Madras High Court
J.E.Sivaramakrishnan vs Government Of India on 10 April, 2014
Author: T.S.Sivagnanam
Bench: T.S.Sivagnanam
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated :10 .04.2014 Coram The Honourable Mr.Justice T.S.SIVAGNANAM W.P.Nos. 4449 & 4450 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1,1,2,2, 3 & 3 of 2011 --- J.E.Sivaramakrishnan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4449 of 2011 S.Kannan ... Petitioner in W.P.No.4450 of 2011 -vs- 1.Government of India rep. By the Secretary Ministry of Shipping No.1,Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 002. 2.The Chennai Port Trust rep. By its Chairman Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. 3.The Deputy Chairman Chennai Port Trust Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001. .. Respondents in both W.Ps. COMMON PRAYER Writ Petitions filed under Article 206 of Constitution of India for issuance of writ of certiorari to call upon the records of the 2nd respondent in Letter No.VI/Con.34/04/S dated 16.09.2008 and consequently the communication of the 3rd respondent in No.DY CPT/ Enquiry/GA/2011 dated 15.02.2011 and quash the same. For petitioners : Mr.Vijay Narayan, Sr.Counsel (in both Wps) for Mr.T.Gowthaman For Respondents : Mr.P.Balakrishnan, CGC R1 (in both Wps) Mr.P.M.Subramaniam -R2 & R3 COMMON ORDER
Since the legal issue raised in both the Writ Petitions are identical, with the consent of the learned counsels appearing on either side, the Writ Petitions are taken up for disposal.
2.The petitioner in W.P.No.4449 of 2011, is a former Superintending Engineer, of the Chennai Port Trust, having retired from service on 30.4.2004 and the challenge in the Writ Petition is to the charge sheet dated 16.9.2008, issued to the petitioner under the Madras Port Trust (Conduct) Regulations, 1987.
3.The petitioner in W.P.No.4450 of 2011 is the former Chief Mechanical Engineer of the Chennai Port Trust, having retired from service on 30.6.2004, and the challenge is to the charge sheet dated 16.9.2008, issued under the provisions of the Madras Port Trust (Conduct) Regulations, 1987.
4.The challenge to the impugned charge sheets is on the technical ground, stating that it has been issued beyond the period of four years and therefore hit by Regulation 56 (ii) (b) of the Madras Port Trust (Pension) Regulation, 1987. Since the challenge is on such technical ground, this Court, does not propose to consider the merits of the petitioners claim or the factual defence raised by the petitioners and the consideration in these Writ Petitions is confined to the technical plea raised by the petitioners.
5.The allegation against the petitioner in W.P.No.4449 of 2011 is that while functioning as Superintending Engineer (Ore Handling) during the period from March, 1988 to February 2004, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in as much as (a) he suppressed the file containing the note suggesting to recover the way leave charges from M/s Ruchi Infrastructure Ltd. (M/s Ruchi) for the period 2002, from 22.10.2004 to 18.2.2004 with the intention to cause undue gain to the said Company; (b) he permitted M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. to operate from the port land allotted to them earlier without any allotment order or agreement during the period from 7.8.2000 to 5.6.2003, and failed to bring it to the notice of higher authorities as a result of which the Chennai Port Trust was put to loss of Rs.87,79,269.60 ps. towards the short fall and wharfage charges. Therefore it was stated that the above mentioned commission/omission contravened clause (3) (1 (i) (ii) of the Madras Port Trust (Conduct) Regulation 1987. In the statement of imputation in support of the articles of charges framed against the petitioner, it was stated that M/s Ruchi was permitted to lay pipeline from Bharathi Dock and container terminal berth to their installation at the scale of rate prescribed by Chennai Port Trust., that during December 2001, the Container terminal berth was handed over to a private company and M/s Ruchi was requested to remove their pipe lines vide letter dated 1.12.2001. as they did not remove the piper line till October 2002, a demand was sent for remitting the licence fee for the year 2002, including the pipeline in the container terminal berth. M/s Ruchi stated that the