{"id":87077,"date":"2005-06-18T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2005-06-17T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005"},"modified":"2017-07-25T18:50:09","modified_gmt":"2017-07-25T13:20:09","slug":"prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005","title":{"rendered":"Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS           \n\nDATED: 18\/06\/2005  \n\nCORAM   \n\nTHE HON'BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICE            \nand \nTHE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA         \n\nW.A.No.1088 of 2005  \nand \nW.A.M.P.No.1978 of 2005  \n\nProf. Arun Nigavekar,\nChairman, \nUniversity Grants Commission, \nBahaduras Zafar Marg, \nNew Delhi - 110 002.                                    ..Appellant.\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. Dr.R.Natarajan,\n    S\/o. M.Ramaswamy,  \n    No.135, 3rd Street,\n    Heritage Jayendra Nagar,\n    Chembakkam, Chennai.  \n\n2. The Secretary to Government,\n     Ministry of Human Resources Development, \n     Department of Secondary & Higher Education,\n     Union of India, New Delhi.\n\n3. The Secretary to Government,\n     Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs,\n     Union of India, New Delhi.\n                                                                ..Respondents.\n\n\n        PRAYER:  Appeal filed against the order of the learned single Judge\ndated 10.05.2005, passed in W.P.No.30499 of 2004.  \n\n!For Appellant          ::  Mr.K.M.Vijayan, Senior Counsel\n                        For Mr.A.Sasidaran\n\n^For Respondent-1       ::  Mr.K.Chandru, Senior Counsel\n                        For Mr.M.Lakshmipathy\n\nFor Respondents 2&3     ::  Mr.Gopal Subramaniam,  \n                        Senior Counsel\n                        for Mr.Muralikumaran, ACGSC\n\n\n:J U D G M E N T \n<\/pre>\n
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE      <\/p>\n
        This  writ  appeal  has  been  filed against the impugned order of the
\nlearned single Judge dated  10.05.2005  by  which  the  learned  single  Judge
\nquashed  the appointment of the appellant as Chairman of the University Grants
\nCommission (hereinafter referred  to  as  the  “UGC”)  by  notification  dated
\n16.07.2002.\n<\/p>\n
        2.  We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
\nrecord as well as the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
        3.   The  ground  for  quashing  the  appointment  of the appellant as
\nChairman of the UGC was that according to the learned single  Judge  the  said
\nappointment  was  in violation of the second proviso to Section 6(1)(c) of the
\nUniversity Grants Commission Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the  “Act”)
\nSection 6(1) of the Act states:-\n<\/p>\n
        “6.  Terms and Conditions of Service of members, —\n<\/p>\n
(1)A  person  appointed  as  Chairman,  Vice-Chairman  or  other  member after
\ncommencement of the University Grants Commission (Amendment) Act, 1 985 shall,
\nunless he sooner becomes disqualified for continuing as such under  the  rules
\nthat may be made under this Act, —\n<\/p>\n
(a)in  the  case of Chairman, hold office for a term of five years or until he
\nattains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier.\n<\/p>\n
(b)in the case of Vice-Chairman, hold office for a  term  of  three  years  or
\nuntil he attains the age of sixty-five years, whichever is earlier;\n<\/p>\n
(c)in the case of any other member, hold office for a term of three years;\n<\/p>\n
(i)a person who has held office as Chairman or Vice-Chairman shall be eligible
\nfor further appointment as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other member; and\n<\/p>\n
(ii) a person who has held office as any other member shall
\nbe  eligible  for  further  appointment  as  Chairman,  Vice-Chairman or other
\nmember;\n<\/p>\n
        Provided further that a person who has held office for two  terms,  in
\nany  capacity,  whether as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or other member excluding a
\nmember referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 5, shall not be
\neligible for any further  appointment  as  Chairman,  Vice-Chairman  or  other
\nmember.”\n<\/p>\n
        4.    According   to  the  learned  single  Judge  the  appellant  was
\ndisqualified from being appointed as Chairman of the UGC because he  had  held
\noffice  for  two terms, one as member of the UGC and the other as ViceChairman
