Karnataka High Court
Sri.S.Sundaresh vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2016
Equivalent citations: 2016 (3) AKR 787, (2016) 4 KCCR 2839 (2016) 5 KANT LJ 545, (2016) 5 KANT LJ 545
Bench: Chief Justice, Ravi Malimath
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 08th day of July, 2016
PRESENT: R
THE HON'BLE MR SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE,
CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH
Writ Appeal Nos. 136 & 267-268 of 2016 (KLR-RES)
C/w
Writ Appeal No. 197 of 2016 (KLR-RES)
Writ Appeal No. 136 of 2016
(In Writ Petition No. 13664 of 2015)
BETWEEN:
SRI.S.SUNDARESH
S/O LATE SURYANARAYANARAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 216,
6TH MAIN ROAD,
NRUPATUNGA NAGAR,
J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560076. ... APPELLANT
[SRI SAJAN POOVAYYA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001.
2
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVANA,
K G ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
3. THE GOLDEN VALLEY EDUCATION TRUST
OORGUM, K.G.F - 563 121,
BANGARPER TALUK,
KOLR DISTRICT, K.G.F - 563 121
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESEIDENT,
MR. T. VENKATA VARDHAN ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
Writ Appeal No. 267 of 2016
(In Writ Petition No. 15058 of 2015)
BETWEEN:
SRI.S.SUNDARESH
S/O LATE SURYANARAYANARAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 216,
6TH MAIN ROAD,
NRUPATUNGA NAGAR,
J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560076 ... APPELLANT
[SRI SAJAN POOVAYYA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560 001.
3
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560 002.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
4. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE- 560 001.
5. THE GOLDEN VALLEY EDUCATION TRUST
OORGUM, K.G.F - 563 121,
BANGARPER TALUK,
KOLR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESEIDENT,
DR. T. VENKATA VARDHAN .. RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
Writ Appeal No. 268 of 2016
(In Writ Petition No 2454 of 2015)
BETWEEN:
SRI.S.SUNDARESH
S/O LATE SURYANARAYANARAO
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT 216,
6TH MAIN ROAD,
NRUPATUNGA NAGAR,
J P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE-560076 ... APPELLANT
[SRI SAJAN POOVAYYA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE]
4
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
REVENUE DEPARTMENT-560 001.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BANGALORE DISTRICT,
BANGALORE-560 002.
3. THE TAHSILDAR
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
BANGALORE-01
4. VOKKALIGARA SANGHA
KRISHNARAJENDRA ROAD,
VISHWESHVARAPURAM
BANGALORE 560 004
BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY.
5. THE GOLDEN VALLEY EDUCATION TRUST
OORGUM, K.G.F - 563 121,
BANGARPER TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESEIDENT,
MR. T. VENKATA VARDHAN ... RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;
SRI M.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4 &
SRI B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THESE WRIT APPEALS ARE FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.
13664 OF 2015 C/W WRIT PETITION NO.15058 OF 2015 C/W
WRIT PETITION NO.2454 OF 2015 DATED OCTOBER 31, 2015
AND ETC.
5
Writ Appeal No. 197 of 2016
(In Writ Petition No13664 of 2015)
BETWEEN:
GOLDEN VALLEY EDUCATIONAL TRUST
OORGUM, K.G.F.-563 121
BANGARPET TALUK
KOLAR TALUK,
REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT,
DR. VENKATVARDHAN ... APPELLANT
[SRI SAMPATH KUMAR B K, ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
M.S. BUILDING,
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE 560001.
2. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT,
KANDAYA BHAVANA,
K.G. ROAD,
BANGALORE 560001.
3. S. SUNDARESH
S/O LATE. SRI. SURYA NARAYANA RAO,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
R/AT NO. 216,
6TH MAIN ROAD,
NRUPATHUNGANAGAR,
J.P. NAGAR, 7TH PHASE,
BANGALORE - 76
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. NILOUFER AKBAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2,
SRI SAJAN POOVAYYA, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR
SRI SHIRISH KRISHNA, ADVOCATE R3)
6
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.
13664 OF 2015 DATED OCTOBER 31, 2015 AND ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
These writ appeals are directed against the common judgment and order dated October 31, 2015, passed in W.P.No.13664 of 2015, W.P.No.15058 of 2015 and W.P.No.2454 of 2015.
