxy.
3. The Range Forest Officer,
Sandur Range,
Sandur, Bellary District.
4. The Deputy Conservator of Forests,
Bellaxy Division, Bellary.
5. The Director of Mines 8; Geology,
Department of Mines 85 Geolog/,0.-----
"Khanija Bhavan", 5th Floor;._ 'V V , ~
Race Course Road, Bangalore»-56.0,i':001§' :2' .
6. The Deputy Director 2
Department of
Hospet. "" RESPONDENTS
(By Sri.Basav'araj. Govt. Adv. for Respts.)
This ;w--ri.t petitionis fiiedihunder Articles 226 and 227 of
tlieiflons-titution Indiapraying that this Court be pleased to
quash the .If'ir_stiIv11fo1*mation Report dated 19.02.2009 bearing
FOC filed by the second respondent in the
i7,FCiot1rt of the .IMFnC,ASandur, vide AnneXure--L and to quash the
_. ordere dated 19.02.2009 passed by the second
vide Annexure~K and etc.,
.0 writ petition coming up for preliminary hearing this
the Court delivered the following»
JUDGMENT
(Delivered by P.D.Dinakaran, OJ.)
1) Whether the report of the Lokayukta .
basis for registering the First Inforrnation
19.02.2009 against the petitioner and to
19.02.2009 seizing the iron ore allegedgg to here
in the forest area as Well as the tools, ipvehircles and.1_na,o§hinery
used for such illegal miningljand0W1fi–e1.he1″.i.i:s1,ichV FER and the
order of seizure the power of
judicial revieyv .Articie’«22’6__ of the Constitution of India,
are the questionsi that our consideration in the
present “petition”. ~ V
:2)’ is a registered Company under the
iixct, 1956. Originally, the Government of
-..i.i’_Mysore executed a mining lease to an extent of 200 Acres
‘:~.l.l(80.9i’2v}:1et;tares) in R.M. Block, Sandur, Bellary District, in
. ‘ii.ia§§firgg’.%o£ K.C. Thimma Reddy, for a period ending upto
094.308.1976. The said mining lease came to be renewed on
J/,.. ._
?”w…
20.03.1991 by virtue of mining lease No.2119 for a period of
ten years. Subsequently, the said mining lease was
transferred from K.C. Thirnma Reddy in favour offthe
petitioner on 29.11.1991.
3) The undisputed factual rnatripxmof the*c’ae:éj*’arei:t}w:a’tit ‘”9
the impugned iron ore mining is 1ocated_wi?_thiri the forest
and the same is governed by the’~.p.rovis~ions, oi”,:t11ev…Foresti
(Conservation) Act, 1980 (for short__’_the:_F–C_ Act’)~–rec1uiring the
prior approval of the CentralC2overn:mentijVun’d–er Section 2 of
the FC Actflfor oifthe. forest land for non–forest
activity, viz. which had also been granted by
the Central “Government; that pursuant to prior approval of
I{ar’n.atal_raA,.P’.orest Department, the petitionerhas entered
into the fourth respondent-The Deputy
i’v:’,gConservator Forests, Beliary Division; that the petitioner
_ .fafteri.,:obtainin”g the lease and also after having complied with
‘*.’=..tiiej,’_. mandatory provisions, has been conducting mining
‘ operations in its leased area and within the
area demarcated
gm
5
by the Department of Mines and Geology; that the peti’tio_’ne’1–f_
has a subsisting lease as on date; that the violation *
conditions of the lease agreement were’t>vc0.rnp.laiinied.-Toagainst it
the petitioner and the same was recorded the
Lokayukta and that based on su<::_:h~.0_alleigatio'n,Aii
respondent registered First Inforrfration Rieport/E dated
19.02.2009 for alleged forestiiloffenoesiii}
4) In this behalf of the
petitioner that:
(i} the __ -irinipugned”«v:0i_’proceedings–FIR dated
2009i A ” “seizure order’ dated
g119.o2′;’2009Vereiileeie to be quashed, as the
is i’or11yV___based upon the report of the
which is yet to be accepted by
tl1e”‘e(}ovVern’ment;
V . (ii) the boltayukta report cannot be put against
V the petitioner, as the petitioner was not
it jifggiveri any opportunity of being heard before
th L k kt ;
e o ayu a ._
(iii) assuming the respondents propose to
action based on the Lokayukta report,__-the ‘i”
second respondent ought to have given_:ian
opportunity to the petitioner toreggplain -i.t_s*_ V
