Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shyam Steel Manufacturing Limited ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 6 December, 2019
Author: Md. Nizamuddin
Bench: Md. Nizamuddin
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Md. Nizamuddin
W.P. No. 6127 (W) of 2012
Shyam Steel Manufacturing Limited Company & Anr.
Vs.
Union of India & Ors.
For the Petitioners :- Mr. Shyamal Sarkar, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Meghajit Mukherjee, Adv.
Ms. Varun Pradhan, Adv.
For the Respondents :- Mr.Ashok Kumar Chakroborty, Sr. Adv.
Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.
Judgement On :- 06.12.2019
MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.
Heard Learned Advocates appearing for the parties. In this Writ Petition petitioner has challenged the impugned demands dated 15.07.2011, 22.09.2011, 03.11.2011 and 20.02.2012 raised by the respondent Railway Authorities.
Relevant facts involved in brief in the instant case as appears on perusal of relevant records are hereunder.
The petitioners are in the business of manufacturing of Sponge Iron and Steel Billets in its Sponge Iron plant at Jemua Mouza, Mejia, Bankura, West Bengal. The petitioner no. 1 requires iron-ore as raw material for production in its plant. The iron-ore mines are situated in Orissa State within the jurisdiction of 1 South Eastern Railway and the goods are unloaded for taking to the factory of the petitioner no. 1 at Tapasi Goods Shed, near Asansol, within the jurisdiction of Eastern Railway.
Petitioners contend that in a meeting held on February 9, 2007, the Railway Board decided to include small manufacturers as a group within Priority "C", who were not covered individually under priority "C".
Petitioners contend that pursuant to the said policy decision of the Railway Board, the petitioner no. 1 along with two other companies formed a group for taking allotment of rakes under Priority "C". The group consisted of one Maheswary Ispat Limited, Vikash Metal & Power Limited and the petitioner no. 1. Maheswary Ispat Limited was authorized to act on behalf of the group, i.e. in all movement of rakes and booking of wagons, Maheswary Ispat was the named consignor.
Petitioners contend that on or about February 10/20, 2007 the petitioner no. 1 applied for inclusion of the name of the petitioner no. 1 in the programmed traffic (Priority "C"). An affidavit authorizing Maheswary Ispat Limited to apply for programmed traffic on behalf of the petitioner no. 1 was also provided.
Petitioners contend that by a letter dated June 5, 2007 the Railway Board communicated the decision of inclusion of the name of the petitioner no. 1 in a group under in Programmed Traffic with Maheswary Ispat Limited as the group leader. This also indicated the raked allocated to the group for the month of June, 2007 since then the group leader has been the consignor in respect of rakes allotted to the group including the petitioner no. 1. However, in the Railway Receipt, the name of the actual consignee was also mentioned. This system was and still is continuing to the notice and knowledge of the respondents.
Petitioners contend that on or about September 14, 2008, the group leader placed an indent for a rake on account of the petitioner no.1 but inadvertently and/or by clerical mistake, the name of the petitioner no. 1 as a consignee was omitted in the indent requisition. However, the said mistake was detected before 2 the dispatch of the goods and the Railway Receipt bearing No. 212001560 dated 15.09.2008 was corrected by the Railway officials at the request of the petitioners, including the name of the petitioner no. 1 as consignee. On receipt of the goods at Tapasi Goods Shed the materials were released by the railways to the petitioner no. 1 without any demand and on producing the requisite documents for release of material including the affidavit stating the factory licence number and CENVAT number and that the material was meant for domestic consumption and will not be exported.
Petitioners contend that on or about March 18, 2010, that is after 18 months from delivery of the goods, a purported debit note without any particulars was issued by the Railways to the petitioner no. 1 demanding Rs. 59,51,723/- for the alleged mis-declaration for materials brought under the said Railway Receipt No. 212001560 dated 15.09.2008. The said demand was raised without any notice or any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner no. 1.