2. W.P.No.13664 of 2015 was filed by one S.Sundaresh (hereinafter 'Sundaresh' in short), inter alia, seeking mutation of revenue records and for direction of insertion of his name in the khata for 4 (four) acres of land that was granted in Survey No.129 (Old Sy.No.51) of Srigandadakavalu, Bangalore North Taluk, in consideration of the fact that his late father, Suryanarayana Rao, was a freedom fighter and political sufferer.
7
3. W.P.No.2454 of 2015 was filed by the Golden Valley Educational Trust (hereinafter 'GVET' in short), challenging the order dated December 30, 2014, of the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the termination/cancellation of a 30(thirty) years lease of 15(fifteen) acres of land that was granted to GVET on January 12, 1967, in the very same Survey No.129 (Old Sy.No.51) of Srigandadakavalu, Bangalore North Taluk.
4. GVET, also, challenged in another writ petition the grant of the said 4(four) acres of land that was made in favour of Sundaresh, which was registered as W. P. No. 15058 of 2015.
5. W.A.No.136 of 2016 and W.A.Nos.267-268 of 2016 are filed by Sundaresh and W.A.No.197 of 2016 is filed by GVET, assailing the impugned order.
6. As all these appeals are against the common judgment and order and as similar questions of law and facts are involved in all these appeals and with the consent of the learned advocates appearing for the parties, we have 8 considered all these appeals together and propose to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment and order.
7. On January 12, 1967, 15 (fifteen) acres of land was leased by the Government of Karnataka to GVET in Survey No.51 (subsequently New Survey No.129) of Srigandadakavalu, Bangalore North Taluk, for a period of 30 (thirty) years. The lease was at a nominal rental equal to the land revenue. The leased land was to be used for the establishment of educational institutions within five years from the date of taking possession of the land.
8. GVET, although received the leased lands in 1967, did not establish educational institutions upon the leased property within five years.
9. After the efflux of about 27 years, on October 17, 1994, GVET filed a suit against Vokkaligara Sangha in O.S.No.6106 of 1994 seeking, inter alia, decrees of declaration and mandatory injunction pertaining to the said land.
9
10. On January 12, 1997, the 30 (thirty) years lease of 15 (fifteen) acres of land in favour of GVET, which was leased on January 12, 1967, expired by efflux of time.
11. The suit filed by GVET being O.S.No.6106 of 1994 against Vokkaligara Sangha for declaration and injunction was dismissed on March 18, 2006. The dismissal was challenged in R.F.A.No.1262 of 2006 before this Court. The said appeal was allowed in part on September 25, 2013. Vokkaligara Sangha became entitled to 3 (three) acres of land amongst the 15 (fifteen) acres that was earlier leased to GVET. State of Karnataka was not a party, either in the suit or in the said appeal.
12. After the expiry of the lease of 15 (fifteen) acres of land by efflux of time on January 12, 1997, the State Government did not renew the lease for the said land in favour of GVET.
13. Subsequently on January 16, 2009, the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, issued a notice to 10 GVET seeking an explanation as to why the land that was leased to them should not be resumed.
14. GVET replied to the said notice on July 06, 2009.
15. Upon a consideration of the said reply, the Special Deputy Commissioner passed an order cancelling the lease in favour of GVET, although the lease had already expired by efflux of time, as early as January 12, 1997.
16. The said order of the Special Deputy Commissioner was challenged before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by GVET in Appeal No.413 of 2010, which, ultimately, was dismissed on December 30, 2014. The said order of dismissal by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal was challenged by GVET in W.P.No.2454 of 2015.
17. On March 16, 1967, Sundaresh's father, Suryanarayana Rao, was granted 4 (four) acres of land at Sadaramangala Village, K.R.Puram Hobli, Bangalore East, in consideration of the fact that he was a freedom fighter and political sufferer.
11
18. Since Saaguvali Chit for the said grant was not issued, in the year 1983 the said Suryanarayana Rao filed a writ petition in W.P.No.3664 of 1983. Suryanarayana Rao died on August 11, 1989, and his heir and legal representative Sundaresh pursued the petition.
