Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana)
Hyder Ali Khan vs Registrar Of Companies, Hyd. And Others on 11 April, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(3)ALD678, 2001(4)ALT706
ORDER
1. The petitioner by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance of a writ of mandamus setting aside the election of respondents 2, 3, 5, 6 as Members-Stewards and R8 as Chairman to the Hyderabad Race Club at its 29th Annual General Body Meeting held on 27-9-2000 by declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary and void.
2. It is stated by the petitioner that Hyderabad Race Club, Hyderabad (for short "the Club") is incorporated as a Company under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (for short "the Act") as per certificate of Incorporation No.1403 of 1971-72 issued by the first respondent. For the election of four Stewards at 29th Annual General Meeting of the HRC, the 7th respondent-Secretary of the Club issued a notice under Section 257(1-A) of the Act to the effect that six nominations have been received by enclosing the procedure indicated for the conduct of the said election as per Article 26 of the Articles of Association of the Club which governs the election of Board of Stewards. Article 26(d) to (h) of the Articles of Association of the Club clearly indicates that a Member who receives a voting paper shall be entitled to vote for four members by marking a cross mark against the names of members in whose favour he wishes to record his vote and shall deposit the voting paper in a ballot box to be kept at the place of meeting for the said purpose. According to the petitioner, there shall be one ballot box and each member has to vote for four members by marking a cross mark against the names of the candidates. The 7th respondent adopted peculiar and un-impaginable procedure while printing the ballot papers of six candidates who are contesting the election in two rows i.e.., 1 to 3 in one row and 4 to 6 in another row. Besides the same, the 7th respondent got printed the official seal on the face of the ballot papers covering the names of the contesting candidates, which in fact should be on the reverse side of the ballot paper as per Rule 38 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 trained under Representation of People Act, 1951 which prohibits the printing of the official seal on the face of the ballot paper but it envisages that the official seal has to be printed on the back of the ballot paper. Therefore, the whole election is not conducted according to the Articles of Association of the Club and Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Apart from the same, instead of one ballot box, the 7th respondent kept eight ballot boxes for the convenience of the voters to vote their votes. It is the further case of the petitioner that only 327 voters out of 490 voters turned up and they have to vote for four candidates which comes to 1308 votes but the total votes polled is 1054 that means about 254 votes were wasted which is in violation of the mandatory provision of Article 26 of the Articles of Association of the Club. The Club authorities without permission from the concerned Government Department provided intoxicating drinks like white and Mickey Scotch Whisky bottled in India and King Fisher Strong Beer to the voters after the meeting and many voters in intoxicated condition participated in the voting which amounts to corrupt practice. It is the further case of the petitioner that the voting took place between 7 p.m. and 9 p.m., on 27-9-2000, counting took place on the same day and the Returning Officer declared four Stewards as elected and they gathered and elected 8th respondent as Chairman, therefore, the 8th respondent is not competent to function as Chairman of the Club. Therefore, the election conducted is not fair and the same should be declared as illegal and prayed for setting aside the whole election.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed by 7th respondent on behalf of respondents 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8 raising preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable on two grounds, namely, (1) The club which is a company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act has not been made a party to the writ petition; (2) The Club is a Public Limited company and is not amenable to writ jurisdiction of this Court.