The said demand was challenged before this Court by a Writ Petition being W.P. No. 15550 (W) of 2010 which was disposed of by an order dated February 14, 2011, directing that the demand notice dated March 18, 2010 shall be deemed to be withdrawn and the Railway was given liberty to issue a fresh notice stating therein in detail the facts and circumstances in justification of the decision to levy penalty for mis-declaration. Relevant portion of the said order of the Court dated 14th February, 2011, is as follows:
"Mr. Datta, counsel for the petitioner, submits that since the Railway making claim by the demand notice dated March 18, 2010 (at p.31) did not give detailed reasons in support of the claim the petitioner is unable to approach the Tribunal questioning the validity of the claim.
By the demand notice the Railway has submitted that if this Court is of the view that the demand notice does not disclose the detailed reasons for levying penalty for mis 3 declaration and claiming the amount, then the Railway will issue a fresh demand notice stating in detail the facts and circumstances under which the Railway decided to levy penalty for mis declaration and claim the amount mentioned in the demand notice.
In view of the above situation, I am of the view that it will be appropriate to dispose of the art 226 petition directing the Railway to state the facts and circumstances in detail in support of its decision to levy penalty for mis declaration and claim the amount in question, so that, if aggrieved, the petitioner may approach the Tribunal.
For these reasons, I dispose of the petition ordering as follows. The demand notice dated March 18, 2010 (at p. 31) shall be deemed to be withdrawn. The Railway shall issue a fresh notice stating therein in detail the facts and circumstances in justification of the decision to levy penalty for mis declaration and claim the amount.
The petitioner, if aggrieved, will be free to approach the Tribunal. No costs, Certified Xerox."
It appears from record that after the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondents issued letter dated 03.11.2011 raising the demand in question with reason which is hereunder:
" In connection to above subject demand served by GSS/Tapasi, your representation has been received and examined by this office. It is noticed that Sova Ispat Ltd affirmed affidavit authorizing Maheswary Ispat Ltd to apply for CBT (Central Board of Traffic)/programmed traffic on behalf of that company on 19.02.2007. Being a member of 4 consortium, M/s Sova Ispat Ltd. Is also a beneficiary and of the steps taken by M/s Maheswary Ispat Ltd. as the consortium leader vests upon its beneficiary also.
As per para 1820 of Railway
Commercial Manual Vol. II which contains,
any under charge detected at the
destination against the consignment must be paid by the consignee before taking delivery.
In this instant case M/s Sova Ispat Ltd, has
taken delivery of the consignment and
accordingly the demand notice for payment
of under charge amounting to Rs.
59,51,723/- has been correctly served.
Considering all the aspects, it is
requested to make the payment of Rs.
59,51,723/- immediately, failure of which may compel Railway authority to take appropriate step as per provision of Indian Railway Act' 1989 and rate circular No. 30 of 2008."
Thereafter respondents issued another letter dated 20.02.2012 requesting the petitioners to pay the demand in question with detail reason which is hereunder:
"One Iron ore rake was booked ex Baramjamda to Tapasi Goods vide Inv/RR No. 14/212001560 dated 15.09.2000. In the subject rake Maheswary Ispat Ltd submitted the forwarding Note and in the RR also the consignor and consignee was M/s Maheswary Ispat Ltd, and submitted all required documents as per R.C. 30 at the booking point. The GSS at Baramjamda manually endorsed the name of M/s Sova Ispat Ltd. in the RR. At the destination at Tapasi Goods, the consignment was taken delivery by M/s Sova Ispat Ltd. It was given to understand that M/s Sova Ispat Ltd. affirmed affidavit 5 authorising Maheswary Ispat Ltd. to apply for CBT (Central Board of Traffic)/ Programmed Traffic on behalf of the company on 19.02.2007 but M/s Sova Ispat Ltd. being a beneficiary become responsible for the steps taken by Maheswary Ispat Ltd.
as a leader of the consortium.
Traffic Accounts office, raised a debit of Rs. 59,51,723/- against M/s Sova Ispat Ltd. vide para 6 of R.C. No. 30 imposing penalty in double the 200 X class treating the case of mis-declarance. It is pertinent to mention that the Writ Petition W.P. No. 15550 has already been disposed by Hon'ble High Court, Kolkata and Rly. has complied the direction of the Court by communicating the detail demand notice as desired by your concern.