19. The said W.P.No.3664 of 1983 was allowed by this Court on June 18, 1990, directing the State to issue Saaguvali Chit to Sundaresh, the heir and legal representative of the said Suryanarayana Rao.
20. Since the Government did not comply with the said orders dated June 18, 1990, one more writ petition was filed by Sundaresh on December 07, 2006, being W.P.No.17665 of 2006, in which this Court once again directed the authorities to comply with the previous orders and to issue Saaguvali Chit.
21. As certain questions regarding availability of land in Sadaramangala Village had arisen and certain inter se disputes had emerged with third party claimants, various writ petitions were pursued by Sundaresh before this Court 12 leading ultimately to the issuance of a direction to the State on August 06, 2010 in W.P.No.3038 of 2010 to issue Saaguvali Chit in favour of Sundaresh immediately, for a land either in Sadaramangala Village or in a nearby village.
22. The lack of compliance by the State of various court orders led to contempt proceedings being filed in C.C.C.No.605 of 2012. In the said contempt proceedings, the Principal Secretary, Revenue Department, filed a memorandum undertaking to consider the application that would be filed by Sundaresh for grant of land in an adjacent village.
23. Yet another contempt proceeding was initiated by Sundaresh in C.C.C.No.604 of 2013 as the authorities failed to comply with the orders passed by this court in W.P.No.3038 of 2010 and the undertaking rendered in the previous contempt proceedings in C.C.C.No.605 of 2012.
24. In the face of contempt proceedings in C.C.C.No.604 of 2013, the Government considered the case of Sundaresh and, by passing a Cabinet Resolution, granted 13 4(four) acres of land in Survey No.129 of Srigandadakavalu, Bangalore North Taluk.
25. The note put up for consideration before the Cabinet, recorded that the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, had identified a list of available properties in Bangalore Urban area, for being granted to Sundaresh, which included 15 acres of Government Gomala Land, at Survey No.129 (Old Sy.No.51) of Srigandadakavalu Village, Bangalore North Taluk. This land was available since the previous lease in favour of GVET had expired by efflux of time, on January 12, 1997 and had subsequently reverted to the government.
26. The note, also, revealed that Rule 27 of the Land Grant Rules was brought to the notice of the Cabinet, regarding the powers of the Government. The note was, also, supported by the opinion of the Principal Secretary, Law Department, which indicated that pursuant to Rule 27 of the Land Grant Rules, 4(four) acres out of 15(fifteen) acres of land available in Srigandadakavalu Village, could be allotted to Sundaresh.
14
27. Accordingly, the Cabinet resolved on February 25, 2013 to grant 4(four) acres of land in Survey No.129 of Srigandadakavalu Village, to Sundaresh, which was, ultimately, endorsed by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, Government of Karnataka, on March 12, 2013, followed by a Government Order issued on April 22, 2013, granting 4(four) acres of land in Survey No.129 of Srigandadakavalu Village, Bangalore North Taluk, to Sundaresh.
28. The said grant order was placed before a Division Bench of this Court in C.C.C.No.604 of 2013, which considered the various conditions of the grant, and, in particular, quashed Condition No. 6 wherein the government had reserved the right to acquire the granted land for any public purpose without compensating the grantee.
29. Pursuant to the said grant dated April 22, 2013, the State issued a notice dated May 10, 2013, intimating Sundaresh to deposit a sum of Rs.6,00,00,000/-(Rupees Six Crores) only for the said 4(four) acres, which was accordingly paid on July 07, 2013. On October 19, 2013, a survey sketch was prepared by the office of the Tahsildar, Bangalore North 15 Taluk demarcating the said four acres of land in the said Survey No.129.
30. On December 13, 2013, the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District, issued a memorandum confirming the grant of the said 4(four) acres of land in Survey No.129 of Srigandadakavalu village in favour of Sundaresh.
31. The said grant has been challenged by GVET in W.P.No.15058 of 2015.
32. Sundaresh, in the meantime, filed W.P.No.13664 of 2015, inter alia, seeking directions of the State for issuance of khata and revenue mutations regarding the four acres of land that was granted to him.