4. It is also stated in the counter that the Club is not funded by the Central Government or any of the provincial Governments. There is no control by any of the Governmental agencies on the functioning of the club except the licence to carry on the activities is given by the State Government. The Club is not discharging any statutory function. The number of members is governed by Article 4(a) of the Articles of Association of the Club. There are 500 members and the liability of each member is limited to Rs.100/-. It is admitted that 7th respondent has issued notice under Section 257(1-A) of the Act. Printing of the ballot paper has been standardised which was followed for the previous years and names were printed in alphabetical manner and there is no arbitrariness in adopting the method of printing the ballot papers. For the convenience of the members and also to conduct the election in smooth manner 8 ballot boxes were placed. If any voter chose to caste less than four votes, it would not be invalidated. A vote would be invalidated if more than four boxes are marked. Total number of votes polled was 1054 as against the maximum possible votes of 1308. Printing of the letter AGM on the ballot papers does not in any manner make the name less legible or less readable. All the elected candidates got more votes than the petitioner. Counting taken place in the presence of the contestants' authorised agents by duly following the procedure as contemplated under the Articles of Association of the Club. The rules issued under the provisions of Representation of People Act, 1951 cannot be applied for conduct of elections of stewards of a Company. Immediately after election of the Stewards, the Board meeting of Stewards took place, who in turn unanimously elected 8th respondent as Chairman which is in consonance with regular practice followed since last 50 years. In the counter, it is specifically denied about the income of the club Rs.35 crores, whereas it is only Rs.94,92,394/- as per the audited profit and loss account and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
5. The writ petitioner filed a detailed reply stating that the Tripatirate meeting held between the Madras Race Club, Hyderabad Race Club and Bangalore Turf Club at the Conclave, Hotel Atrai, Bangalore on 14-7-2000 which contained a reference of the inspection and direction given by the Hon'ble Minister of State for Social Welfare and Empowerment, Government of India regarding the use of whip on race horses by letter dated 7-6-2000. In the Board of Stewards of the Club, there are three Government representatives of Government of Andhra Pradesh as nominees as Stewards and one person, the Army Sub-Area Commander representing the Central Government, thus there is an active involvement of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Central Government and therefore the writ petition is maintainable. The Government also sanctioned loans at nominal rate of interest to the Club and the Club sanctioned interest free loans to the owners towards purchase of hours at Bangalore/Bombay Auction Sales from out of the club own resources. In para 16, it is stated that voters induced to vote after supplying intoxicating drinks which amounts to bribery and a demand draft given by the club in favour of AP Breweries Corporation Limited for the supply of intoxicating drink clearly establishes the corrupt practices of the club.
6. After hearing the matter for one full afternoon session on 5-2-2001, the petitioner filed WPMP No.2581/2001 requesting the Court to permit him to lead evidence on the points raised in the writ petition by summoning documents etc., in order to substantiate his claim.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri K. Venkataramaiah argued at length and made the following submissions:-
1. The ballot papers which were printed are not in accordance with the Rule 3 8 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 framed under the Representation of People Act, 1951. Only names should be printed on the ballot papers and if any seal be printed, the same should be on the back of the ballot papers.
2. Placing of 8 ballot boxes in a row is irregular and in fact there shall be only one ballot box as per the Articles of Association of the Club.
3. Supply of intoxicating drinks at the time of election amounts to corrupt practice.
Therefore, he prayed to declare that elections are void and elected body cannot function.
8. In order to substantiate the same, learned Counsel contended that Article 22 of the Articles of Association of the Club, provides that the Board shall consist of 12 Stewards, of whom 8 shall be elected from among the Club Members and 3 shall be nominated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and one shall be the Commander, Andhra (Independent) Sub-Area (Ex-Officio). Article 26 governs the Election of Board of Stewards. Article 26(a) and (b) specifies that the election shall be conducted at the Annual General Meeting every year and if any member is willing to serve as Steward can participate in the election. As per Article 26(d) if there are more than four candidates, the Secretary shall get voting papers containing the names of all candidates proposed and shall hand over to the members at the meeting who is actually present and a member who receives a ballot paper shall be entitled to vote for four members by marking a cross mark against the names of the member in whose favour he wishes to record his vote. According to it, each member shall have to vote for four members, which is mandatory. Non-compliance of the same will entails invalidation of the vote. Accordingly, 8 ballot boxes were kept for the convenience of the voters instead of one, which is a mandatory provision which was not followed/ by the Club, hence, election is void. As per Article 36 notice not less than 21 days shall be given to all the members specifying the place and hour of the meeting to transact the special business as defined in Section 173(i) of the Act. All these functions of the club are mandatory in nature, therefore, the club has to follow these rules scrupulously and if the club deviates the same, the whole election which took place on 27-9-2000 is void and liable to be set-aside.