It is therefore once again requested to make payment of the above undercharge immediately so that the division is not forced to take any unpleasant step to recover the amount."
Challenging the aforesaid demand notice petitioners have filed the instant Writ Petition on several grounds as would appear hereunder.
Petitioners submit that in spite of request, no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioners. The letters of demand, apart from baseless were also violative of the principles of natural justice.
Petitioners submit that the goods in question have been taken delivery by the petitioners in September 2009, i.e. 18 months before the first demand notice dated 18.3.2010 was issued. After delivery of the consignments, the Railway administration has no jurisdiction to re-calculate freight or collect any amount towards freight. The impugned demands claiming under-charges are violative of Section 78 of the Railways Act, 1989 and under-charges or any escaped amount towards freight can be claimed only by the "Railway administration" and the 6 respondent no. 3 or his subordinate officer had no jurisdiction, authority or power to issue the impugned demands.
Petitioners in support of their contention made above relied on the following decisions:
(a) 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 1819 (Ultra Tech Cement Limited & Anr. -
vs- Union of India & Ors.).
(b) 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 89 (Union of India & Ors. -vs- Ultra Tech Cement Ltd. & Anr.).
(c) Unreported judgment of this Court dated 24th December, 2014 in M.A.T No. 1970 of 2013 (Reshmi Metaliks Ltd. & Anr -vs- Union of India & Ors.).
(d) 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 10433 (Union of India & Ors. -vs- Biswanath Agarwal).
The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents opposing the Writ Petition has made the submission hereunder.
Respondents submit that by order dated February 14, 2011 this Court held in earlier Writ Petition filed by the petitioners being (W.P. No. 15550(W) of 2012) that if the petitioner is aggrieved by the fresh assessment/demand, shall approach the Tribunal, and the said judgment is conclusive and petitioners have accepted the said judgment and never challenged the same and the said judgment is binding upon the petitioners.
Respondents submit that instead of approaching the Tribunal against the order dated 15.07.2011 at page 66 of the Writ Petition, the petition had moved the instant Writ Petition being W.P. No. 6127 (W) of 2012.
Respondents submit that the Writ Petitioners have not challenged the Rates Circular No. 30 of 2008 and are obliged to pay the under charge in terms of other relevant conditions provided in the said Circular. 7
In term of the earlier judgment passed in W.P. No. 15550 (W) of 2012, the assessment was made by the Railway Claiming under Charge, by order dated 15.07.2011 (Page 66 to 68 of the Writ Petition) and order dated 20.02.2012 (Page 79 of the Writ Petition) and it is no where mentioned that the said Claim/demand is penalty, the same is levied under the Rates Circular No. 30 of 2008.
Respondents submit that the demand in question is in conformity with the said Rates Circular No. 30 of 2008 and it is completely within the jurisdiction of the Railway authority exercising executive power under the said Rates Circular No. 30 of 2008 of the Railway Board Act, 1905.
Respondents submit that the consignment in question have not been used for Domestic Consumption and there is a fraudulent attempt on the part of the petitioners to evade Government Revenue and the petitioner is not entitled for any relief when the consignor Maheswary Ispat Ltd. itself has stated that it is the liability of the petitioner to pay the under charge amount in question occurred due to for false declaration.
Respondents submit that the stand taken by the Writ Petitioner that after delivery of Goods no assessment can be made is holly unfounded since it is not a case of Re-Weighment of the Goods but a case of assessment in terms of relevant Government Circular.
Petitioners submit that the case cited by the petitioners reported in AIR (2005) Cal 225 has no manner of application in the instant case since that was a case for additional freight upon re-weighment of Wagon while the instant case is not of the re-weighment under Section 78 of the Railways Act, 1989.
Respondents submit that in an unreported Division Bench Judgment of Reshmi Metallik (supra) case cited by the petitioner has no manner of application since in that judgment the issues were different from the present case. 8
Respondents submit that the Learned Advocates appearing for Railway Advocate in the case of Reshmi Metallik (supra) had conceded that the Civil Court is the appropriate forum without any authority of the Railway and in that case Civil Suit was already filed by the Railway which is not a fact in the instant case.