\nof the UGC, and hence, he was disqualified in view of  the  2  nd  proviso  to
\nSection 6(1)(c) of the Act.  We do not agree.\n<\/p>\n
        5.  Admittedly, the appellant held office as member of the UGC from 3<\/p>\n
1.05.1992 to 30.05.1995, i.e., for one full term as a member.    He  was  then
\nappointed as Vice-Chairman for a term of 3 years from 28.09.2000.\n<\/p>\n
        However,  he  did  not  continue as Vice-Chairman for a full term of 3
\nyears because by order dated 16.07.2002 (the impugned order) he was  appointed
\nas  Chairman  of  the  UGC and admittedly, he has been functioning as Chairman
\nfrom 16.07.2002.  Hence, factually he did not complete the 3 years  full  term
\nas Vice-Chairman of the UGC.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  It was contended by the appellant before the learned single  Judge
\nthat since the appellant (respondent-1 in the writ petition) had not completed
\na  full  term  of  3  years as Vice-Chairman, it could not be said that he was
\ndisqualified under the 2nd proviso to Section 6(1)( c) of the Act  as  he  had
\nnot held  office  for  two  terms.  It was also contended by him that the writ
\npetition should have been dismissed  as  belated  as  it  was  filed  only  on
\n18.10.2004  i.e.,  after  a lapse of more than two years and three months from
\nthe date of his appointment as Chairman.\n<\/p>\n
        7.  Mr.Gopal Subramaniam learned Senior Counsel for respondents 2  and
\n3 submitted  that  the  word  “term”  would include a part of a term also.  He
\nsubmitted that if this contention is not  accepted  then  if  a  Vice-Chairman
\nfunctions for 2 years and 364 days as Vice-Chairman, it cannot be held that he
\nhad  put  in  a full term as Vice-Chairman, simply because he relinquishes his
\npost at the fag end of the full term of 3 years.  He submitted that this  will
\ngo against  the  very intention of the 2nd proviso to Section 6(1)(c).  Hence,
\nhe submitted that a term would include a part of the term as also held by  the
\nlearned single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
        8.  We  cannot  agree  with  this  submission.   If this submission is
\naccepted we will logically have to go to the  extent  of  holding  that  if  a
\nperson has been appointed as Vice-Chairman and assumed office on the same day,
\nbut  resigns  on  the  very  next  day,  he  will  have  held  the  office  of
\nVice-Chairman for a term.  In other words, we have to hold that holding office
\neven for one day is holding office for a  term.    In  our  opinion,  such  an
\ninterpretation  will  not  only  go  against  common sense but it will also go
\nagainst the very language of Section 6(1)( b) which states that  the  term  of
\nVice-Chairman  is 3 years or until he attains the age of 65 years whichever is
\nearlier.\n<\/p>\n
        9.  No doubt, the appellant held office as Vice-Chairman from 28.09.2<\/p>\n
000 till 16.07.2002 i.e., for about one year and 10 months, which is more than
\nhalf the full term of 3 years as prescribed under Section 6<\/p>\n
(1)(b).  However, this Court cannot hold that holding  office  for  more  than
\nhalf  a term will be deemed to be treated as holding office for the full term,
\nas that would amount to legislation.\n<\/p>\n
10.  In this connection, we  may  refer  to  the  22nd  amendment  to  the  US
\nConstitution which states:-\n<\/p>\n
                “No  person  shall  be  elected to the office of the President
\nmore than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or  acted
\nas President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was
\nelected  President  shall  be elected to the office of the President more than
\nonce.”\n<\/p>\n
        11.  It is interesting to  note  the  background  in  which  the  22nd
\namendment to the US Constitution was enacted.  Before the 22nd amendment there
\nwas  no provision in the US Constitution which de-barred a person from holding
\noffice of the President of the USA for more than 2 terms (of  4  years  each).
\nGeorge  Washington,  the  1st  President  of  the  USA,  was  elected twice as
\nPresident, but when he was offered the candidacy for a 3rd  term  he  declined
\nsaying that no one should be the President more than twice, as that would tend
\nto make  the  office  perpetual in one man, i.e.  a hereditary monarchy, which
\nwas precisely what the Americans fought against in their War of  Independence.