9. He further contends that if this Court summons the documents which are mentioned in WPMP No.2581 of 2001 truth will come to light and the persons who have elected by corrupt practices are not entitled to continue in office.
10. With regard to maintainability of the writ petition, he contends that the first respondent registered the Club as Company under the provisions of the Act by issuing a Certificate of Registration.
11. Clause 14 of the Memorandum of Association of Club reads as under:
"To establish and support or aid in the establishment or support of and to act alone or jointly as trustee of any association, institution, fund or trust, calculated to benefit any Trainer, Jockey or Riding Boy who may carry on his profession on any race course or race courses in India and to subscribe or contribute moneys for any such purpose out of the funds of the Company".
The main objects of the company incorporated are to establish institutions, schools, funds and other convenience for training jockeys and riders, both professional and amateur; to impart instructions in and to diffuse useful and scientific knowledge of horse breeding and to encourage horse breeding in all its aspects and to give monetary assistance to bona fide breeders and to establish any clubs, hotels or other conveniences in connection with the company's property. In view of the same, the writ petition is maintainable. Apart from the same, all its funds are received from public who participated in the racing. Therefore, the writ petition is maintainable. There is no provision in the Articles of Association to challenge the elections before any specified authority, hence the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and prayed for allowing of the writ petition.
12. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the following decisions:
1. U.P. State Co-operative Land Development Bank Limited v. Chandra Bhandubey, .
2. Francis John v. Director of Education, .
13. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondents refuted the same and contended that the club is not discharging any public functions and the entire activities carried on are only private activities, after obtaining necessary licence under A.P. Gaming Act. There is no pleading to the effect that how the club is an instrumentality of the State or any other authority amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Apart from the same, without impleading the club as party respondent to the writ petition, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. He placed reliance on two unreported judgments of Bombay and Karnataka High Courts.
14. Coming to the facts, he contends that the ballot paper which was printed was practiced since last 20 years and all the members who are elite cannot be confused with the printing of AGM on the face of the ballot papers. The names were printed in alphabetical manner, 1 to 3 in one row and 4 to 6 in another row. Rule 38 of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 framed under Representation of People Act, 1951 is not applicable to the facts of the present case. As per Sections 177 and 179 of the Companies Act, 1956 voting was conducted by raising hands, so the contention of the petitioner that the Club kept 8 ballot boxes for the convenience of the voters cannot said to be illegal. According to him, Articles of Association of the Club is a contract inter se among the share holders and between the share holders and the Company. It only prescribes the rights and liabilities of the share holders and company. The elections were conducted as per the practice followed for ages. There is no specific pleading with regard to the supply of intoxicating drinks. As the same was improved from the affidavit filed along with the writ petition to the affidavit filed along with WPMP No.2581 of 2001, the same cannot be looked into. All the facts alleged if proved to be correct, the same cannot be decided in a summary proceedings in the writ petition which requires evidence. The proper forum for the petitioner is to file a civil suit to establish the same. Merely because no other remedy is available, it is not open for him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. Jurisdiction of civil Court is enough to entertain such type of disputes as held by this Court in Avanthi Explosives v. Principal Subordinate Judge, (1987) 62 Com. Cases 301 and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
15. Before I proceed to consider the merits of the controversy involved in the writ petition, it is to be seen whether the relief as claimed by the petitioner can be granted in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and it is also to be seen whether the facts mentioned in the present case are sufficient to hold that the Club is an instrumentality or agency of a "State" or "other authority" for issuance of a writ as prayed for.
16. The pleadings are scanty in arriving at a conclusion that the Hyderabad Race Club is an "other authority" for the purpose of issuance of a writ. As the petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction for issuance of a writ, it is necessary that he must plead and prove that the Club is an other authority for making it amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and also evidence in proof of such facts have to be annexed to substantiate the same. Except stating that the Club was registered with the Registrar of Companies, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad nothing is stated whether the Club is discharging any Governmental or statutory functions and the Government exercises deep and pervasive control over the activities of the Club and all necessary funds are borne by the Government for running the Club for making it an instrumentality or agency of the State. The only averment which is made in the writ petition is that as per 29th Annual Report for the year 1999-2000 published and circulated by the Club the net income of the club is Rs.35,48,84,938/- which is a public money and the activities of the club are racing. For the said purpose Apprentice Jockeys Training School, Racing Academy, Equine Hospital, Information Technology, breeding activities etc., are maintained by the Club. It covers the activities concerning to the public as well as various people who participate in the racing activities.