pipelines have been disconnected from the Container berth and wayleave fees for the remaining pipelines is only to be charged. The Chennai Port Trust did not accept the contention of M/s Ruchi and a draft letter to the said effect was prepared by the Junior Administrative Officer on 22.10.2002, which have to be addressed to the company. The allegation is that the petitioner did not take any action on the file thought it has been put up to him repeatedly. Prior to his transfer and posting as Superintending Engineer (W), the petitioner put up a note on 8.2.2004 in the file stating that since the file is opened and is alive, since 1996, action may be taken in a fresh file and may be closed as D.Dis. The Superintending Engineer who took over subsequently, initiated action in the matter and recovered the amount due from M/s Ruchi. Therefore, it is alleged that the conduct of the petitioner keeping the file for two years without taking action caused undue gain to M/s Ruchi and therefore, he has contravened clause 3(1)(i) (ii) of the Conduct Regulations In respect of the second charge it is stated that M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. was allotted a plot by the Chennai Port on six occasions from 20.5.1998 to 1999 and thereafter, have been allowed to operated without any specific permission issued by the Chennai Port Trust. It is stated that permission was granted for the period from 10.7.1998 to 9.7.1999 and after this period without any specific permission or agreement M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. has been using the plot till 2005. It is further stated that there was a short fall in export from M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. during the period 7.8.2000 to 5.6.2003 and they made exports during the said period and they had made a short fall in export for which an amount of Rs.87,79,269.60 was leviable. When a demand was issued to M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. to pay, they refused to comply with the demand, stating that there are no agreements in force after 1998-99 and also refused to execute any agreement, with retrospective effect. Thus, M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. continued to operate the plot without any agreement or order of allotment and they have failed to pay the short fall owing to which the charge was issued to the petitioner for having failed to maintain absolute integrity and caused loss of Rs.87,79,269.60 and contravened the Conduct Regulations.
6.The list of documents by which the articles of charge were proposed to be sustained were enclosed as annexure III to the charge sheet. The petitioner submitted an interim reply dated 27.8.2008 followed by another reply dated 3.10.2008, denying and disputing allegations made in the charge sheet. It appears that the Chairman of the Chennai Port Trust afforded an opportunity to the petitioner to make oral submissions on 20.10.2008. and the petitioner availed the same and appeared before the Chairman and put forth his case. Thereafter, on 31.10.2008, the petitioner submitted his written submission and it is only in the said written submissions, the petitioner stated that in terms of Regulation 56 of Pension Regulation,departmental proceedings shall not be instituted in respect of an event which took place four years before institution of such proceedings and that the petitioner having retired in April 2004, on superannuation, the proposed enquiry has been initiated about 4 1/2years after his retirement, as the incident in question is alleged to have taken place between 22.10.2002 and 18.2.2004 in respect of charge No.1 and between 7.8.2000 and 5.6.2003 in respect of charge No.2, hence proceedings instituted (charge sheet) nearly after 4 years and 7 months in respect of charge No.1 and nearly 5 years and 3 months in respect of charge No.2 are untenable.
7.Without prejudice to these contentions, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on merits and requested the Chairman to exonerate him from the charges. Thereafter the petitioner by communication dated 15.2.2011, from the enquiry officer was informed that the first hearing of the enquiry is to be held on 25.2.2011 at 3 p.m. in the Office of the Deputy Chairman . At that juncture, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the charge sheet dated 16.9.2008.