Respondents submit that the facts and law involved in the said Reshmi Mettallik (supra) case and the instant Writ Petition are totally different. Respondents in support of their contention have relied on the following decisions:
Paban Kumar Dubey, reported in AIR 1976 SC 1766. Narmada Bachao Andolan, reported in (2011) 7 SCC 639. Respondents submit that in view of the merger of the Railway Claims Tribunal and the Railway Rates Tribunal and provision of under Section 36 of Indian Railway Act, 1989, it is clear that the nature of dispute involve herein is to be adjudicated by the Tribunal and under Section 33, 36 (b) and (c) of the said Act.
Respondents submit that the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the Judgment passed in APO No. 381 of 2014 (IFB Agro Industries Ltd. & Anr. -vs- Chief Commercial Manager (FM) Eastern Railway & Ors.) has been pleased to hold that the petitioners have an expeditious statutory and alternative remedy to get the disputed question of facts resolved by the Railway Tribunal.
Respondents contend that in the instant case the consignment was booked by the Maheswary Ispat Ltd. (Page 51 of the Writ Petition). The affidavit was also submitted by the Maheswary Ispat Ltd. (Page 24 of the Affidavit-in-Oppositition) declaring that the said iron ore consignment was booked for Domestic consumption at the manufacturing unit of Maheswary Ispat Ltd. located at Panagarh. The Maheswary Ispat Ltd. by their letter dated March 18, 2010 (Page 30 of the Affidavit-in-Opposition) also stated that the Petitioner Company is liable to pay the impugned Railway dues. Those facts has been suppressed by the 9 petitioner with a malafide intention for some illegal gain and further the petitioner herein with a malafide intention suppressed the material fact and Maheswary Ispat Ltd. which is a necessary party has not been impleaded in the instant Writ Petition.
In my view following provisions of Railway Act, 1989 are required to be considered for final disposal of the instant Writ Petition.
"33. Tribunal.- The Railway Claims Tribunal established under Section 3 of the Railway Claims Act, 1987 (54 of 1987) shall, on and from the commencement of Part XIV of Chapter VI of the Finance Act, 2017, be the Tribunal for the purposes of this Act and the said Tribunal shall exercise the jurisdiction, authority and powers conferred on it by or under this Act."
"36. Complaints against a railway administration.- Any complaint that a railway administration-
(a) is contravening the provisions of Section 70; or
(b) is charging for the carriage of any commodity between two stations a rate which is unreasonable; or 10
(c) is levying any other charge which is unreasonable, may be made to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal shall hear and decide any such complaint in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter."
"38. Powers of the Tribunal.- (1) The Tribunal shall have the powers of a Civil Court under the code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) for the purpose of taking evidence on oath, enforcing the attendance of witnesses, compelling the discovery and production of documents, issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses and of review and shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) and any reference in such Section or Chapter to the presiding officer of a Court shall be deemed to include a reference to the chairman of the Tribunal.
(2) The Tribunal shall also have power to pass such interim and final orders as the circumstances may require, including orders for the payment of costs."
"44. Reliefs which the Tribunal may grant.- In the case of any complaint made under clause (b) or clause (c) of Section 36, the Tribunal may -
11
(i) fix such rate or charge as it considers reasonable from any date as it may deem proper, not being a date earlier to the date of the filling of the complaint;
(ii) direct a refund of amount, if any, as being the excess of the rate or charge fixed by the Tribunal under clause (i)."
Now I would like to discuss hereunder the judgments cited by the Petitioner.
On perusal of the judgment reported in 2009 SCC OnLine Cal 1819 in the case of Ultra Tech Cement Limited (supra) it appears that issue involved therein is not similar to the issue involved in the present Writ Petition as would appear from the First Paragraph of the judgment which is hereunder:
"The parties agree that a common question is involved in both petitions. The two petitions have been instituted in respect of similar matter against two divisions of the railways. The legal issue raised is as to whether a claim may be made by the railways on account of overloading a wagon only prior to the release of the goods."
This judgment involving the above issue was upheld in the judgment reported in 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 89.