case against the findings iniithé.Lokay’u,kta. «. V’
report;
(iv) assuming the respondentsri1*iaiie__got’power:
to initiate action A.:petitioner
under section 62.4′: ithie Forest
Act, ‘iA<:t?_l,«iit11e same
ought exercised
arbiitra:i'i1_i3i/i,iibgillegailgif it unreasonably
againstiptldet — i
5.1) Per contra, iear1i,ed«.:_iGoVernment Advocate submits
that,the,_':pI}o1;ay1iktairepnrtv being a report submitted by a
Statutory can be the basis for filing an FIR and the
iciannoti disregarded. The learned Government
_i_if_Apd'Vocate brought to our notice that before preparing the
ii._i_iSateiI'itejiiiiagery, the Lokayukta Team has conducted ground
it iiigsurvieyiigiand prepared survey sketch of the boundaries and
'i with other documents and other necessary input have
7
been given to the Karnataka State Remote
Organisation for preparing Satellite imagery. .
Government Advocate, based on the instructi.ons the it
Principal Chief Conservator of Forests, thatl:’i:–héi1.c_’
Satellite imagery and the sketch p–repa.1l”edl ‘there:on{_’vonVV the
basis of the GPS is one of the technicalvctools for “i«de_nti_fication
of encroachment at macro. lilevel. 1I9I’o’v»reve_r, the actual
boundaries of the leased out.’a1’ea:”Wou_ld deterrnined at the
micro level by the T . it
5.2} It ‘contended that the mere fact that the
petitioner was “‘-not Lokayukta cannot be a
ground toficontend lthaitl no: legal action can be initiated by ‘
filing persons who had committed illegality.
The need not by itself be conclusive
vl’7_evid.ence initiating action by way of filing FIR against the
.1 .1l_§’eI’spns ‘iwholllhad committed illegality, but still could be a
ii’-ll’_v~basi’s setting the law into motion by filing FIR against
hall”-._illeglallrnining in the forest area and to seize the illegally
{, …… ._._,_N_?m\:
mined iron ore and tools, machineries and vehicles used for
such illegal mining. Filing an FIR is only an initiatiorrof
action against the petitioner and the respondent _
investigate into the matter and therefore the pet£–tiron~er”‘is noted
entitled to seek quashing of the FIR on at
that the respondent do not propc;se..__to irivgstigatevvlthe.xriatterl
or that the respondents have already-_inv_estigate_d’, but have
not found any evidence againt-it_tIie Therefore, the
prayer to quash the FIR is premature l K
5.3) The “aG’oVeniment Advocate further
contends thatneitherlthe’ application for issuance of
Forest Tra§1risi’t.Pass”‘(e’i?flf’I”, for short) nor issuance of the FTP
nor Way Permits under Rules 146 and 149 of
the by itself would not be a ground to
vfpreiect the” Lo’l§ay’dl<ta report. The alleged infirmity between
4: lufieldetngapvllsketch and the Satellite report also cannot be a
tojreject the Lokayukta report or to quash the FIR
' -.__dated"ii9.02.2O09 and the seizure order dated 19.02.2009 as
r .
the second respondenvauthority is still continuing
investigation.
5.4) The learned Government
submits that the respondents are reaclfditoligivegn~ot–ic:e-.t0Vp:thVe_
petitioner before such field survey an’c1Ailinspecti.c.n” in
presence of the petitioner and Controllger of:
Bureau of Mines, Bangalore;V.«_ alo’ng:_ norninee, not
below the rank of the Director
General, Survey of” that’ there
cannot be any the petitioner to continue
the mining area and to return
the seized; “niachin’eri_esl for ‘such purpose, but without
plrejudicevilto of the forest authorities taking action to
seize “a_n'{:l__«co’n’f_iscate” the tools, Vehicles and machineries,
vfgsubject the findings of the joint inspection and further
4: .invevstigationVVinto the matter to be made in the presence of
dill.”V..theffpetitio’ner, Controller of Mines, Indian Bureau of Mines,
i’l”»..__Bang’aIore, along with the nominee of the Director General,
‘,»¢Ir'”‘fi§l@I __
10
Survey of India, who is not below the rank of a
Director, after giving notice to the petitioner.
