Madras High Court
Madras College Of Engineering Society vs The Secretary To Government on 16 March, 2018
Author: N.Seshasayee
Bench: N.Seshasayee
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 16.03.2018
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
WP.Nos.4965 & 4966 of 2018
and
W.P.Nos.25836, 25837, 25838 & 25939 of 2017
and
WMP.Nos.6118 & 7359 of 2018 in WP.No.4965 of 2018,
WMP.No.7360 of 2018 in WP.No.4966 of 2018
and
WMP.Nos.27281 & 27282 of 2017
in WP.Nos.25837 & 25838 of 2017
1.Madras College of Engineering Society
Rep. by its Secretary, Mr.D.S.Mithra
Santhosh Gardens, Santhapuram
Vellanur, Chennai 600 062.
... Petitioner in WP.Nos.25836, 25838,
25839 of 2017 & W.P.No.4966 of 2018
2.St.Michael's Polytechnic College
Rep. by its Secretary, Mr.D.S.Mithra
Santhosh Gardens, Santhapuram
Vellanur, Chennai 600 062.
... Petitioner in WP.No.25837 of 2017
& W.P.No.4965 of 2018
-Vs-
1.The Secretary to Government
Housing and Urban Development Department
Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority
Rep by its Member Secretary
No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road
Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3.The Secretary to Government
Highways and Minor Ports Department
Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Secretary to Government
Revenue Department
Secretariat,
Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
5.The District Revenue Officer (L.A.)
Outer Ring Road Project
CMDA, Koyambedu
Chennai 600 107.
.... Respondents 1 to 5 in all WPs
6.The Tahsildar
Avadi Taluk
Near Railway Station
Chennai 600 054. ... 6th Respondent in WP.Nos.25836, 25837, 25838 & 25939 of 2017
7.The Collector
Thiruvallur District
Thiruvallur. ... 6th Respondent in WP.Nos.4965 & 4966
of 2018
Prayer in W.P.Nos.4965 & 4966 of 2018 :- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records in Na.Ka.No.205/2007/ORR dated 18.09.2017 issued by the fifth respondent and to quash the same and consequently direct the fifth respondent and sixth respondent to issue appropriate notices after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 has been invoked by the Government, for the petitioner's property in S.Nos.143/2, 144/1, 144/3, 145/3 and 145/4, Vellanur Village, Avadi Taluk, Tiruvallur District and to take the market value as already arrived at in the 6th respondent, Tiruvallur Collector's Minutes Na.Ka.10181/2016/F3 dated 02.07.2016.
Prayer in W.P.Nos.25836 & 25837 of 2017 :- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the sixth respondent, Tahsildar, Avadi to restore the name of the petitioner/purchaser as entered in revenue records after the purchases made by the petitioner and the resultant mutation carried out in revenue records, to enable the petitioners to have the benefit of compensation arising out of acquisition, as and when fixed for the petitioner's lands in Survey Nos.143/2, 144/1,3 and 145/3,4 of Vellanur Village, Avadi Taluk, Tiruvallur District under the land acquisition proceedings.
Prayer in W.P.Nos.25838 & 25839 of 2017 :- Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records in notification under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 viz., G.O.(Ms).No.143 Housing and Urban Development (UD3)(2) dated 3rd August 2017 published as a late notification in T.N.Govt. Gazette dated 9th August 2017 by the first respondent, Secretary to Government , Housing and Urban Development Department relating to petitioners' lands in Survey Nos.143/2, 144/1,3 and 145/3,4 of Vellanur Village, Avadi Taluk, Tiruvallur District and to quash the same and consequently direct the respondents to proceed under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
For Petitioners : Mr.C.Franco Louis
Mr.C.Louis Franco
Mr.S.Sathish Kumar
For Respondents : Mr.M.Karthikeyan
Additional Government Pleader [R1,3 to6]
Mr.Tamil Mani [R2]
ORDER
1.1. In these batch of writ petitions which have been filed in a set of two, have been filed by Madras College of Engineering Society and paired with St.Michael's Polytechnic College in WP.No.25837 of 2017 & W.P.No.4965 of 2018 petitions, substantially on the same set of facts. The occasion for filing writ petitions in pairs at different stages of an ongoing acquisition proceedings was due to the fact that a certain block of property comprised in Survey Nos.143/2, 144/1, 144/3 and 145/3 and 145/4 of Vellanur Village, Avadi Taluk, Tiruvallur District was purchased under 11 sale deeds sometime in 1991 in the joint names of Madras College of Engineering Society and St.Michael's Polytechnic College. However, in the notice dated 06.3.2017 issued under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 and the Government Notification published as Late Notification dated 09.8.2017 issued under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, the name of the owners were mentioned as Michael Polytechnic and Chennai Engineering College, both of which do not indicate the correct names of the owners of these block of properties. It is only to avoid any possible loss of locus standi to challenge, both the Madras College of Engineering Society and St.Michael's Polytechnic College have come forward with separate petitions. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the joint owners of the property would be jointly referred to as petitioners in this order.