Facts and issues involved as would appear in an unreported judgment of this Court dated 24th December, 2014 in M.A.T No. 1970 of 2013 in the case of Reshmi Metalik Ltd. (supra) is as follows:
"On perusal of the pleadings of the parties and after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, we feel that the dispute involved in the said 12 writ petition can be re-classified under two broad heads which are as follows:-
i.e, (i) Whether the railway administration has the jurisdiction and/or competence either to determine and/or realize the alleged evaded freight charges through coercive measures?
And
(ii) Whether the railway administration being a common carrier as distinguished from private carrier can refuse to render its services by black listing the appellant and thereby preclude the appellant from availing of railway services for trans-shipment of iron ore from one station to the other by wagons, even if the Appellant is agreeable to pay freight charges as per the Rates Circular issued by the Railway Board?
These are the two broad issues which are now before us for consideration. With regard to the first issue, that is, the authority and/or jurisdiction of the railway administration to undertake an adjudication proceeding for determining the alleged evaded freight charges and/or realization thereof by coercive measure without following due course of law, we find from the judgment of the learned Single Judge that even the learned Solicitor General appearing for the railway administration conceded that the railway administration does not have any power or authority of making direct recovery of evaded freight charges through coercive measure and the appropriate course for the railway administration for realization of such alleged evaded freight charges would be by institution of a proceeding of civil nature in accordance with law. Such concession of the learned Solicitor General was recorded in impugned order. In view of such concession given by the learned Solicitor General, we do not find any necessity of considering the first issue as indicated above. Suffice it to say that even without taking note of such concession of the learned Solicitor General, we have no hesitation to hold that since the Railways Act, 1989 has not empowered the railway authority to determine the alleged evaded freight charges by itself, the railway administration, in our view, can undertake any adjudication proceeding for determining the freight charges allegedly evaded by the appellant during the relevant period from 2008-2011 and for the same reason the railway authorities are also not entitled to 13 realise its self-estimated evaded freight charges from appellant through coercive measure.
Even in course of hearing of this appeal, Mr. Roy, learned Counsel appearing for the railway administration clearly submitted that the Railways Act, 1989 has not vested any jurisdiction upon the railway administration either to undertake any adjudication proceeding for determining the freight amount allegedly evaded by the appellant or for realization thereof from the appellant by any coercive measure. He also conceded before us that the Civil Court is the appropriate forum for determining the evaded freight amount and for realization thereof from the appellant. Mr. Roy further informs us that his client has already filed a suit before the Civil Court for realization of the evaded freight Charges during the period from 2008-2011 together with penalty and the said suit is now pending before the Civil Court. In view of the facts circumstances as stated above we hold that the first issue as indicated above is decided favour of the appellants.
Let us now concentrate on the other issue on which the parties are fighting with each other." In the above cited case according to me there was no adjudication by the Court on the first issue of application of coercive measure by the Railway Authority for recovery of evaded freight. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondent railway in the aforesaid case had conceded that the Civil Court was the appropriate forum for determining the evaded freight amount and further conceded that the respondent railway had already filed a suit before the Civil Court for the realization of the evaded freight charges and in that view of the matter the Hon'ble Division Bench simply for those two reasons decided that first issue in favour of the Writ Petitioner and the second issue of black listing in that case is not the issue involved in the present case, so, the facts of that case is different from the present case and the said judgment is not applicable to this case.
On perusal of the judgment reported in 2015 SCC OnLine Cal 10433 in the case of Biswanath Agarwal (supra), I find the the issue involved in that case was 14 of excess loading and reweighment which is different from the issue involve in the present case as would appear hereunder:
"(1) Whether the Railway Authority, after booking of a consignment, can, on the basis of its own reweighment in course of transit without notice to the owner, levy further charge on the ground of excess loading by rejecting an application for reweighment filed by the owner at the destination on the plea that there is no facility of such reweighment at the destination without making arrangement for reweighment at the nearest station from the destination where such facility is available? (2) Whether a demand of reweighment mentioned in the above situation comes within the purview of section 79 of the Act so as to reject such prayer on a ground for which the owner cannot be held responsible and at the same time, compelling the owner to pay the excess charge on the basis of reweighment in the absence of and without the notice of the owner?"