5.5) Learned Government Advocaterippfurther “‘si1’ornits:,e_*i
that the seized articles would be’ r.eturried’ 2 to the petitioneri
provided the petitioner gives an to the
possession of the machinery as
and when required bythe respanden-tior”.h.qrthe’r:.investigation
or by the as well as for
seizure and might be initiated
by the the provisions of the
Forest Act, if necessary-, inifeitiirei.
view.._of the’above rival contentions, the following
queisutiorzs, ‘wh.ic}1..”are” similar to those raised in Writ Petition
2QOh§’i.v_disposed of on 13.4.2009, arise for our
.,i_cons’i.deration in this petition:
(Ii? Whether the report of the Lokayukta can
be the basis for the impugned FIR dated
‘ ?\~.
33
19.02.2009 and the order of seizure dated”
19.02.2009? 0 ”
(II) Whether it is proper for this
exercise the power of review
under Article 226 of the ‘2Coi1..st”itutin_r1–.o£ ”
India to quash the:_”‘First””..Ir1forn:etig.;1.
Report dated 19.02.20029~?h’
(111) Whether the vreeayoihdent is
empowered to seizevfi the”~.V’rrt§c–hinery,
equipmerit..VL:Vj’– iron. Lore vehicles
belorr.gix12_gV t9–‘:V’_Vthe._V-pietitiorier. by an order
qateiae ..1}~9.0éf;V2009¢;–r so.’ “herring committed
illegal en21i:iirrg».vop_era;tion in the forest
area?’_ = V .2 V’
7) decidin,g____th.e above mentioned questions, in
Peti’tion._No.’3:8″12_ of 2009 disposed of on 13.4.2009, we
* have ‘as
0 f’6—-.}) 0.-.;e… No.1
V A Whether the report of the
‘ ‘Lokayukta can be the basis for the
impugned Fm dated 03.02.2009 and
the order of seizure dated 03.2.2009?
14
conclude that at prima facie stage, no case was made
out.
6.5) Similarly, it is settled law that the electronic
evidence is admissible in evidence. It may also be ;not« .. 5. »
proper for this court to jump into the conclusion”thatf.
the respondents are not entitled to place.relianceivupo;rt be
the satellite imagery, as the electronic’eivtdencel
admissible in evidence; but the samexhas to; be i’
substantiated by the responden_ts*~in the trial_
the competent court and the petitioineris also “entitled
to rebut the same so thatthe rule of law would prevail.
Therefore, to contend that it.t.wouldi not_._be for the
respondents to initiate alawful action based on the
Lokayu}cta_ .,or’.,the,:satellite sketches enclosed
therewith. against acts alleged to have
been committed by the petitioner by illegal mining
operationencroaehing into the forest area in violation
‘ th–e:’co.nditions of thellease agreement entered by the
ipetitioneriiivith’ ~-the respondents-forest authorities,
‘lacks,’legal_”_sanetity; because this is not a case where
the”-«.respvondents propose to shut down an activity
lfigwhich “is’1carried on by the petitioners lawfully, but
2..fl.uinjortunately, it is the case of the respondents, of
be course based on the report of the Lokayukta, that the
Petitioner has allegedly violated the maintenance of
ecology and environment; and whereupon the
E5
observance of the laws enacted to protect the
environment and ecology is sought to be ensured.
6.6) When the Lolcayukta finds fault against the
executives for their failure to implement such laws to
protect the environment and ecology, the petitioner
projects the grievance against the executives for acting’ .. »
upon the Lolcayukta report. But, under
circumstances, in our consideredw’ npini49n,’th,e it
executives should have a free hand.__to:_proiceed with
investigation fitrther into the matter ire do theirlviuty ”
conferred by law and by people,”*~particuwlarlyAgiizhénh”
faced with money-power manfipowerii.