1.2. As already indicated, the petitioners have purchased the property in the above referred to survey numbers in 1991, and had their names mutated in the revenue records. They have been been paying necessary tax and rates due to the Government. While so, the Collector, Tiruvallur District has issued a notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, dated 25.12.2005, to all the adjacent owners of the lands, whose lands were proposed to be acquired for the Outer Ring Road, but not the petitioners. It may be appropriate to mention that the original alignment for Outer Ring Road was made and revised even in the first master-plan as was made evident in G.O.Ms.No.235 dated 02.4.1996 of Housing and Urban Development Department (UD.III) (1) Department.
1.3. There were considerable discussions and study by the consultants and CMRL (Chennai Metro Rail Limited) for the commercial exploitation of the proposed Outer Ring Road. Initially, the second respondent, CMDA (Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority) attempted to obtain the property of the petitioners by moving the Commissioner of Land Reforms to have them declared as surplus lands under the Land Reforms Act. In fact, the second respondent has forwarded a letter dated 26.03.2014 to the Commissioner of Land Administration to this effect, but subsequently this idea was dropped by the second respondent.
1.4. Meanwhile, the petitioners received a letter dated 14.06.2016 from the Collector, Tiruvallur District, calling for private negotiations. On 21.07.2016, the petitioners received the Minutes of the Collector, Tiruvallur dated 02.07.2016 proceedings in Na.Ka.No.10181/2016/F3, in which the guideline value of the property is stated to have been fixed at Rs.43/- per sq.ft. and the market value is indicated as Rs.500/- per sq.ft., that he would take the lesser of the two values as per the instructions given in G.O.(Ms) No.103 Revenue (LA.I.(1) Department dated 28.02.2011. Under the said Government Order, Collectors are authorised to negotiate for private purchase of lands noted for public purposes up to 150% of the lower of the two values namely (i) the guideline value and (ii) the market value of the property, but subject to a monetary cap of Rs. 1.0 Crore for the total compensation, and where it exceeds this monetary cap, approval could be granted only by the Government. Acting on the said G.O., the Collector would state in the said proceedings dated 02-07-2016 that inasmuch as he has to reckon only the lower of the two values (namely Rs.43/- per sq.ft.) and then to enhance it by 150% and applying on it on the extent of land required, the total compensation payable for the property of the petitioners in a private negotiation would be Rs.1,87,38,540/-. This amount again exceeds the One crore monetary cap fixed in aforesaid G.O.(Ms) No.103 Revenue (LA.I.(1) Department dated 28.02.2011, as per which the final call should be taken by the Government. Challenging the same, the petitioner (Michael Polytechnic College), approached this Court in W.P.No.26625 of 2016. This petition was later withdrawn by the petitioner without prejudice to any of the rights of the petitioner in whatever matters that were then pending viz., the four writ petitions in W.P.Nos.25836, 25837, 25838 & 25839 of 2017.
1.5. Subsequently, even during the pendency of WP.No.26625 of 2016, petitioners were issued with a notice under Section 15(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 dated 10.03.2017. Challenging the 15(2) notification of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, the petitioners herein have filed yet another W.P.No.10743 of 2017 and this Court Vide its order dated 27.04.2017, refused to interfere with the same. However, liberty was granted to the petitioners to challenge the notification under Section 15(1) notification of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, as and when the same was notified.
1.6. Thereafter, the notification under Section 15(1) was Gazetted and in that the Government carried forward the same error concerning the names of the owners of the lands that it committed while issuing notices under Sec. 15(2), and the only change it has made in the notification under Sec.15(1) over the notice under Sec.15(2) was as to the extent of the lands it declared for acquisition. Whereas, in the notice under Sec.15(2), the extent proposed to be acquired was mentioned as 27,000 sq.mtrs., of the petitioners entire holdings, in the notification issued under Sec.15(1), this was increased to 28,600 sq.mtrs. This additional 1,600 sq.mtrs., was sought to be acquired from Survey No.145/3 of Vellanur Village. To grant administrative sanction for the same, Government issued G.O.(Ms)No.142, Housing and Urban Development Department [UD3(2)] Department dated 02.08.2017. This was followed by a notification under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001, in G.O.Ms.No.143 dated 03.08.2017.
