Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Phoenix Pvt.Ltd vs State Of Andhra Pradesh on 5 November, 2019
Author: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
Bench: M.Satyanarayana Murthy
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY
WRIT PETITION NO.16187 OF 2019
ORDER:
Phoenix Inn Private Limited and Madhu Infra filed this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India challenging the action of the respondent No.3 - Deputy Director of Mines and Geology in seizing the premises in an extent of Ac.1.50 cents covered by R.S.No.176 (P) of Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada, Krishna District along with rented machinery declare the same as illegal, arbitrary, against the principles of natural justice, contrary to the provisions of A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 as amended (for short "Concession Rules 1966") and contrary to various G.Os. issued by the Government from time to time, consequently direct the respondent authorities to unlock the construction site permitting the petitioner company to continue the construction work.
The petitioner No.2 is a construction company and petitioner No.1 is proposed to construct a shopping mall in Enikepadu, Vijayawada in an extent of Ac 1-50 cents covered by RS No. 176 (P) of Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada, Krishna District with an estimated cost of 200 crores. Petitioner No.1 company submitted an application to the AP Capital Region Development Authority (for short "APCRDA"), Vijayawada for grant of necessary approvals and APCRDA granted the necessary approval vide Permit No. 1168/7375/B/VJA/EKPD/2018 dated 03.06.2019. After obtaining necessary approval for construction, the petitioner No.1 submitted a letter of intent on 22.08.2019 to the petitioner No.2 Madhu Infra for carrying out excavation work at the above Survey Number for MSM,J WP_16187_2019 2 construction of Phoenix Enikepadu Mall, Vijayawada Town. Temporary permit for Ordinary Earth/Busuka for a quantity of 24,780 Cubic Metres over an extent of Ac 1.50 cents in Sy.No. 176/P of Enikepadu Village. Vide Proceedings No. 1607/T.P./2019 dated 26.08.2019 was also granted by the Department of Mines and Geology.
Before granting the said Temporary Permit dated 26.08.2019, the Royalty Inspector and Surveyor of the office of Department of Mines and Geology inspected the subject area on 2108-2019 for detailed estimation of the quantity excavated, quantity utilized, quantity transported to the outside the premises and the quantity actually to be excavated. As per the inspection report of the Royalty Inspector & Surveyor, the subject area having two types of minerals (1) sand mixed with clay and silt locally known as 'Busaka' (2) ordinary earth useful for filling purpose but not suitable for construction purpose. In the meanwhile, the petitioner company after consulting necessary engineers for construction of the Shopping Mall, the petitioner company understood that, it required 3rd basement also. So the petitioner submitted another application on 15.08.2019 to APCRDA and accordingly the APCRDA granted Building permit vide No. 1168/7375/B/VJA/EKPD/2018 dated 19.09.2019.
Thus, the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 after obtaining necessary approvals from the concerned departments started excavation work, while so on 07.10.2019 the respondent No.3 along with his staff inspected the premises seized the premises along with rented machinery and handed over the same to Village Revenue Officer, MSM,J WP_16187_2019 3 Enikepadu even without giving any notice and opportunity to the petitioners.
Respondent No.3/ Deputy Director of Mines and Geology simply prepared a panchanama (mediators report) under the cover of report seized the construction site and rented machinery, which is as follows:
a) Four excavation Ex 200 at the rental value of Rs.10000/-
per day.
b) Two 110 machinery for the rent of Rs.7000/- per day
c) One Diaphragm valve machine for the rent of Rs.1,50,000/- per month.
d) Two cranes at the rental value of Rs.2,00,000/- per month
e) Two Compressors for the rent of Rs.25,000/- per month
f) Three Basing Machines at the rent of Rs. 25,000/- per month It is contended that the seizure of premises along with the machinery by the respondent No.3 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. After seizing of the premises along with the machinery, the petitioner company submitted a representation on 12.10.2019 to the respondent No.4/ Assistant Director of Mines and Geology for return of machinery and unlock the premises. The petitioner company also submitted representation dated 11.10.2019 to the District Collector, Krishna District. But no action has been taken by the District Collector for release of the premises and machinery.