\nThe subsequent  Presidents  of  U.S.A.    followed  this custom established by
\nWashington.  However, this was only a custom, and it was broken when President
\nFranklin Roosevelt was elected as President of the USA 4 times, viz., in 1932,
\n1936, 1940 and 1944 (the 3rd and 4th time when World War  II  was  going  on).
\nHence, to prevent in future any person being elected President more than twice
\nthe 22nd  amendment  was  enacted.  However, it was provided therein that if a
\nperson (the Vice-President in the case of death or resignation of a President)
\nhas acted for more than 2 years as President in  the  unexpired  term  of  the
\nprevious President  that will be treated as one full term as President.  Thus,
\nPresident Truman became President on the death of President Roosevelt in April
\n1945 after Roosevelt had served only 4 months of his 4th term.  Hence,  Truman
\nwas  President  for  more  than  2  years  of  the remaining term of President
\nRoosevelt, and thus that remaining term was  treated  as  one  full  term  for
\nPresident Truman.  Hence, he was, and could be, elected only once again, i.e.,
\nin 1948.\n<\/p>\n
        12.   The 22nd amendment to the US Constitution has provided that more
\nthan half of a term as President will be treated as a full term, but less than
\nhalf of a term will be  disregarded.    However,  there  is  no  such  similar
\nprovision in Section 6 or any other provision of the UGC Act stating that more
\nthan half  a  term will be treated as a full term.  This Court cannot act as a
\nlegislature and by judicial interpretation amend Section 6  of  the  UGC  Act.
\nUnder  the  garb of interpretation the Court cannot legislate vide, J.P.Bansal
\nVs.  State of Rajasthan, AIR 2003 SC 1405 (vide paragraphs 14 to 16).   It  is
\nfor the legislature to amend the law and not for the Court.\n<\/p>\n
        13.  Mr.Gopal Subramaniam may have made out a good case  for  amending
\nthe law as it is possible to hold that if a person relinquishes his office one
\nday  before  his  full  term  that  may  defeat  the intention of the statute.
\nHowever, it is not for us to amend the law, and we cannot go into the supposed
\nintention of the legislature when the language of a provision is clear  (which
\nin our opinion  it  is),  vide J.P.  Bansal’s Case (Supra).  Thus, in State of
\nHaryana Vs.  Bhajanlal, AIR 1 992 SC 604 (vide paragraph-42) the Supreme Court
\nquoted with approval  the  following  observation  of  the  Privy  Council  in<\/p>\n
P.Narayanaswamy Vs.  Emperor:-\n<\/p>\n
“When  the meaning of the words is plain, it is not the duty of Courts to busy
\nthemselves with supposed intentions.” .\n<\/p>\n
        14.  When the language of a provision is clear we have to go  by  that
\nplain  and  literal  language,  and  not  try  to twist it by probing into the
\nintention of the statute.  Thus Craies on Statute Law, Seventh Edition,  First
\nIndian Reprint  1999 (published by Universal Law Publishing Co.Pvt.  Ltd., New
\nDelhi p.65) quotes the decision  of  the  House  of  Lords  in  Warburton  Vs.