8.In so far as the petitioner in W.P.No.4450 of 2011, it is alleged in the charge sheet that the petitioner while functioning as Chief Mechanical Engineer during the period 21.6.2001 to 30.6.2004, failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty inasmuch as he permitted M/s Sesa Goa Ltd to use the plot alloted by Chennai Port Trust earlier, without any specific allotment order and agreement and without fixing minimum guarantee throughput (MGT), with the intention to cause undue gain to M/s Sesa Goa Ltd., and the said act of commission /omission contravenes the conduct regulations. In the statement of imputation of misconduct it is stated that in the year 1996, the Government of India de-channalised the Iron Ore export and private exporters were licensed to export iron ore and the Port trust allotted plots to private companies for exporting iron ore. M/s Sesa Goa Ltd was one of the firms which was allotted a plot from 1.6.1997, for various periods. A condition was imposed in the allotment letter regarding minimum guarantee throughput (MGT). The last of such allotment made to M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. was for a period 10.7.1998 to 9.7.1999, the agreement stipulated a MGT of 6 lakhs MT. It is further stated that thereafter no allotment order was issued or agreement executed with M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. though they continued in possession of the plot. It is alleged that the petitioner allowed M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. to use the plot without any specific order of allotment for the period from 26.8.2001 to 5.6.2003. During the period from 26.8.2001 to 7.6.2002, M/s Sesa Goa exported 578025 MTs. of iron ore against the MGT of 6 lakhs MTs revealing a shortage of 21917 MTs and during the period from 10.7.2002 to 5.6.2003, they exported 589940 MTs against the MGT of 6 lakhs MTs revealing a shortage of 10060 MTs. and the total short fall is 32035 MTs for which they were liable for shortfall charges of Rs.13,74,177.60, when a demand was sent to M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. they failed to pay the amount on tlhe ground no agreement was entered into and there was no allotment order specifying the MGT. Therefore, it is stated that on account of the acts of Commission/omission, the petitioner has failed to maintain absolute integrity and caused loss of Rs.13,74,177.60 and thus contravened the Conduct Regulations.
9.The petitioner by letter dated 24.9.2008 addressed to the Chairman while denying the charges expressed his desire to be heard in person, the petitioner stated that the Port is not required to enter into agreement with an exporter and the exporter pays to the port as per scale of rates specified for the respective Cargo and there is no guarantee throughput or agreement from MMTC , the major exporter of iron ore since inception of the iron ore berth. Therefore, the petitioner stated that no loss of funds arises and charge is baseless.
10.Thereafter the petitioner submitted his reply to the charge memo on 3.11.2008, stating that the charge memo issued after 4 years of his retirement has caused mental agony to the petitioner. The petitioner also referred to the personal hearing with the Chairman on 20.10.2008 and the explanation offered to him and the petitioner proceeded to offer his written explanation to the charge. While concluding the petitioner referred to clause 56 (ii)(b) of the Pension Regulations and stated that the event stated in the charge sheet took place during the period from 26.8.2001 to 5.6.2003 and the charge sheet was received on 18.9.2008 after five years and 3 months and the charge is not valid and it is untenable.
With the above submissions the petitioner requested him to be exonerated from the charges.
11.Thereafter, by proceedings dated 15.2.2011, the enquiry officer directed the petitioner to appear for enquiry on 25.2.2011, at 3.30 p.m in the office of the Deputy Chairman, at that stage of the matter the petitioner filed the Writ Petition.
12.At the time when the Writ Petitions were entertained, and notice of motion was ordered to the respondents returnable by 4 weeks, an order of interim stay was granted for four weeks, by order dated 3.3.2011. The interim order was extended on 9.4.2011 and thereafter, the matter was adjourned from time to time and was heard finally by this Court.
13.Mr.Vijay Narayan, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, submitted that since proceedings have been initiated after the petitioners retirement, the only punishment which can be imposed in the event the charge is held proved against a retired employee is to withhold or withdrawing the pension either permanently or for a specified period . In such circumstances, regulation 56 of the Madras Port Trust (Pension) Regulation 1987 would stand attracted. And in terms of Regulation 56 (ii) (b) if departmental proceedings are not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall not be initiated in respect of an event which took place more than 4 years before the institution of such proceedings.
14.It is submitted that the petitioners retired from service on 30.4.2004 and 30.6.2004 respectively and the charge memo was issued on 16.9.20008 well beyond the period of 4 years and the charge itself is not sustainable in the light of Regulation 56 (ii)(b) of the Pension Regulation and therefore liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction.