MSM,J WP_16187_2019 4 The petitioner company also submitted a representation on 11.10.2019 to the AP Mineral Development Corporation Limited (for short "APMDC"), Vijayawada, requesting them to allocate required quantities of sand for the construction of the above said Shopping Mall. The petitioner company has undertaken civil work i.e., construction of a shopping mall. For that purpose excavation was done for laying foundation. In such circumstances the action of the respondent authorities in seizing the premises on the ground that, excavation was done beyond 6 metres is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.
The basis for this contention is the law declared by the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh in "Indian Hume Pipe Co.Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh1". On the strength of the law declared in the above judgment, the petitioners requested to allow the writ petition.
Heard, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology, at the stage of admission for disposal, with their consent.
During hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the sand/Busaka was excavated only for laying foundation, such material is not fit for construction, but the same can be used for filling purpose only. Even if the material is to be transported to any other place outside the premises, seigniorage fee is to be paid. Therefore, APMDC has no power to sell the sand and the seizure of entire premises on the ground that the excavation was done beyond 6 metres from the ground level is a 1 2013 (4) ALD 490 MSM,J WP_16187_2019 5 serious illegality and drawn the attention of this Court "Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh" (referred supra) in support of his contention. On the basis of law declared by the learned single Judge in the judgment (referred supra), learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when sand is excavated while raising construction, that would not attract the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and no seigniorage fee is payable on the gravel or soil that emanates in the course of digging foundation for civil works in different categories. Therefore, the seizure of the entire premises and machinery is a grave illegality and it is nothing but exercise of arbitrary power and requested to pass appropriate orders.
Whereas, learned Government Pleader for Mines and Geology contended that show-cause notice dated 17.09.2019 was issued calling for explanation within 15 days, accordingly the petitioners submitted explanation to the show-cause and it is pending for passing appropriate orders. The reason for seizure of machinery and premises is excavation of earth beyond 6 meters in depth as he was permitted to excavate the earth only up to 6 meters, but the excavation went up to 11 meters from the ground level and the earth removed from the ground is being sold for higher price for gain and such activity is prohibited by the rules. Hence, seizure of premises and machinery is in accordance with rules and prayed to dismiss petition.
Undoubtedly, the petitioner No.1 started construction of shopping mall known as Phoenix Mall. After obtaining necessary permission from APCRDA and other concerned authorities started MSM,J WP_16187_2019 6 excavation for laying basement for the proposed construction and the initial permit obtained by the petitioner No.1 was modified.
The petitioners also obtained permission from the Mines and Geology Department for excavation. Department of Mines and Geology issued proceedings in Proce.No.1607/T.P/2019 dated 26.08.2019 considering the application of the petitioner No.1, based on Royalty Inspector and Surveyor report and the paragraph No.3 of the proceedings is relevant for purpose of deciding the issue, which is as follows:
"The Royalty Inspector and Surveyor of this office has inspected the subject area on 21.08.2019 for detailed estimation of the quantity excavated, quantity utilized at in site, quantity transported to the outside the premises and the quantity actual to be excavated. As per the inspection report the subject area having two types of minerals 1) Sand mixed with clay and slit locally known as "Busaka", 2) Ordinary earth use full for filling purpose but not suitable for construction purpose. Further the estimated quantities
1. The Total Quantity to be excavated upto 6 Mts depth = 30,596.28 Cum
2. Quantity already excavated (as per the available pit) = 5,813.36 Cum
3. Excavated Quantity available at the site = 2,000.00 Cum
4. Quantity consumed at site = 530.00 Cum
5. Quantity transported outside the site (2-(3+4) = 3,283.36 Cum."
In the same proceedings, permission granted by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Vijayawada for digging earth vide Memo No.375/TP/2019 dated 26.08.2019 was referred, by which temporary permission was granted in favour of Sri T.Pranith Krishna for Excavation and Transportation Ordinary Earth/Busaka for a quantity of 24,782.92 Cums over an extent of 1.50 Acres in Sy.No.176/P of Enikepadu Village, Vijayawada Rural Mandal of Krishna District for a period of 60 days under Rule 9 (iii) MSM,J WP_16187_2019 7 of the APMMC Rules 1966 and Sri T.Pranith Krishna has paid necessary amount through challans. Temporary permit is always subject to certain conditions, they are extracted hereunder.