\nLoveland (1832) 2 D.  & CC.  (H.L.) 480 wherein it was observed:\n<\/p>\n
        “Where  the  language  of  an  Act is clear and explicit, we must give
\neffect to it, whatever may be the consequences, for in that case the words  of
\nthe statute speak the intention of the legislature”.\n<\/p>\n
        15.  In  Kanailal  Sur  Vs.    Paramnidhi,  AIR  1957 SC 907 (910) the
\nSupreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
        “If the words used are capable of one construction only then it  would
\nnot  be open to the Courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on the
\nground that such construction is more consistent with the alleged  object  and
\npolicy of the Act”.\n<\/p>\n
        16.  Similarly, in  State  of U.P.  Vs.  Vijay Anand Maharaj, AIR 1963
\nSC 946 (950) the Supreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
        “When a language is plain and  unambiguous  and  admits  of  only  one
\nmeaning, no question of construction of the statute arises, for the Act speaks
\nfor itself”.\n<\/p>\n
        17.  In Emperor Vs.  Benoarilal  Sarma,  AIR  1945  P.C.48  the  Privy
\nCouncil observed (per Viscount Simonds, L.C.):\n<\/p>\n
        “Again  and  again  this Board has insisted that in construing enacted
\nwords we are not concerned with the  policy  involved  or  with  the  results,
\ninjurious  or  otherwise,  which may follow from giving effect to the language
\nused” (See also Ajay Pradhan Vs.  State of M.P., AIR 1988 S.C.   1875  p.1878,
\nRananjaya Singh   Vs.     Baijnath  Singh,  AIR  1954  SC  749  p.752,  Senior
\nSuperintendent, RMS Vs.  K.B.Gopinath, AIR 1972 S.C.  14 8 7 p.1488).\n<\/p>\n
        18.  Where the language of a statute is plain and clear,  the  results
\nof  the construction are then not a matter for the Court, even though they may
\nbe strange or surprising, unreasonable, unjust or oppressive, vide A.W.  Meads
\nVs.  Emperor, AIR 1945 F.C.  21(23), Paklal Narayanswamy  Vs.    Experor,  AIR
\n1939 P.C.  47  (51),  Duport  Streets  Ltd., Vs.  Sirs (1930) 1 All E.R.  529,
\nPrecision Steel and Engg.  Works Vs.   Premdeva,  AIR  1982  SC  1518  (1526),
\nNasiruddin Vs.  S.T.A.T., AIR 1976 S.C.  331.\n<\/p>\n
        19.  Thus, it is well settled that hardship, inconvenience, injustice,
\netc.,  cannot be gone into when the words of a statute are susceptible to only
\none meaning.  It is only when there is ambiguity or  unclarity  in  a  statute
\nthat  the  Court  can  go  into  these  considerations  or try to find out the
\nintention of the statute.\n<\/p>\n
        20.  Thus, in M\/s.Hiralal Ratanlal Vs.  S.T.O., AIR 1973 S.C.1034(vide
\nparagraph – 21) the Supreme Court observed:-\n<\/p>\n
        “In  construing  a  statutory provision the first and foremost rule of
\nconstruction is the literary construction.  All that we have  to  see  at  the
\nvery outset  is  what does the provision say?  If the provision is unambiguous
\nand if from the provision the legislative intent is clear, the Court need  not
\ncall into aid the other rules of construction of statutes.  The other rules of
\nconstruction  are  called  into  aid  only  when the legislative intent is not
\nclear”.\n<\/p>\n
        21.  Learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3, Mr.Gopal  Subramaniam,
\nsubmitted  that  the  word ‘term’ in the second proviso to Section 6(1)(c) can
\nhave 2 meanings i.e.  the full term and also part of a  ‘term’.    We  do  not
\nagree.  In  our  opinion, the word ‘term ‘ has only one meaning i.e.  the full
\nterm, and it cannot mean part of a term.\n<\/p>\n
        22.  It may be noted that the second proviso uses the words ‘had  held
\noffice for  two terms’.  The word ‘held’ indicates that what has to be seen is
\nthe factual aspect.  In other words,  factually  the  person  must  have  held
\noffice  for  2  terms,  and  it  is not sufficient that he was appointed for 2
\nterms.\n<\/p>\n
        23.  In the New International Webster’s Dictionary Thesaurus the  word
\n‘term’ has been defined as “A fixed period or definite length of time:  a term
\nof office”.\n<\/p>\n
        24.  No  doubt the word ‘term’ can also have other meanings.  One word
\ncan have several meanings, and there can be  several  words  having  the  same
\nmeaning (synonyms).   However, in the context in which the word ‘ term’ occurs
\nin the second proviso to Section 6(1)(c) in our opinion it can have  only  one
\nmeaning, and  that  is a full term.  This context is the language of Section 6
\nitself, wherein the terms of Chairman, Vice-Chairman and member are defined in
\nSection 6(1)(a), (b) and (c).\n<\/p>\n
        25.  The principle of interpretation known as ‘Noscitur a Sociis’ will
\napply here.  This principle has been explained by Lord Macmillan as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “The  meaning of a word is to be judged by the company it keeps” ( See
\nalso G.P.Singh’s ‘Principles of Statutory Interpretation’ Seventh Edition 1999
\np.347, and Rohit Pulp and Paper Mills Ltd.  Vs.  Collector of Central  Excise,
\nAIR 1991 SC 754 (761).\n<\/p>\n
        26.  As observed by the Privy Council in Angus Robertson Vs.    George
\nDay, (1879) 5 A.C.63 (69):-\n<\/p>\n
        “It is a legitimate rule of construction to construe words in  an  Act
\nof Parliament with reference to words found in immediate connection with them”
\n(See also M.K.Ranganathan Vs.  Government of Madras, AIR 19 55 SC 604 p.609).\n<\/p>\n
        27.   Applying  this principle we have to hold that the word ‘term’ in
\nthe second proviso must take its colour from the use of the  word  in  Section
\n6(1)(a), (b) and (c), and hence must be understood accordingly.\n<\/p>\n
        28.   Secondly,  the  words  ‘had held office for two terms’ indicates
\nthat factually the  person  should  have  held  office  for  two  full  terms.