Otherwise, the respect’_fo.r’%«.lau.fVA and” would be
lost.
6.According°to respondents, the petitioner
has encroached into the forest area which is outside
.. .. _Athe..’:leasbed out area;’v—Learned Advocate General invited
attentionithat when the leased out area has been
the satellite map, the encroachment
of the forest ‘area stands clearly established; and that
the satellite imagery obtained from the Karnataka
. ._mE3’tate Remote Sensing Application Centre, which is a
b agency for the entire State with regard to GPS
and remote sensing, would prima facie show that the
it “petitioner had encroached upon the forest area,
outside the leased out area which is an ofience by
16
itself and the authorities are duty-bound to prevent
such illegal encroachment and mining operations apart
from seizing the machineries and to confiscate the_”-i.”’– ”
same by appropriate proceedings.
6. 8} Once there is prima evide_nce__to shout)’
the petitioner had encroached upon the forest
operating its activity outside the limits of the leased ‘
out area, learned Advocate Geri-era.lg_Vcontends the
respondents have no option except’-to initiate’
action against the petitioner by seizeithe
minerals mined outside the’i1eaeeei7eer ..t.t5F1,t’Ch is a
forest produce, togetherA”ivi’th.:”&
and vehicles used the Veorf1rnission_ offheojfence and
also to _conl”:vsca_te.A same in appropriate
proceedings;-” A T 2
8. Sim_i1ar1$5, ‘the iseezond question, viz. whether it is
givrop-e’r.fo’i’ Court to vlelsercise the power under Article 226
of India to quash the First Information
it ‘;rVReport dated,.’_’19~.Q’.2009, we held as hereunder:
” * — “..7.,1_) Issue No.11”.-
Whether it is proper for this Court to
it .. .,V_e.;cercise the power under Article 226 of the
g. .. E.’
17
Constitution of India to quash the First
Information Report dated 03. 02.2009?
7.2) The power of judicial review unde.ryArtic;§e i
the Constitution of India is akin to the inherent»
conferred under Section 482 of the Codeof Criminal = ‘
Procedure. It is a settled lawit thic-Steven”
inherent powers conferred on the4ttHigl2.VVCourt’ ‘very
wide, the very plenitude ‘of requires yreat
caution in its exercise aindgthe be very
carefitl to see that its Zdecision ” such
inherent power” ‘;;;b.ased–. ortysound.:p’rinctptes as held
by the Apex” the. of; INDER MOHAN
Goswnmv _ ,_ STATE – or
vTTAnANciiAL_–r.Anoo:fiieRs reported in (2ao7)12
SCC’ 1, because -thetvltpuwers conferred on this
Court has iito,t)ev.spariing_lytejeercised (i) to give eflect to
an order. under. Cc-de; (ii) to prevent abuse of
. procefis of Court,’ and m(iii) to otherwise secure the ends
cfj’ustic’e, ‘butts any event not to encourage violations
of the piroiiisionss of any statutes in force much any
conditions’ tgflagreement thereunder which empowers
ifithe competent authority to take appropriate action
ii.j.axgaiinst the law breakers and those who violate the
0 conditions of agreement.
7.3) In any event, such powers should not be
~ i exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution and therefore
E8
the Courts should refrain from giving a prima–facie
decision in a case where the entire facts are incomplete
and hazy, more so, when the evidence has not been
collected and produced before the Court. ”
9. On Issue No.III — Whether the ‘s”e-Corldflhrespohéentdsxl3
empowered to seize the machinery, eqixipineint, iron’~ore
vehicies belonging to the petitioay:e*r,> an-..yoj1jde’:fdated
19.2.2009, for having committed ililegeiii.rninihgrroperation
in the forest area, We have held as lr1ei*e’i.tr.1.der_:V._i
“yc’3.”2″)”‘ – _ enacted The Forest
(Conservation) . V _ in’ order to prevent
deforestation which cauisesgyyiiecological imbalance and
leadsto environmental deterioration. The deforestation
&_ cau._=;e’s widesprea’d«.c_on.cern. Section 2 of the FC Act
the.jr’estriction on de-reservation of forest or
for non–forest purposes and as per
H the said no State Government or authority
. V — shall” matte,” ‘except with the prior approval of the
u.””–._l:”C’entralz Government, any order directing (i) that the
forest shall be ceased to be reserved; (ii) that
* any forest land or any portion thereof may be used for
any man forest purpose; (iii) that any forest land may
be assigned by way of lease or otherwise to any
19
private person or to any authority, corporation, agency
or any other organization not owned, managed_orl’~._”~..