"1. The temporary permit holder should conduct the quarrying operations strictly in the area demarcated, as per sketch and specified depth mentioned therein and also subject to safe guard the adjacent putta lands.
2. The temporary permit holder should submit the dispatch particulars for every 07 days.
3. The temporary permit will not be revalidated under any circumstance.
4. The temporary permit holder should return the permit together with original copies of transit bills immediately after completion of the transportation or after expiry of the time limit, whichever is earlier.
5. Any violation of the conditions specified above, Terms and Conditions given by the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Vijayawada action will be initiated on the T.P. Holder as per A.P.M.M.C. Rules, 1966.
6.The Temporary permit holder should conduct the quarrying operations below 6.00 meters depth."
There is no dispute regarding grant of temporary permission for 60 days by Deputy Director of Mines and Geology and Assistant Director issued proceedings in Procc.No.1607/T.P/2019 dated 26.08.2019.
The only dispute is excavation of earth and sand with clay, transportation of the same to the other parts of the State. Later, there was correspondence between the petitioner and the department. The petitioner No.1 entered into agreement with the petitioner No.2 for different works for construction of building. Petitioner No.2 engaged machinery for construction and the same was seized by the respondent No.3 on the sole ground that the excavation is beyond the permitted depth. However, respondents did not deny the seizure of machinery and locking of premises.
MSM,J WP_16187_2019 8 Copy of the seizure panchanama is also placed on record to establish prima facie seizure of machinery and locking of premises. Respondents did not deny the said seizure.
As per the judgment in "Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh" (referred supra), sand extracted while digging foundations in civil works would not attract Rule 10 (3) (b) of the Andhra Pradesh Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 and the learned single Judge held as follows:
"If one takes into account the provisions of the relevant enactments and the Rules made thereunder, it becomes clear that the necessity or obligation to pay the seigniorage fee had arisen, if only the mineral is removed from any particular area. Mere digging of earth for a purpose, not connected with the mining activity cannot result in obligation to pay the seigniorage fee or dead rent. Further, the State can impose tax or fee only under a specific legislation made by the competent legislature. Bye-law or subordinate legislation cannot bring about the obligation."
Further, the learned Single Judge held that the activity of mining has its own specific attributes. Its principal objective is to extract mineral and utilize it for commercial purposes. Since the Government holds the sovereign rights over the minerals, that are impregnate in the earth, it is only on being permitted by it, that the activity of mining can take place. It is not even alleged that any of the petitioners have taken up mining as their principal activity. It is in the course of their civil works, that the trenches are dug. This naturally lead to the accumulation of the resultant gravel or earth by the side of the trench. Since the digging of the trench is for the purpose of civil work, it cannot be treated as mining activity at all. Added to that, the digging was not undertaken with an objective of recovering gravel or any other specified material. On the other hand, the gravel or earth came to be removed in the course of MSM,J WP_16187_2019 9 digging the trench. Even if stone comes in the trench, that has to be blasted or cut. On that account, the concerned individual or the agency cannot be said to have undertaken mining activity. Another way of looking at the issue is, as to whether the petitioners have supplied or sold the mineral or earth recovered in the process of digging the foundations. If they sold the soil or gravel, which they excavated, without obtaining lease or used it for a different work, the respondents shall be entitled to levy seigniorage fee. That is not even the allegation. A totally hyper-technical approach is adopted. Mathematical calculation of what would have been the earth excavated in the course of digging the trench, what would be the quantity of earth that is needed to level the trench, after the completion of the work, and what would remain thereafter, is done and on the last of the quantities, the seigniorage fee is sought to be levied. The whole approach of the respondents is untenable.