17. The Apex Court in Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi, , summarised the relevant tests gathered from the decision of the Supreme Court in R.D. Shelly v. International Airport Authority of India, , for determining as to whether the Corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the Government.
(1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the Corporation if held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the Corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government.
(2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the Corporation, it would afford some indication of the Corporation being impregnated with Governmental character.
(3) It may also be a relevant factor .... whether the Corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected.
(4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the Corporation is a State agency or instrumentality.
(5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to Governmental Junctions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the Corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government.
(6) "Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a Corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference" of the Corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government.
18. The Supreme Court further proceeded in para 11 of its judgment as follows:
"We may point out that it is immaterial for this purpose whether the Corporation is created by a statute or under a statute. The test is whether it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and not as to how it is created. The inquiry has to be not as to how the juristic person is born but why it has been brought into existence. The Corporation may be a statutory Corporation created by statute or it may be a Government company or a company formed under the Companies Act, 1956 or it may be a society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or any other similar statute. Whatever be its genetical origin, it would be an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 if it is an instrumentality or agency of the Government and that would have to be decided on a proper assessment of the facts in the light of the relevant factors. The concept of instrumentality or agency of the Government is not limited to a Corporation created by a statute but is equally applicable to a company or society and in a given case it would have to be decided, on a consideration of the relevant factors, whether the company or society is an instrumentality or agency of the Government so as to come within the meaning of the expression "authority" in Article 12."
After summarising the relevant tests, the Supreme Court in para 12 of its judgment held that "the definition of "State" in Article 12 which includes an "authority" within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India is limited in its application only to Part III and by virtue of Article 36, to Part IV, it does not extend to the other provisions of the Constitution".
19. In Andi Mukta S.M.V.S.S.JMS. Trust v. V.R. Sudani, , K. Jagannatha Shelly, J., (as he then was) speaking for the Bench pointing out the difference between Articles 226 and 12 of the Constitution of India and Article 226 confers power on the High Courts to issue writs for enforcement of the fundamental rights as well as non-fundamental rights, observed as under:
"What is relevant is the nature of the duty imposed on the body. The duty must be judged in the light of positive obligation owed by the person or authority to the affected party. No matter by what means the duty is imposed, if a positive obligation exists mandamus cannot be denied".
20. Similarly, the learned Counsel for the respondents placed before me two unreported judgments, namely, WP No. 1972 of 1992 dated 4/5-2-1993 of Bombay High Court and WP No. 130 of 1987 dated 24-6-1987 of Karnataka High Court which was confirmed by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in WA No. 1106 of 1987 dated 24-11-1987. The Bombay High Court in WP No.1972 of 1992 dated 4/5-2-1993 on the preliminary jurisdictional point "whether the Turf Club is a State within the extended meaning given to the said term under Article 12 of the Constitution" held that no writ can be issued against the Turf Club in the matter.
21. The Karnataka High Court in WP No.130 of 1987 dated 24-6-1987 observing that the Turf Club is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the conduct of horse races and matters connected with the race horses, held that its functions are not of public importance and are not closely related to Governmental functions and it is not an instrumentality or agency of the State or an authority within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. The said judgment was upheld by a Division Bench of Karnataka High Court in WA No. 1106 of 1987 dated 24-11-1987.