\nMr.Gopal Subramaniam, learned Senior Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 submitted
\nthat  even  if  a  person  holds  the  office of Vice-Chairman for one day and
\nrelinquishes it the next day he must be said to have held  the  office  for  a
\nterm.   In  our  opinion such an interpretation cannot be accepted, because in
\nthat case the language of the second proviso would have been as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
        “Provided  further  that  a person who has held office for any part of
\ntwo terms ???”\n<\/p>\n
        It is well settled that the Court cannot add to, or delete words from,
\na statute, as that is the function of the legislature.   As  observed  by  the
\nPrivy Council in Crawford Vs.  Spooner (1846) 6 Moore P.C.  1:-\n<\/p>\n
        “We  cannot  aid  the  legislature’s  defective phrasing of an Act, we
\ncannot add or mend and, by construction make up deficiencies  which  are  left
\nthere” (See also Shyam Kishori Devi Vs.  Patna Municipal Corporation, AIR 1966
\nSC 1678  p.1682,  A.R.Antuley  Vs.  R.S.Nayak, AIR 1984 SC 718, Union of India
\nVs.   Sankalchand,  AIR  1977  SC  2328  p.2337,  and  State  of  Gujarat  Vs.
\nD.N.Patel, J.T.  1998 (2) SC 253 p.255).  A matter which should have been, but
\nhas not been, provided for in a statute cannot be supplied by Courts, as to do
\nso will be legislation and not construction, vide Hansraj Gupta Vs.  Dehra Dun
\nMussoorie Electric Tramway  Co.,  AIR 1933 P.C.  63, W.W.Hiray Vs.  Mr.Justice
\nLentin, AIR 1 988 SC 2267.  The Court cannot supply a causus omissus or lacuna
\nin a statute, vide Hiradevi Vs.  District Board, AIR 1952 SC 362.\n<\/p>\n
        29.  Hence, we cannot agree with the contention that a term includes a
\npart of the term.  In our opinion, a term means a full term,  otherwise,  even
\nif  a  person  serves  only  for  one day, it will have to be held that he has
\nserved for a term.  The word “term” has to  be  understood  in  the  light  of
\nSection  6(1)(a),(b) and (c) of the Act, where the period of the term has been
\nprescribed.  Hence, it cannot be said that a term includes a part of the term.
\nIt is well settled that this Court cannot direct legislation,  vide  Union  of
\nIndia Vs.  Prakash P.Hinduja, AIR 2003 SC 2612 (paragraph – 29).\n<\/p>\n
        30.  The learned single Judge in paragraph -36  of  his  judgment  has
\nreferred to  the  decision  of the Orissa High Court in M.M.Pani Vs.  State of
\nOrissa, AIR 1971 Orissa 283) which has relied on the definition  of  the  word
\n“term” in  a  dictionary.    It must be understood that when we interpret some
\nword, we have to see the context and the entire statutory provision  in  which
\nthat word occurs and we cannot interpret the word mechanically.\n<\/p>\n
        31.   As  observed  by Allen in “Law in the Making” 5th edn., p.482 no
\nword has an absolute meaning, for no word can  be  defined  in  vacuo  without
\nreference to  a  context.    The  same  word  or expression may have different
\nmeanings in different statutes or sometimes even in the same statute depending
\nupon the context, vide M\/s.Jeewanlal Ltd., Vs.  Its Workmen, AIR 1961 SC  1567