15.The learned Senior Counsel further submitted that such time limit has been fixed under the Rules as the employees after a period of 4 years would be solely dependent upon their pension and if disciplinary action is to be initiated at that juncture they would be put to unnecessary harassment and irreparable hardship and therefore the rule has fixed the period of limitation which being statutory in nature, should be adhered to and the impugned charge memos having been issued beyond the said period of four years stipulated under the Regulations are without jurisdiction and liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel place reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF UP V. SHRI KRISHNA PANDAY reported in 1996 (9) SCC 395.
16.Mr.P.M.Subramaniam, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 & 3 submitted that though the impugned charge memos are challenged as being hit by Regulation 56 (ii)(b) of the Pension Regulation, certain facts may be necessary to be looked into before considering the question of jurisdiction. It is submitted that on account of the huge loss of revenue, the Central Vigilance Commission as well as the Central Bureau of Investigation took up the matter for investigation and an F.I.R. was registered by the CBI against the petitioners who were arrayed as A1 and A2 and M/s Ruchi Infrastructure as A3, M/s MSPL as A4 and M/s Sesa Goa Ltd. as A5, for offences under section 120-B read with 417 IPC and sections 13(2) read with 13(1)(d)of the Prevention of Corruption Act for the suspected offence of criminal conspiracy , cheating and abuse of official position etc.,
17.The allegation in the complaint was that the petitioners while functioning as Chief Mechanical Engineer and Superintending Engineer during the year 2000 to April 2004, entered into a criminal conspiracy to cheat the Chennai Port Trust and to abuse and misuse their official position to cause wrongful loss to the Chennai Port Trust and wrongful gain to the private individual (accused persons). The complaint proceeded to state as to the complexity of the petitioners who were arrayed as A1 & A2.
18.It is further submitted by the learned counsel that after investigation, the CBI filed its final report and the criminal case was closed. The CBI by communication dated 24.3.2005, informed the vigilance officer of the Chennai Port Trust, clarifying that the petitioners are involved in the offences from 2000 2001 and the offence continued upto the end of September 2004. The Chairman by letter dated 6.10.2010, addressed the Joint Secretary (P&A) and Chief Vigilance Officer, Department of Shipping, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways, New Delhi, since there was a query from the Central Vigilance Commission and the petitioner in W.P.4450 of 2011 was a retired Chief Mechanical Engineer whose appointment was made by the Ministry and also the communication dated 06.10.2010 received from the CBI. In the said communication it is stated that the Central Vigilance Commission by official Memorandum dated 19.5.2005, addressed the Department of Shipping with a copy to Chennai Port Trust, had suo motu advised for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioners and directed to refer the enquiry authority report to the Commission for second stage advise. The Port Trust was informed that since the petitioner (in W.P. 4450 of 2011) on whom disciplinary action has to be taken is the Head of Department all relevant papers have already been sent to the Ministry for necessary action. The clarification sought for by the Ministry vide their letter dated 19.7.2007 has been submitted on 20.8.2007. In the same communication dated 6.10.2007, there is also reference to certain complaints against two other officers over which we are not concerned. Finally it was stated by the Chairman that since both the cases are more than six months and the Central Vigilance Commission has directed the Port Trust to expedite the case and requested to look into the matter, and intimate the decision taken at the earliest. In response to the said communication the Chief Vigilance Officer, Department of Shipping addressed the Secretary to Government of India, by letter dated 26.11.2008, referring to the Ministry's earlier letter dated 19.2.2008, giving directives to issue charge sheet based on the draft charge sheet already prepared by CBI Vide their report dated 31.10.2005, Further it was stated that charge sheet has already been given to the petitioners on 16.9.2008, and personal hearing was given by the Chairman on 20.10.2008 and the petitioners have also given their written explanations. All the relevant papers were placed before the Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Shipping for reference.