1.7. As stated in the opening paragraph, the said notices were issued in the wrong names of the owners of the land and consequent to which, the petitioners have filed WP.Nos.25836 and 25837 of 2017. In these two writ petitions, the petitioners seek a direction to the Tahsildar, Avadi, who was arrayed as the sixth respondent to restore the names of the petitioners as per the revenue records, based on their sale deeds in order to enable the petitioners to have the benefit of compensation as and when the same are fixed.
1.8. Subsequently, one the petitioners namely Madras College of Engineering Society had filed two separate writ petitions viz., W.P.No.25838 and 25839 of 2017. In the first petition namely W.P.No.25838 of 2017, the petitioner seeks to quash the notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 in G.O.(Ms)No.143, Housing and Urban Development Department [UD3(2)] Department dated 03.08.2017, and Gazetted on 09.08.2017 and to direct the respondents to determine the compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. Alongside, it has also taken up a contention that the said notification issued under Section 15(1) of the Act was bad in law inasmuch as the proposed Outer Ring Road from Vandalur to Minjur has not been declared as State Highways under Section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001. In W.P.No.25839 of 2017, the petitioner challenged the administrative sanction accorded in G.O.Ms.No.142 Housing and Development Department dated 02.08.2017.
1.9. Subsequently, the Land Acquisition Authority had issued a notice under Section 19(5) r/w 19(7) of the Tamil Nadu Nadu Highways Act, 2001 dated 18.09.2017, and this was challenged by separate petitions by both the petitioners independently in W.P.Nos.4965 and 4966 of 2018. The ground on which these notices are challenged, in essence, is that since commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, [hereinafter referred to as The Right to Compensation Act (Central Act, 30/2013] it is incompetent for the authorities to determine the compensation under Section 19 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
1.10. On 08.09.2017, the Land Acquisition Authority served notice on the petitioners under Section 16(ii) of the Act. This was responded to by the petitioner.
2. The fifth respondent, the District Revenue Officer, Land Acquisition has filed a set of counter affidavits, one for W.P No.4965 and 4966 of 2018 and the other for the rest, and the facts that are averred therein may be summed as below:
Consistent with the First Master Plan for the Chennai Metropolitan Area, an Outer Ring Road for a running distance of 62.3 kms is being laid connecting NH.45 at Vandalur in South, NH-4 at Nazarathpet, NH-205 at Nemilicherry, NH-5 at Padiyanallur and the TPP Road at Minjur in the North. The entire project is being implemented in 2 phases. Phase-I is from Vandalur to Nemilicherry and this has been completed and has become operational. Phase-II involves a distance of 33.1 kms., and in this except for a small stretch of 300 mtrs., which forms a meager 0.9% of the total length at Vellanur Village that involves the properties of the petitioner, the entire project is completed.
The said Outer Ring Road is a major Urban Arterial Road. This includes formation of a six lane road over a width of 72 meters, which as per the traffic forecast can cater road-traffic demand for ten years. Hence, to provide for future expansion when roads might have to be widened to 8 lanes or 10 lanes, another strip of land for a width of 50 meters is also acquired. In both these strips of property, a central verge for Mass Rapid Transit System (MRTS) is also planned.
So far as petitioners' allegation that notices under Section 15(2) were issued in the wrong names is concerned, notwithstanding the said allegation, petitioners indeed had participated in the enquiry conducted by the fifth respondent and at no time did they specifically brought to the notice of the Land Acquisition Officer about this error. Irrespective of that, the petitioners are at liberty to provide the correct names of the owners of the land even now to the Land Acquisition Officer along with their documents of title and patta to facilitate the latter to pass awards in the correct names. Further the notices issued under Section 15(2) are more in the nature of show cause notice, which are preliminary in nature, and the entire process gets completed only after issuance of notices under 15(2) 19(5) 19(2) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
Regarding petitioners contention that an additional 1,600 sq.mtrs. has been notified in Survey No.145/3 is concerned, there was a felt necessity to acquire the same, for which necessary notice under Section 15(2) was published in Tamil daily Dinamani and English daily The New Indian Express both dated 05.05.2017. The other notifications are in order.
So far as the contention of the petitioners that consequent to the commencement of Right to Fair Compensation Act, the acquisition commenced under the Tamil Nadu Highways Act is incompetent is concerned, the same is not correct since under Section 105-A, the continued applicability of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act is preserved.