In view of the law declared in "Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh" (referred supra), the petitioner is liable to pay seigniorage fee only for the quantity transported from the premises for sale and not otherwise.
The word "mining" is not precisely defined under any enactment. Section 3(d) of Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, defines the expression, "mining operations", "as any operation undertaken for the purpose of winning any mineral". Therefore, the activity conducted by petitioner No.1 engaging the petitioner No.2 would not strictly fall under mining operation since the excavation was not done for the purpose of winning any mineral.
MSM,J WP_16187_2019 10 It is undoubtedly true that any mineral that exists upon a private or Government land would vest in the State, and mining operation can be only with the specific permission accorded under a lease or licence (Vide: Bhagwan Dass v. State of U.P. and Others2) Vesting of minerals on the State is not in dispute and more curiously, the petitioners obtained permission from the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, Vijayawada in Memo No.375/TP/2019 dated 26.08.2019 and the same was referred in the proceedings issued by the Assistant Director of Mines, Geology in Proce.No.1607/T.P/2019 dated 26.08.2019 and temporary permit was granted subject to certain conditions specified therein, which are extracted in the earlier paragraphs.
Assuming for a moment that operations were done by the petitioner No.1 engaging petitioner No.2 would constitute mining operations, petitioner No.1 obtained temporary permission stated supra from the concerned authorities. Thus, the petitioner No.1 after obtaining temporary permission for 60 days started excavation and it is not against provisions of the A.P.Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966.
The seizure of machinery and locking of premises under cover of mediators report dated 07.10.2019 is not preceded by any notice or show-cause notice calling upon, explanation as to why machinery and premises should not be seized. But surprisingly a show-cause notice was issued on 09.10.2019 i.e. after seizure of premises. Even in the notice also, the respondents referred 2 (1976) 3 SCC 784, MSM,J WP_16187_2019 11 G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 04.09.2019 and on the basis of power conferred on Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, he called for explanation as to why action shall not be initiated against the petitioner under the A.P. Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1966 for illegal excavation beyond the permitted depth, without obtaining necessary permission. The explanation was submitted by the petitioner No.1 and it is pending for consideration.
When the premises was seized putting a lock to the premises and seized the machinery employed by the petitioners for excavation, raising basement would not constitute any mining operation as held by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in "Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. State of Andhra Pradesh" (referred supra). Even otherwise, necessary permission was obtained by the petitioners from the Deputy Director for a period of 60 days and excavated sand for raising basement for the proposed shopping mall, such act does not amount to violation of Concession Rules 1966.
Rule 26 of the Concession Rules, 1966 deals with penalty for unauthorized quarrying.
According to Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 26, if any person carries on quarrying operations or transports minor minerals in contravention of these rules, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to Rs. Five Lakhs along with the Market Value of the mineral and Seigniorage Fee prevalent at that time or both and the lease or permit if any already granted may, at the MSM,J WP_16187_2019 12 discretion of the officer authorized in this behalf, be liable to be terminated or cancelled.
Sub-Rule (2) of Rule 26 made it clear that, whenever any person raises or transports minor minerals without any lawful authority, such minerals may be seized by an officer nominated by the Director of Mines & Geology in this behalf in addition that he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to Rs. Five Lakhs along with double the Market Value of the mineral or both. In case of continuous offence, an additional fine of Rs.5000/- per day till the offence is rectified.
Thus, it means that only mineral is liable for seizure, but not the premises or the machinery used. Hence, assuming for a moment that G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 04.09.2019 is not applicable, seizure of the premises and machinery is contrary to the Concession Rules, 1966.