19.The learned counsel for the respondents 2 & 3 submitted that proceedings have been initiated and the events which have occurred which have lead to the issuance of a charge sheet continued till September 2004 and therefore, the impugned charge memos are well within the powers of the respondents.
20.As regards the interpretation of Regulation 56 (2)(b) it is submitted that Departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, shall not be instituted in respect of an event which took place not more than 4 years, before the institution of such proceedings. By laying emphasis on the word 'event' it is submitted that the CBI have certified that the 'event' continued till end of September 2004 and therefore, the charge sheet is well within the period of limitation.
21.The learned counsel by referring to the counter affidavit submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are serious and the files relating to the transactions were missing and the old file was abruptly closed and a fresh file on the same subject was opened, simultaneously indicating the follow up action to be taken on the pending issues, without bringing forward the subject which was pending action in the old file.
With the above submission the learned counsel sought to sustain the impugned charge sheets.
22.Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for for second and third respondents and perused the materials on record.
23.The prayer in both the Writ Petitions are to quash the departmental charge sheets. The first question to be considered is whether a Writ Court could entertain a Writ Petition challenging a charge sheet and if so under what circumstances. The said legal question is no longer res integra and is well settled by a series of decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court holding that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge sheet or show cause notice, as was held in the case of EXECUTIVE ENGINEER BIHAR STATE HOUSING BOARD, v RAMESH KUMAR SINGHA [1996 1 SC C 327], SPECIAL DIRECTOR v MD. GULAM KHOUSE [2004 (3) SCC 440], ULAGAPPA v. DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER,MYSORE, [2001 (1) SCC 639] and STATE OF UP. V VRAHM DATT SHARMA [1987 (2) SCC 179]. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of UNION OF INDIA v. KUNISETTYNARAYANA [2006 (12) SCC 28], explained the reason as to why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show cause notice or charge sheet. It was pointed out that at that stage, at the stage of charge sheet the writ petition may be held to be premature as a mere charge sheet does not give rise to any cause of action, because it does not amount to an adverse order which affects the rights of parties unless the same has been issued by a person having no jurisdiction to do so. It was pointed out that it is possible that after considering the reply to the show cause notice or after holding an enquiry the authority concerned may drop the proceedings and / or hold that the charges are not established. That a charge sheet does not infringe the right of any one and it is only when a final order imposing some punishment or otherwise adversely affecting a party is passed, the said party can be said to have any grievance. Writ jurisdiction being a discretionary jurisdiction such discretion under Article 226of the Constitution of India, should not ordinarily be exercised by quashing a charge sheet. However, in some very rare and exceptional cases, the High Court can quash a charge sheet if it is found wholly without jurisdiction or for some other reason, if it is wholly illegal. However, ordinarily the High Court should not interfere with such matter.
24.Bearing the above legal principle in mind, this Court proceeds to examine the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners that the impugned charge sheets are without jurisdiction as they are hit by regulation 56 (2)(b) of the Pension Regulation.
56 of the Madras Port Trust (Pension) Regulation , 1987, reads as follows:
56. RIGHT TO WITHHOLD OR WITHDRAW PENSION:
The Chairman reserves to himself the right of withholding or withdrawing a pension or any part of it, whether permanently or for a specified period and the right of ordering the recovery from a pension of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Board, if the pensioner is found in departmental or judicial proceedings to have been guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during his service, including service rendered on re-employment after retirement.
Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the minimum limit permissible.
Provided further that --
(i) ................
(ii)Such departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment -
(a) Shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Chairman or the Board as the case may be.
(b) Shall not be in respect of an event which took place not more than four years before institution of such proceedings and
(c) .............
(iii) ............. In terms of clause 2 of Regulation 56, departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement, shall not be instituted except with the sanction of the Chairman or the Board as the case may be and shall not be in respect of an "event" which took place not more than 4 years before the institution of such proceedings.