3. The petitioners have filed an elaborate rejoinder, most of which may not be relevant in the context of the arguments advanced and the final conclusion arrived.
4. Heard Mr.Franco Louis, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader for respondents 1, 3 to 6 and Mr.Tamil Mani, learned counsel for the second respondent. Mr.S.Rajendran, District Revenue Officer, (LA), ORR Project (i/c), CMDA, Koyambedu, Chennai 600 107 is present to assist the Court.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued as below and the one underlining threat on the basis of which the petitioners have filed these batch of six petitions are essentially their challenge to Section 15(1) notification. This in essence is founded on :
(a) that Section 3 or Section 8 notification have not been made before issuing the notification under Section 15(1) of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001.
(b) notification was issued in the names of the owners which was not even rectified despite the fact that the petitioners had earlier approached this Court in W.P.No.26625 of 2016, which in normal circumstances are adequate enough to put the respondents, more particularly the Land Acquisition Officer to make necessary corrections.
(c) After the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Central Act 30/2013) on 01.01.2014, it is incompetent that the Government have invoked the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 for acquiring the lands for an ongoing project.
(d) At any rate, compensation has to be paid only in terms of the Central Act 30/2013 along with all such benefits as are conferrable on the owners of the lands under it. This includes such damages or compensation payable, owing to any diminution in value of the property due to severance of an integral property and exemption from payment of income tax under Sec.96 of the Central Act 30 of 2013.
(e) Since the administrative sanction states that the acquisition is for an emergent purpose, it must be treated in par with exercise of emergent powers under the Central Act 30 of 2013 and compensation must include the benefits under Sec.40(3) and 40(5) of Right to Fair Compensation Act, Central Act 30/2013. Further, in view of Sec.107, there is no restriction on the State Government to limit the compensation payable to the extent awarded under the Central Act 30/2013, which would mean that the compensation payable under the Central Act 30/2013 is only the statutory minimum, and this should not be lost sight of by the authority concerned while quantifying the compensation payable.
(f) So far as the intended acquisition per se is concerned, the extent acquired can be divided into two parts or portions: (a) one part has a width of 72 mtrs. which falls well within the road alignment and (b) an additional portion abutting the above, on to its adjacent south for a width of 50 mtrs for future utility. The learned counsel further added that there is a hexagonal building of the petitioners and other buildings available in that 50 mtrs., portion of the land intended for future utility. As per the Central Act 30 of 2013, possession cannot be taken unless the entire compensation is paid.
Emphasizing the principle that, where the statute directs how a certain act shall be performed, it shall be performed only in the manner prescribed and no other, the learned counsel argued that the respondents have been consistently walking along a path not sanctioned by the statute. He relied on the ratio in Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd., Vs. The Workmen [AIR 1961 SC 647], Bharat Singh Vs. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi & Others [AIR 1986 SC 842], Mrs.Helen C.Rebello & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra State Transport Corp. & Another [indiankanoon.org/doc/1340758], Union of India Vs. Prabhakaran, Vijayakumar & Others [2008 (4) MLJ 323], State of U.P. Vs. Singhara Singh [AIR 1964 SC 358], Devinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others [ (2008 1 SCC 728] and Balakrishnan Vs. Union of India [(2017) 3 SCC 634]
6. Responding to the above, the respondents led by Mr.M.Karthikeyan, learned Additional Government Pleader would submit that the Outer Ring Road is being laid for a distance of 65 k.m., and except for couple of bottle necks for an extremely short distance, the entire project itself is substantially completed, and that any further delay would add additional burden on public funds besides impacting the national interest adversely, since the project involving laying of roads such as these aim to promote the economic interest of the country in a competitive global market. He would further argue:
(a) Notwithstanding the fact that the petitioners are challenging the notification under Section 15(1), in almost all the petitions, the petitioners insistence is only on payment of compensation in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
(b) Secondly, so far as the petitioners contentions projecting declaration under Sec.3 and 8 of the Tamil Nadu Highways Act, 2001 are precondition for acquiring lands under Sec.15 is concerned, this is no more res integra, as the same has been settled in a list of authorities in R.Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Others [2006 (4) CTC 640 (DB)], followed by Jayaraman and Others Vs. State of Tamilnadu, rep. by its Secretary, Highways Department, Secretariat, Chennai-9 and Others [(2014) 4 MLJ 685] and Ceedeeyes Standard Towers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. District Collector of Chennai [2016 SCC Online Mad 25335], though in R.Moorthy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu [2014 (2) CWC 763] there is a different view expressed by a learned single judge.