In the said case of Biswanath Agarwal (supra) the Hon'ble Court answered the said question involved in the said appeal as appears from para 45 of the said judgment are as follows:
"The two questions posed in the reference are, thus, answered as follows:
(1) The railways may certainly demand additional freight consequent upon conducting a reweighment under Section 78 of the Act in the absence of representation on behalf of the person entitled to the consignment despite rejecting a request for further weighment under Section 79 of the Act on cogent grounds;
but as to the manner of assessment of the weight, and the consequential demand for additional freight, it will be for the tribunal or the court to decide in the circumstances of a particular case upon being mindful of the fact that the burden of proving the weight indicated in the railway receipt, when such receipt had been issued in the absence of any verification of 15 the weight by an authorized railway servant, is on the consignor, the consignee or the endorsee. (2) A demand for further weighment mentioned in the above situation would come within the purview of Section 79 of the Act, but as to whether the owner of the consignment will be compelled to pay the additional freight will have to be assessed on the facts of a particular case."
It appears to me that the issues involved in the said was case with regard to reweighment under Section 78 but here the issue is demand based on alleged false declaration about the purpose of use of consignment in question and as such the facts and issues of the said case is different from the present one and is not applicable to this case.
Considering the facts appear on perusal of relevant records available, submission of the parties and decisions relied upon by the parties, the issues arise for consideration in this Writ Petition according to me, are as hereunder.
(i) Whether impugned orders raising the demand in question with reasons, passed by the Respondents Railway authorities concerned in compliance of the earlier order of this Court, dated 14th February, 2011 in W.P. No. 15550 (W) of 2010 in case of the Writ Petitioners is without jurisdiction?
(ii) Whether Writ Court itself can determine the freight rate on the consignment in question as per relevant circulars?
(iii) Whether Writ Court can decide the issue of falsity or truthfulness of a declaration made by the parties with regard to the consignment in question and whether it was for domestic purpose or for export purpose which is the determining factor of the rate of freight and whether Railway has the jurisdiction to recover the under charges if discovered after the delivery of consignments? 16
(iv) Whether in view of Sections 33, 36, 38 & 44 of the Railways Act, 1989, Tribunal is the appropriate forum for adjudication of nature of disputed involve and relief claimed in the instant Writ Petition? Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of relevant record, submission of the parties and relevant provisions of law and judgments cited by the parties, my answer to the aforesaid issues are hereunder:
(i) In view of the order passed by this Court, dated 14th February, 2011 in earlier Writ Petition filed by the Petitioners herein giving liberty to the respondents, it cannot be said that the impugned demand notices with recorded reasons are without jurisdiction.
(ii) Writ Court is not the appropriate forum for determination of rate of freight on a consignment and there is no specific bar under the Railways Act, 1989 in recovery of evaded under charge freight if detected after delivery of consignment in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) Writ Court is not the appropriate forum to adjudicate the disputed question of fact about falsity or truthfulness of a declaration made by the parties about the consignment in question and to enquire about the use of the same as to whether it was used for the domestic purpose or for the purpose of export.
(iv) Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances involved in the case and after considering relevant provisions of Sections 33, 36, 38 & 44 of the Railways Act, 1989 which were not considered at the stage of admission of this Writ Petition I am of the considered view that the Tribunal is the appropriate forum for adjudication of the nature of dispute involved and relief claimed by the petitioners in the instant Writ Petition.
17
In view of the above discussion I am not inclined to give any relief to the petitioners in this Writ Petition, however, liberty is granted to the petitioners to approach the Tribunal against the impugned orders of demand in question within six weeks from date and if petitioners file appropriate application before the Tribunal within the stipulated time it will not raise the question of limitation. Considering the fact that in this Writ Petition by interim order dated 2nd April, 2012, respondents were restrained from taking steps for recovery of the demand in question the same shall be continued for a period of eight weeks from date. Petitioners are also at liberty to make appropriate application before the Tribunal for interim protection. Tribunal shall make all effort to conclude and pass final order within six months from the date of filling of such application by the petitioners.
The Writ Petition W.P. No. 6127(W) is accordingly disposed of. There will be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance with all requisite formalities.
(MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) 18