33. Upon consideration of the materials on record we are unable to agree with the findings in the impugned order. It is not in dispute that the lease of 15 (fifteen) acres of land in Survey No. 129(Old Sy.No.51) of Srigandadakavalu Village in favour of GVET expired by efflux of time on 16 January 12, 1997. It is not the case of GVET that the said lease was ever extended.
34. Learned Advocate for GVET in course of his submissions contended that, although, an application for renewal of the lease was made, but, factually, the lease was never renewed in favour of GVET.
35. Once a lease expires by efflux of time, a lessee of government land cannot claim any title to or interest in the said property. Even assuming that the lessee continues in possession of the said property, such possession of land will not, in any manner, prevent the Government from granting such land, which is the property of the State, to any deserving person in compliance with the applicable laws.
36. In the instant case, the lease in favour of GVET expired by efflux of time on January 12, 1997. On June 16, 2009, when the Special Deputy Commissioner issued notice to GVET seeking explanation as to why the lease in favour of GVET should not be cancelled and the land resumed, the lease had, already, expired by efflux of time. As the lease in 17 favour of GVET had, already, expired as early as January 12, 1997, the question of cancelling the lease does not arise. The Special Deputy Commissioner's order dated January 20, 2010, cancels the lease in favour of GVET and directs taking over of possession of the land in question. This order is ostensibly issued pursuant to Rule 19(4)(a)(ix) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969. As already held by us, the question of cancelling a lease that has already expired does not arise. This by itself however will not confer any legal right to GVET upon the leased lands.
37. Further, Rule 25 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, clearly empowers the State to resume the lands that have been granted or leased, in the event of violation of the lease conditions.
38. In the instant case, the lease having already expired by efflux of time, the land vested in the State and at any event, the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated January 20, 2010, also, directs resumption of the land. 18
39. The challenge by GVET to the order of the Special Deputy Commissioner dated January 20, 2010, has been dismissed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal by a detailed order. At any event, it is an admitted fact that the lease in favour of GVET expired by efflux of time on January 12, 1997 and has never been extended thereafter. Consequently, GVET does not have any right to the said land.
40. The documents available on record also depict that possession of the land was taken over by the State by preparing a mahazar. Although this fact has been disputed by GVET, in our view, it makes no difference.
41. The question is whether GVET has any right to the said 15(fifteen) acres of land in Survey No.129 of Srigandadakavalu Village, subsequent to the expiry of the lease in its favour, by efflux of time on January 12, 1997.
42. GVET has no rights over the said land subsequent to the expiry of the lease by efflux of time and it is open to the government to deal with such land in accordance with law. It is, also, an admitted fact that no educational 19 institution has been set up by GVET, upon the said land, which, also, demonstrates the absence of any right of GVET in relation to the said land.
43. In our considered opinion, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the grant of 4(four) acres of land, out of the said 15 (fifteen) acres of land in Survey No.129, to Sundaresh, as, on the date of grant in favour of Sundaresh, that is, April 22, 2013, GVET had no right in the said property.
44. The revenue settlement and other documents on record reveal that the land constitutes Government Gomal Land, that is, free pasturage land. Section 71 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, (hereinafter the 'the said Act')', inter alia, provides for the Deputy Commissioner to set apart lands for free pasturage or specially for any other public purpose and that such lands shall not be otherwise used without the sanction of the Deputy Commissioner.
45. Rule 108-I of the Karnataka Land Revenue Rules, 1966 (hereinafter the 'the said Rules') provides that lands 20 assigned for special purposes under Section 71 of the said Act shall not be granted. However, the second proviso to Rule 108-I of the said Rules clearly specifies that the limitations contained in the said Rule shall not apply to lands set apart for fresh pasturage under Section 71 of the said Act and such free pasturage lands will be governed by Rule 97 of the said Rules. The Rule 97 of the said Rules deals with lands set apart for fresh pasturage. By an amendment, sub-Rule (5) was inserted to Rule 97, with effect from February 06, 2008, which specifically provided that Gomal lands, that is, lands set apart for free pasturage in villages, comprised within the municipal corporation limits and areas within 25 (twenty five) kilometres from the outer limits of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike, shall be disposed of by the Deputy Commissioner, subject to general orders of the State Government in this behalf.