The main contention of the respondents is that as per G.O.Ms.No.71 dated 04.09.2019 the petitioners are not entitled to transport or sell the mineral i.e. sand without prior permission. No doubt, new sand mining policy was adopted to sub-serve common good, since, the natural resources are legally owned by the State on behalf of the people and the State is under an obligation to ensure equitable, sustainable and affordable distribution of natural resources among the community under Section 15 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act 1957 and the State Government is empowered to make rules in respect of minor minerals. The new policy aims to address the issues of MSM,J WP_16187_2019 13 indiscriminate mining of sand, black marketing, hoarding, skyrocketing of sand prices for consumers, artificial supply shortages and illegal cross border transportation of sand which were the concomitants of the free sand policy. To effectively regulate the extraction, transportation and disposal of river sand, the Government intends to have M/s. Andhra Pradesh Mineral Development Corporation Limited (APMDC) as an agent.
Even according to amended rules, specific penalties are prescribed under Rule 16. As per Rule 16, all penal provisions are applicable against the persons who involved in sale/illegal extraction/unauthorized excavation of sand in prohibited areas, trading and selling of sand, charging beyond cost of transportation and excavation, transporting sand without GPS devices, use or usage of machinery and vehicles in unauthorized excavation and transportation of sand to other states.
The said rule is very clear that only machinery and vehicles used in unauthorized excavation for transportation of sand to the other states are liable for seizure.
According to Rule 16 (h), the Tahsildar (or) the officers nominated by Tahsildar at Mandal Level; Sub-Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer (or) the officers nominated by the Sub- Collector/Revenue Divisional Officer at Divisional Level; the Joint Collector/the District Collector (or) the officers nominated by the Joint Collector/ the District Collector at District level shall seize illegal sand stocks and such seized sand shall be disposed by concerned Tahsildar/Sub-Collector/RDO or any officer nominated by District Collector with the approval of the District Collector and MSM,J WP_16187_2019 14 Chairman of the District Level Sand Committee (DLSC) at the sale price as adopted and sale proceeds shall be remitted to the Government treasury. Therefore, question of seizing the premises does not arise even according to amended rules. Rule 16 (g) is as follows:
"The vehicle/machinery, found involved in any violation more than two times, such vehicle/machinery along with sand shall be seized by officers authorized in sub-rule 16 (f)of Rule 9-B duly following the procedure as under:
(i) Issue show cause notice to the person/owner from whom the vehicle/machinery is seized.
(ii) Immediately take steps by preparing seizure report and produce the vehicle/machinery before the competent Court to enable the person/owner from whom the vehicle/machinery is seized to file an application under Section 451 of Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) for release of vehicle/machinery.
(iii) In the alternative, the person/owner from whom vehicle/machinery is to be seized shall be permitted to submit explanation to the show cause notice along with an application to the authorized officer seeking release of vehicle/machinery.
(iv) Upon receipt of explanation to the show cause notice and the application for release of vehicle/machinery, the authorized officer shall consider the application and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks there from on production of security of Rs. 25,000/- in case of tractor;Rs.1,00,000/- in case of vehicle upto 10 tonnes capacity; Rs.1,50,000/- in case of vehicle above 10 tonnes capacity and Rs. 2,00,000/- for any machinery, in the form of Demand Draft drawn in favour of the authorized officer along with an affidavit/undertaking MSM,J WP_16187_2019 15 to produce the seized vehicle/machinery as and when required.
(v) The fine paid as per the orders of Competent Court;
the security furnished as per clause (iv)above shall be deposited in the head of account '0853- 102-81-other receipts' and the original challan shall be sent to the Asst. Director of Mines & Geology concerned." Therefore, to seize the machinery, the concerned authorities have to come to a conclusion that the machinery and vehicles were used in violation of rules for more than 2 times, but the panchanama is totally silent in this regard. Therefore, seizure of the machinery is contrary to the rules prescribed in G.O.Ms.No.71 Industries, Infrastructure, Investment and Commerce (Mines-II) Department dated 04.09.2019 . Assuming for a moment, the material found in the premises is sand with clay useful for the purpose of filling, which is covered by the said G.O., in the absence of recording satisfaction by the Deputy Director that the machinery seized involved in mining operations illegally for more than 2 times, the seizure itself is illegal.
None of the rules permits the Deputy Director or any authority under the Rules, to seize the premises. Therefore, seizure of premises, where construction is going on is a serious illegality and without any authority under law.