\n(vide paragraph – 4)..\n<\/p>\n
        32.   It  is  possible  that in some statutes the word “term” may also
\nmean a part of the term, but in our opinion, as discussed  above,  in  Section
\n6(1)(a) of the Act the word “term” has to mean the full term and not a part of
\nthe term for the reasons already stated above.\n<\/p>\n
        33.   As held by the Supreme Court in M\/s.Jeewanlal Ltd., Calcutta Vs.
\nIts Workmen, AIR 1961 SC 1567 and in Deputy Chief Controller  of  Imports  and
\nExports, New Delhi Vs.  K.T.Kosalram, AIR 1971 SC 1283 the meaning of words in
\na particular context must be ascertained by considering the subject matter and
\nthe nature of the context in which the words are found, and the words in other
\nstatutes and in different contexts are of no value.\n<\/p>\n
        34.   It  is no sound principle of construction to interpret the words
\nor expressions used in one Act with reference to their  use  in  another  Act.
\nThe  meaning  of  words  and  expressions in an Act take their colour from the
\ncontext in which they appear.  To take a word bearing a peculiar meaning in  a
\nparticular  Act  and to clothe that word with the same meaning when found in a
\ndifferent  context  in  a  different  Act   is   a   fallacious   process   of
\ninterpretation, vide  Duraivelu  Vs.  Corporation of Madras, AIR 1935 Mad 600.
\nThe decision of the Orissa High Court in M.M.Pani Vs.  State  of  Orissa,  AIR
\n1971  Orissa  282  was  given  in  the  context of a different Act (The Orissa
\nPanchayat Samiti and Zila Parishad Act) and even the relevant section has  not
\nbeen quoted  in  the judgment.  At any event, we are not in agreement with the
\nOrissa High Court for the reasons given above.\n<\/p>\n
        35.  On the facts of the case we are of the opinion that the appellant
\nwas not disqualified from being appointed as Chairman of U.G.C., since, in our
\nopinion, he had not held office for two terms.  Hence, the second  proviso  to
\nSection 6(1)(c) has no application.\n<\/p>\n
        36.   Apart  from  the above, we are also of the opinion that the writ
\npetition should have been dismissed on the ground of laches as  it  was  filed
\nvery belatedly.     As  already  noted  above,  in  this  case,  the  impugned
\nappointment order appointing the appellant was passed on 16.07.20 02,  whereas
\nthe  writ  petition was filed on 18.10.2004 i.e., after a lapse of more than 2
\nyears and 3 months.  It is well settled that writ is a  discretionary  remedy,
\nvide R.Nanjappan  Vs.  The District Collector, Coimbatore, 2005 Writ LR 47 and
\nChandra Singh Vs.  State of Rajasthan, JT 2003 (6) SC 20.  One of the  grounds
\nfor  dismissing  a writ petition is that it is filed after unreasonable delay,
\nvide M.D.  Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai Division IV)  Ltd.,
\nDindigul Vs.  P.Ellappan, 2005-II-LLJ 300.\n<\/p>\n
        37.   It  is  well settled that if there is undue delay on the part of
\nthe petitioner in filing a writ petition, he would  not  be  entitled  to  the
\ndiscretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
        38.  In  State of Maharashtra Vs.  Digambar, AIR 1995 SC 1991:1995 (4)
\nSCC 683, the Supreme Court observed that it is well settled by  the  decisions
\nof  the  Court  that  no  person  is entitled to obtain equitable relief under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution  of  India  if  his  conduct  is  blame-worthy
\nbecause of laches, undue delay, acquiescence, waiver and the like.\n<\/p>\n
        39.  Similarly, in Municipal Council, Ahmednagar Vs.  Shah Hyder Beig,
\nAIR 2000  SC  671:    2000(2) SCC 48 it was held that when there is inordinate
\ndelay in filing a writ petition, the High Court in  its  discretionary  powers
\nunder  Article  226 of the Constitution of India can dismiss it on this ground
\nwithout going into the merits.\n<\/p>\n
        40.  In Gian Singh Mann Vs.  P & H High Court, AIR 1980  SC  1894:1980
\n(4)  SCC 266 a petition under Article 226 was filed by the petitioner about 11
\nyears from the date on which he claimed promotion.   The  Supreme  Court  held
\nthat  such  inordinate  delay  could  not be overlooked on the ground that the
\npetitioner was making successive representations.\n<\/p>\n
        41.  In J.N.Maltiar Vs.  State of Bihar, AIR 1973 SC 1343:1973 (1) SCC
\n811, it was held that where the petitioner,  a  dismissed  Government  servant
\nafter  being  informed that his services were terminated for misconduct, spent
\nabout three years in  sending  memorials  to  the  Government,  a  remedy  not
\nprovided by law, the High Court was justified in rejecting the petition on the
\nground of delay.\n<\/p>\n