controlled by State Government, and (iv) that any.jore.st:l’ is
land may be cleared of trees which ‘
naturally.
8. .3) After the FC Act came into force, no.,mi.ning.
lease/ licence can be ranted in’t-..he”–forest area-whtthout
9′ .. g
the prior approval of the__Central,..Governrnent, which_.is
a condition precedent, be.causei_l_Sectio’n._ofthe FC Act
starts with non–obstante’; viz.,
“Notwithstanding .oo.ntaine’d in any
other law for;-..the?’titne”belng in a State…”
Therefore, can be carried on in the
forest i_area,., e;fc:eptV”«:vit.h,g “the prior approval of the
Central “Govemrnent_.:_”~.which~,means, even the State
Governmentg cannot carry._~7’on any such non–forest
activig_fy”in the fa.«e§t’¢rel: without the prior approval of
‘*–the”~-C{en–t’ral Governrnent. The fact that the mining
activity to non–forest purpose is beyond doubt.
‘ ‘ pTi’nerenewal ofa lease is really the grant of
[Va fresh lease as held by the Apex Court in DELHI
_ lyybetzpmemm AUTHORITY Vs. DURGA CHAND
A [AIR 1973 SC 2609] and therefore such
prior approval of the Central Government in terms of
” “Section 2 of the FC Act would be required when mining
‘ /st’
5 .
20
lease granted before the commencement of the said Act
is renewed after its coming into force.
8.5} As the impugned quarry is located
forest area and the mining lease was granted”;onligg”. ii”.
subject to the approval of the Central Govem_men,tfianc£.:: .
agreement entered with’ the State’J»éo’vemrn_ent,
respondentsforest authorities haiie Ito.’ ”
initiate action against the pers«ons violate }th.eH
terms of the lease and condit:io:1.s of’ ~.t_he ~v’leas§e
agreement and the KFZ iézmpotoers’-A
respondents authorities totseizie, forfeit
the forest produce; tools, igehiclesiV_an,d énachineiies that
are used for illegalremooal of:the’forestprofduce. Such
an exercise of po;wer;’«in ‘ou”r’-considered opinion, cannot
be termed as arl)-itrary or u__n’1’easonable. ”
10.v_»~’~;.:Fit1i*ther,V.ithiS__C0urt in Writ Petition No.60023 of
‘dispose;i”ot” 1.4.2009, while considering the question
:7″g_that whenevei’iafiyigiconditions of the iease agreement entered
ininto.vbetweenfl7tne mining Iease holder and the Karnataka
Ailfiepartiment are alleged to have been violated, the
ii.’:j.–3.1._1__t’I'”1.”<)riV'1;ies of the Karnataka Forest Department are
,, ..,__
22
the Central Government, which is a condition
precedent, because Section 2 of the Forest
(Conservation) Act starts with non–obstante clause C V
“Notwithstanding anything contained in C
other law for the time being in force in
Therefore, no non–forest activity can be cameo on
the forest area, except with the prior.approivaliiQfA.the _ ”
Central Government, which rneans, even the
Government cannot carry on such’ non=fores’t
activity in the forest area’ withoutlltfixepriorapproval
the Central Government.” faiet} mining
activity amounts A . _ to noAn..–fo.re.st ‘ V — ‘beyond
doubt.
if. 7) _The’renewal la-l.€a.se is really the grant of
a freshvxilease Vas:Apex Court in DELHI
DEvELoPi&L21}f2″,. Aurtroiaiiry Vs. DURGA CHAND
V.’S’C $509, and therefore such prior
. C -a_pproVva–l”of the CentralGovemment in terms of Section
ofv,the__«’Forest. (Conservation) Act,1980 would be
“reg”L.¢.iredV ‘whe’n,.V”Vmining_ lease granted before the
commencement of the said Act is renewed after its
‘ ncoming into force.