46. The land of 4(four) acres granted to Sundaresh in Survey No.129 of Srigandadakavalu, Bangalore is undisputedly Gomal land that is situated within the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike limits and is, therefore, covered 21 under Rule 97(5) of the said Rules and, consequently, the Deputy Commissioner has been entitled to dispose of such property, subject to orders of the State Government. The Cabinet of the Government of Karnataka resolved on February 25, 2013 to grant 4(four) acres of land in Survey No.129 of Srigandadakavalu, Bangalore North Taluk, to Sundaresh, which was followed by a Government Order dated April 22, 2013 granting the said land to Sundaresh.
47. Rule 27 of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, further, provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the said rules, the State Government may suo motu relax any of the provisions of the said Land Grant Rules.
48. In the light of the provisions contained in Rule 97 of the said Rules and in the light of the Cabinet Resolution dated February 25, 2013, we find no illegality in the Government Order dated April 22, 2013, which grants 4(four) acres of land in Survey No.129 of Srigandadakavalu Village, Bangalore North Taluk, to Sundaresh.
22
49. Further, the said grant was, also, considered by this court in C.C.C.No.604 of 2013, which examined the grant and quashed Condition No.6, which reserved the rights to the Government to acquire the granted land without compensating the grantee. Pursuant to the grant order, a sum of Rs.6,00,00,000/-(Rupees Six Crores) only demanded by the Government has, also, been paid and the Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore, has issued a memorandum dated December 13, 2013, confirming the said grant in favour of Sundaresh. We, therefore, find no illegality with regard to the said grant.
50. GVET had earlier filed W.P.No.27099 of 2013 inter alia, challenging the Government Order dated April 22, 2013, granting the said four acres of land to Sundaresh. The said writ petition was disposed of by order dated November 05, 2013, holding that GVET would be at liberty to independently challenge the said grant in the event it could establish its locus standi to do so.
51. GVET filed yet another writ petition in W.P.No.52039 of 2013 challenging the very same 23 Government Order dated April 22, 2013, which granted land in favour of Sundaresh.
52. The said writ petition was, also, disposed of by order dated February 14, 2014, reserving liberty to GVET to assail the grant order only after conclusion of the proceedings before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. The Karnataka Appellate Tribunal proceedings culminated against GVET when it dismissed Appeal No.413 of 2010 on December 30, 2014.
53. In that view of the matter and, further, that GVET does not have continued leasehold interest in the 15(fifteen) acres of land in Survey No.129 of Srigandadakavalu, after the termination of the lease by efflux of time on January 12, 1997, it is clear that GVET has no locus standi to challenge the grant of land in favour of Sundaresh vide Government Order dated April 22, 2013.
54. Once the lease in favour of GVET has expired by efflux of time, the property vests in the State and the State is entitled to grant such land in favour of eligible persons. 24
55. Whether or not GVET is in possession of the property is irrelevant to the powers of the State to make grant in favour of eligible persons.
56. The learned Additional Government Advocate has, also, brought to the notice of this Court that after the disposal of the writ petition, where liberty was reserved to the government to initiate appropriate proceedings and take possession of the land in question, the government has indeed taken possession of the land in question.
57. We hold that GVET cannot assert any leasehold rights over the lands in question and, consequently, is not entitled to challenge the grant in favour of Sundaresh.
58. GVET, by continuous litigation, has attempted to create illusory rights upon government land, in an attempt to prevent the government from dealing with a public asset. By its continuous litigations, GVET has prevented Sundaresh from receiving possession of and enjoying the land granted, for which he and his father, a freedom fighter and a political sufferer, have been continuously invoking the courts. 25
59. For the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order dated January 31, 2015 is set aside.
60. W.A.No.136 of 2016 and W.A.Nos.267-268 of 2016 are allowed and respondent Nos.1 and 2 are directed to undertake transfer of khata and other revenue mutations in favour of the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of this order. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 are, also, directed to initiate appropriate action to hand over possession of the 4(four) acres of land in Survey No.129 of Srigandadakavalu Village, Bangalore North Taluk, to the petitioner.
61. W.A.No.197 of 2016 is dismissed and, consequently, W.P.No.2454 of 2015 and W.P.No.15058 of 2015 are, also, dismissed.
We make no order as to costs.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE DKB