        42.  In Rajalaskshmi Setty K.V.  Vs.  State of Mysore, AIR 1967 SC 993
\nthe Supreme Court held that the appellants were guilty of laches because after
\nthe  impugned order was passed in 1950, they should have filed a writ petition
\nwithin a reasonable time thereafter.  Merely because the  Chief  Engineer  had
\nespoused  their  cause  and was writing letters from time to time to the State
\nGovernment to do something for them did not mean that  they  could  rest  upon
\ntheir oars if they really had a grievance.\n<\/p>\n
        43.In Srinivasa Rao Vs.  State of Karnataka, AIR 1995 SC 722:1996 (9 )
\nSCC  616,  the Supreme Court held that the writ petition was rightly dismissed
\nby the High Court as belated since it was filed after a long delay of about 15
\nyears.\n<\/p>\n
        44.    Thus,   it   is  well  settled  that  writ  jurisdiction  being
\ndiscretionary jurisdiction it cannot be invoked by a party who approaches  the
\nHigh Court  after  unreasonable delay, vide S.A.Rasheed Vs.  Director of Mines
\nand Geology, AIR 1995 SC 1739:1995 (4) SCC 584).\n<\/p>\n
        45.  No doubt there is  no  specific  limitation  provided  for  under
\nArticle 226 for filing a writ petition.  However, the principle of laches i.e.
\nundue delay  certainly  applies  to  writ jurisdiction.  The High Court has to
\nexercise its writ jurisdiction on settled legal principles, and one  of  these
\nlegal  principles  is  that  a  writ petition is liable to be dismissed if the
\npetitioner has come to the High Court after undue delay, as  has  happened  in
\nthis case.   Hence the writ petition deserved to be dismissed on the ground of
\nlaches without going into the merits, vide Delhi Admn.  Vs.  Hira Lal,  (1999)
\n6 SCC 58.\n<\/p>\n
        46.   In  view of the above, this writ appeal is allowed, the impugned
\norder of the learned single Judge is  set  aside  and  the  writ  petition  is
\ndismissed.  No costs.  Consequently, connected W.A.M.P.  is closed.\n<\/p>\n
Index:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
sm <\/p>\n
Copy to:-\n<\/p>\n
1.  The Secretary to Government,
\nMinistry of Human Resources Development,
\nDepartment of Secondary & Higher Education,
\nUnion of India, New Delhi.\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Secretary to Government,
\nMinistry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs,
\nUnion of India, New Delhi.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18\/06\/2005 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR.MARKANDEY KATJU, CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE F.M.IBRAHIM KALIFULLA W.A.No.1088 of 2005 and W.A.M.P.No.1978 of 2005 Prof. Arun Nigavekar, Chairman, University Grants Commission, Bahaduras Zafar Marg, New Delhi – […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-87077","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nProf. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2005-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-25T13:20:09+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"21 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005\",\"datePublished\":\"2005-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-25T13:20:09+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005\"},\"wordCount\":4018,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005\",\"name\":\"Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2005-06-17T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-25T13:20:09+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2005-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-25T13:20:09+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"21 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005","datePublished":"2005-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-25T13:20:09+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005"},"wordCount":4018,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005","name":"Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2005-06-17T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-25T13:20:09+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/prof-arun-nigavekar-vs-dr-r-natarajan-on-18-june-2005#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Prof. Arun Nigavekar vs Dr.R.Natarajan on 18 June, 2005"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87077","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=87077"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/87077\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=87077"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=87077"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=87077"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}