* 7. 8) The impugned quarry is admittedly located
C the forest area. Therefore, the mining lease granted
if “to the petitioner in such forest area is subject to the
conditions imposed by the Central Qovemment and
/’/VJ .
aw….w-«=-
25
the fourth respondent has jurisdiction to initiate action in
that regard.
1 1) It is also not in dispute that the decisio_ris~–..renidered 0
in Writ Petition No.60o23 of 2009 disposed ;e’i’__erd1:.4e.,2soi09_i’]
and Writ Petition No.3812 of 2009 .disposed– of on”V–i.1-f3V’§4i}2G;O.9i A
squarely apply to the facts of the prései1t_ casei. Foilovizing the
said decisions and for the reasons’_:stateé…._’Eherein, we pass the
following: H
(i) the sketches
attached the the basis for the
5 respondents .*to.”-prosecute the FIR dated
g 5!531?}-,.02vi.2O0§and the Seizure order dated
0 ‘ e gie9,,’o2g;2bo9;
(ii! to quash the First Information
V Report. dated 19.02.2009 is rejected, giving
he liberty to the respondents to proceed in
Gaccordance with law, subject to the orders
hereunder;
“*”‘,i§fl%
(111)
26
Deputy Conservator of Forests, Bellary
Division, Bellary~fourth Respondent, shal1~_”*ii.
inspect and survey the impugned V’ ‘
leased out to the petitioner, in the pre.s.en’c.eV
of the petitioner, the Controller’ of ‘~«Mines’,’i.
Indian Bureau of Mines, _
with the nominee not belovv thie=-ra11k
Deputy Director by theiiilifiirectorlGeneral,lf,
Survey of India;” ,_ fiapepropriateii
decision as to thealleged.jer:1croaChriient by
the petitioner with “refere’1ice_ to I survey
records .,C5’thé.rv relevant”””’ material
av’aila–b1:é:, ‘do’ciirnents”‘produced in this
regard. Ifencroachrnent of forest land
is found., the “respondents are at liberty to
,assess”the’damages caused on account of
illegal’ ‘mining outside the leased out
A. tools, vehicles
.. ymviningarea and recover the same from the
‘ ,pe’titioner’;’
respondents are directed to return the
and machinery to the
petitioner on the condition that the same
shall be produced before the respondents/
jurisdictional Magistrate as and when
(V)
27
required by law, subject to the finding in
the inspection to be conducted by the–g””i”
fourth respondent in the presence of it ‘
petitioner and Controller of Mines,
Bureau of Mines, Bangaloreryalong w-tith~:
nominee not below the _ ”
Director by the Director General, iS’urve.y
India, referred to above; l
The ore which iisfl’alre_ad;_y ._by the
authorities vvhich_i_s:i’ alleged to been
mined ojatsidje shall be
in the thefore-stiauthorities and
the at.’ liberty to take
apipropriawpidecisioriiri the matter subject
to the inspection and
.«}-«assessment. of the damages and to recover
thzefsariievfrom the petitioner;
the finding arrived at by the
fourth «i”respondent–Deputy Conservator of
Forests, Beliary Division, and the
ii””~{Contro}ler of Mines, Indian Bureau of
it “Mines, Bangalore; petitioner shall rectify
the violation by removing the overburden
waste whatsoever within two weeks from
28
the date of such order passed by the fourth
respondent and the Controller of Mines,
Indian Bureau of Mines, Bangalore;
vii) The respondents are directediiito”perInit;’t.]fie’–_V
petitioner to undertake Inining A. V’
operation in the leased “ant area
not disputed by the forest’=aiut1j1oritiesVV;:i ‘ I
12) Writ petition is according1y.’_idisposed_iof, No oosts.
Sd/3
Chiet Justice
…..
Fudge
* e«iiaiI:-indgxr»-«wpypss /” No
° é . or ‘ ijweb’ 5 “”Sr”3’ElS /N0