Seizure of machinery and premises causes substantial injury to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and acting in such hectic and hazardous manner by the officials may loose faith of the public on the system itself when the officials are not vested with such power. When such act was done by the officials for different reasons MSM,J WP_16187_2019 16 known to them, the State or the officials, who cause substantial loss to the public, are accountable and it is against the litigation policy of the State.
Time and again, the Apex Court directed the State and Central Government to formulate litigation policy so as to prevent unnecessary delays in rendering justice to the parties. The State of Andhra Pradesh also formulated the litigation policy, but it is not implemented till date. On the other hand, on account of enthusiasm shown by the officials, the public are being put to substantial injury. When the officials acted in contravention of G.O.Ms.No.71 Industries, Infrastructure, Investment and Commerce (Mines-II) Department dated 04.09.2019, they are liable for disciplinary action.
The Government is expected to be model litigant maintaining ethical standards in prosecuting the litigation being a compulsive litigant. The Government of India in view of certain observations made in various Judgments by the Apex Court in "State Of Punjab v M/S. Geeta Iron & Brass Works Ltd.3" and "Chief Conservator of Forests, Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Collector4" adopted National Litigation Policy, but it did not yield fruitful results and it totally failed. But, the Government of India being a model litigant is under obligation under common law has not always been clear, but the written policies seek to provide clarity and guidance as to what conduct is required of a model litigant. Behind each of the duties an overreaching duty to act honestly, fairly, with complete propriety and in accordance with 3 (1978) 1 SCC 68 4 (2003) 3 SCC 472 MSM,J WP_16187_2019 17 the highest professional standards. It goes beyond the requirement for lawyers to act in accordance with their ethical obligations and merely acting honestly or in accordance with the law and court rules. The policies all variously refer to the following specific duties, some of which have long been recognised by the Courts.
a) Dealing with claims promptly;
b) Minimising delay in proceedings'
c) Making an early assessment of the prospects of success and potential liability in claims;
d) Paying legitimate claims without litigation ;
e) Acting consistently in the handling of claims and litigation;
f) Endeavouring to avoid, prevent or limit the scope of litigation and participating in alternative dispute resolution where appropriate;
g) Minimizing costs in proceedings;
h) Not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim;
i) Not taking technical points unless the agencies interests would be compromised;
j) Not understanding and pursuing appeals unless there are reasonable prospects for success or the appeal is otherwise justified in the public interest; and MSM,J WP_16187_2019 18
k) Apologising when the government or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly.
These guidelines as recognized by Common Wealth Governments by model litigation policy of Common Wealth countries. The litigation in the Courts would be minimized though the Government of India adopted the National Litigation Policy, it did not serve any useful purpose. Therefore, the Government being litigant is at least expected to follow the ethical issues and practical considerations while dealing with a citizen in litigation before the Court. The Government being litigant is expected to be honest to minimise the litigation, instead of it, the respondents herein being the State Government department as a litigant not acting fairly and prosecuting the proceedings and acted usurping power, which is not vested on it and the G.O.Ms.No.71 Industries, Infrastructure, Investment and Commerce (Mines-II) Department dated 04.09.2019 did not confer any such power on the respondents, but acted in such derogatory manner, which caused huge loss to the petitioner as the entire work is stranded. With a hope, at least the officials of the State will act within their limitations as per the provisions of the Act, I find that the Deputy Director of Mines and Geology, exceeded his power and such exercise of power, which is not vested on him in seizing the premises is arbitrary and illegal act. Hence, respondent No.3 is directed to release the premises from their custody unlocking the doors of the premises.
MSM,J WP_16187_2019 19 In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to release both the premises and machinery seized by them. No costs.
The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.
_________________________________________ JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY Date:05.11.2019 Note: Issue copy by 07.11.2019 b/o Ksp MSM,J WP_16187_2019 20 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION NO.16187 OF 2019 05.11.2019 Note: Issue copy by 07.11.2019 Ksp