(c) Thirdly, as regards the payment of compensation is concerned, the Land Acquisition Authority shall follow only such provisions in the Central Act 30 of 2013, which are beneficial to the owners of the lands especially those concerning the quantification of the compensation payable. However, since the acquisition is under Tamil Nadu Highways Act, which does not have a provision similar to Sec.17 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, or Sec.40(1) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, the petitioners may not be entitled to the benefit under Sec.40(5) of the Right to Fair Compensation Act.
7. During the entire arguments of the petitioners' counsel, the one aspect that dominated it and heard louder than the rest is petitioners' anxiety to obtain compensation in terms of Right to Fair Compensation Act, if not more (Ref: Sec.107 thereof), and to have all the benefits including payment of an additional 75% under Sec.40(5), full payment of compensation before taking possession under Sec.38, and exemption from income tax under Sec.96. However, the entire contentions/claim of the petitioners are essentially individualistic in character, and it has to be rightly balanced against the overwhelming national interest involved in the project. This is not to imply that individual rights are not to be accorded its due space in the Constitutional scheme of things, but it is intended to highlight the fact that where individual rights are pitted against substantial pubic and/or national interest, the concern for the latter gain precedence over the former. Hence, the balancing act is important.
8. A careful weighing of arguments of counsel for the petitioner led this Court towards one point destination: That compensation should be paid in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation Act, with all other aspects subordinated to it, and were almost pushed to their vanishing point. Accordingly, this Court chooses to modify the prayers in all the writ petitions, with a set of following directions:
(a) The Land Acquisition Authority shall determine the compensation and other benefits conferrable only in terms of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
(b) The respondents are directed to issue a fresh notices for the purpose of holding an equiry for passing an award/awards to the correct name and addresses given in the writ petitions within a period of two weeks from today and to grant them adequate and effective opportunity of hearing to enable them to make available all relevant materials the Land Acquisition Authority for quantifying the compensation payable.
(c) As and when such notices are sent by the authorities, the petitioners may require the Land Acquisition Authority to consider their claim based on Secs 40(3), 40(5) and 96 of the Central Act 30/2013 Authority along with claim under Sec.28 (Thirdly), and the Land Acquisition Authority would bestow its adequate consideration to each of these aspects while passing the award.
(d) Further in view of the fact that substantial sums of public money has already been pumped into the project, the ongoing project should not be stopped and possession as regards those area falling within the road alignment of 72 mtrs. alone shall be taken immediately. Those area that fall outside the road alignment area, for a width of 50 mtrs, wherein petitioners' hexagonal building is situated, possession shall be taken only on payment of entire award amount.
(e) The entire award enquiry shall be completed and payment shall be made within a period of four months from today. It is clarified that payment of compensation is not linked to taking possession of the extent of 50 meters corridor, but taking possession alone is linked to payment of entire compensation.
(f) So far as taking possession of the property following directions are given:
(i) Within the road alignment for 72 meters, about the southern side of the property, there is a building in Block-V [EEE Department Lab], and to its east lies Block-I. Leaving Block-V, and if Block-I also falls within the road alignment, both may be left undisturbed by the authorities for the next fifteen days from today to enable the petitioners to remove the articles therein. At any rate, that exercises shall be completed by 02.04.2018.
(ii) Leaving the portions where the building in Block-V, namely EEE Department Lab and a part of Block-I, which is likely to fall within the road alignment, possession can be taken immediately.
(iii) At all times, the respondents are directed to issue notice to the petitioners, peg-mark the 72 mtrs and 50 mtrs. width before taking possession and the petitioners are directed not to create any law and order problem, in which case the respondents would be entitled to have police aid.
These petitions are disposed of accordingly with the above directions. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
16.03.2018 ds Note : Issue order copy on 23.03.2018 Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-speaking Order N.SESHASAYEE,J., ds To:
1.The Secretary to Government Housing and Urban Development Department Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
2.Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority Rep by its Member Secretary No.8, Gandhi Irwin Road Egmore, Chennai 600 008.
3.The Secretary to Government Highways and Minor Ports Department Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
4.The Secretary to Government Revenue Department Secretariat, Fort St.George, Chennai 600 009.
5.The District Revenue Officer (L.A.) Outer Ring Road Project CMDA, Koyambedu Chennai 600 107.
6.The Tahsildar Avadi Taluk Near Railway Station Chennai 600 054.
7.The Collector Thiruvallur District Thiruvallur.
WP.Nos.4965 & 4966 of 2018 and W.P.Nos.25836, 25837, 25838 & 25939 of 2017 16.03.2018