25.The petitioners would contend that the 'event' could not have reference to anything done or occurred after the date of superannuation of the petitioners which occurred on 30.4.2004 and 30.6.2004, respectively. Therefore, it is contended that the charge sheet is beyond the time prescribed and without jurisdiction. The respondents would contend that the 'event' continued till September 2004 and therefore, the charge sheet issued on 16.8.2004, is within the period of 4 years. Thus, both the petitioners as well as the respondents have focused on the expression "event" occurring in Regulation 56(2) to substantiate their respective contention.
26.According to the respondents, the 'event' is the allegations which are made in the charge sheet and those allegations continued till September 2004.
27.It is not in dispute that the Central Vigilance Commission took up the matter for consideration, and issued suo motu direction on 19.5.2005 for initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioners. Much earlier, CBI, have registered an F.I.R. against the petitioners and three others on 28.9.2004 i.e. shortly after the petitioners retired from service. From the communication dated 6.10.2007, sent by the Chairman to the Chief Vigilance Officer, Department of Shipping New Delhi, it is seen that the relevant papers were sent to the Ministry for necessary action and the Ministry sought for certain clarification on 19.7.2007, which was clarified on 20.8.2008. Further more, the issue involved which is described as an offence by the CBI, is said to have continued upto the end of September 2004. Therefore, if such is the factual situation, then the 'event' as mentioned in clause (b) of regulation 56 (ii) is said to have continued till September 2004, and in such circumstances, whether the action initiated could be said to be barred by limitation. To decide this question, the facts have to be gone into, which obviously cannot be done at this stage. It has to be seen as to under what circumstances the CBI stated that the events went on till end of September, 2004. The petitioners contention that this 'event' cannot be an event beyond the date of retirement. This again is a factual issue to be considered after evidence is placed during the domestic enquiry. The question of jurisdiction of the respondents to issue the charge sheet in the instant case is a mixed question of fact and law. The matter cannot be examined merely on the basis of the dates mentioned. The correctness of the petitioners contention that the events came to an end on 18.2.2004/5.6.2003, can only be examined after considering the documents and other evidence that may be placed at the time of enquiry. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter at this stage.
28.Hence, for all the above reasons, this Court is not inclined to accept the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned charge sheets are to be quashed at the threshold as being barred by limitation. It is to be noted that the petitioners have already submitted their explanation to the charge sheets and have filed these Writ Petitions at the stage when the notice of enquiry was issued to them. In the explanation to the charge sheet, the petitioners have raised the question of limitation and have given certain dates as being the dates on which the "events" came to and end and they would contend that if those dates are taken into consideration, the charge sheets are beyond the period of limitation. This being a question of fact, the petitioners are at liberty to raise such issue in the enquiry which has been ordered to be conducted. Such liberty is granted to the petitioners.
29.It is seen that the third respondent in the writ petition is the Deputy Chairman of the Chennai Port Trust and at the relevant point of time Mr.P.C.Pariday, was holding the office of the Deputy Chairman. Mr.P.C.Pariday was appointed as the enquiry officer. However, he has filed the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent 2 & 3 defending the action of the respondent Port Trust. In such circumstances, he cannot continue further as an enquiry officer having been a party to the proceedings and sworn to the counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent Port Trust. Therefore, the second respondent is directed to appoint another enquiry officer.
30.For all the above reasons, the challenge to the impugned charge sheets on the ground of limitation fails and accordingly the Writ Petitions are dismissed and liberty is granted to the petitioner to raise all contentions in the enquiry to be conducted including the plea of limitation. It is made clear that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the enquiry shall be proceeded uninfluenced by any observation made in this order. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.
10.04.2014 rpa Index :Yes Internet:Yes To
1.Government of India rep. By the Secretary Ministry of Shipping No.1,Sansad Marg, New Delhi 110 002.
2.The Chennai Port Trust rep. By its Chairman Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.
3.The Deputy Chairman Chennai Port Trust Rajaji Salai, Chennai 600 001.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.
rpa Pre Delivery Order in W.P.Nos. 4449 & 4450 of 2011 10.04.2014