22. In view of the principles laid down by the Apex Court, it will be seen that a non-statutory body not exercising statutory powers is not a State unless it is an agency of the State and in the determination of the question of agency, basic tests to be applied are:
1. Whether share capital is held by the State.
2. Whether State has conferred monopoly status.
3. Whether functions are Governmental or closely related thereto.
4. Funding by the State impregnated with Governmental character.
5. Imposition of statutory duties by the State.
6. Whether a department of Government is transferred.
23. Article 3 of the Articles of Association of the Club puts a ceiling on the number of Club Members as 1500. Articles 12 and 13 refer to entrance fee under various heads and annual subscriptions for all members. The Management of the Club shall be managed by Board of Stewards as per Article 21 which shall consist of 12 Stewards, of whom 8 shall be elected from among the Club Members and 3 shall be nominated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh and one shall be the Commander, Andhra (Independent) Sub-Area and elected members shall hold office only if, and so long as, they are Club Members. The term of the office of the elected Stewards of the Board shall be two years. The Stewards nominated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh shall hold the office at the pleasure of the Government and entitled to exercise all the rights and privileges of the Club Members except the right to vote at the General Body Meeting (Articles 22 and 23). The procedure for Election of Board of Stewards is provided under Article 26. Notice and Proceedings at General Body Meetings as contemplated under Sections 171 and 173 of the Companies Act, 1956.
24. The main object of the Club as per Memorandum of Association is to carry on the business of a Race Club in all is branches and to conduct, hold and promote race meetings and athletic sports, sports, polo, lawn tennis, golf and other matches, horse and other shows and exhibitions and otherwise utilise the Company's properties and sites and to give and contribute towards prizes, cups, stakes and other rewards.
25. In view of the same, races conducted by the Club are governed by the Memorandum and Articles of Association of the Club. The entire management and business of the Club vested in the Board of Stewards. Therefore, they exercise all the powers in the matter of day to day administration of the Club.
26. As seen from the Memorandum and Articles of Association, the Club is a limited Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 with limited liability and its objects are wide and varied and have no nexus with the discharge of legal, statutory or public functions of the State. The condition of obtaining licence under the Gaming Act and restrictions imposed by the State Government while granting licence are only regulatory in nature to generate the revenue of the State in the form of tax. The Government neither holds the share capital of the Club nor funds it. The Club and its activities including the activity of racing are managed by the Managing Committee of 12 Stewards by majority. Members nominated by the Government have no right to vote at the General Body Meeting. The Government has no power to issue binding instructions to their nominees. Hence, there is no Governmental deep or pervasive control over the functions of the Club.
27. Recently the Apex Court in VST Industries Limited v. PST Industries Workers' Union, (2001) 1 SCC 298, in an appeal filed against the judgment of this Court in WA No.430 of 1996 dated 27-11-1996 wherein the Division Bench confirmed the finding of the learned single Judge of this Court that a writ would lie under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against a company under a private management inasmuch as the public duty is called upon to be discharged by a private management, considered the correctness of the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in WA No.430 of 1996 and held that merely because a part of the conditions of service of a workman is violated, there is no justification to hold that such an activity will amount to public duty. Public duty is owed to the public in general and not specifically to any person or group of persons. In such cases and in view of the nature of the functions that any incorporated company is performing is not amenable to Judicial review under Article 226.
28. Except stating that the Memorandum of Association was registered with the Registrar of Companies and one of its object is to establish institutions, schools, funds and other conveniences for training jockeys and riders, both professional and amateur, no other clause is pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to come to a conclusion that the Club is an instrumentality or agency of the State and is discharging all the functions of the State Government. Unless the petitioner is able to establish that it discharging all functions of the Government, it cannot be said that the Club is an instrumentality of the State or other authority. Equally, the contention of the petitioner mat the Government of Andhra Pradesh provided the Club with loans at nominal rate of interest to conduct racing and unless necessary licence is given, it cannot carry out the activities of racing cannot be said that the Government will have a deep and pervasive control over the Club.
29. Having given my anxious consideration to the facts and circumstances of the case, and after scanning the material placed before me, I am not in a position to hold that the Club is either an agency or instrumentality of the State so as to come within the purview of "other authority" under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Once the Club is not an instrumentality or agency of the State nor discharging any statutory or public functions, the present writ petition cannot be maintained.
30. The next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that ballot papers which were printed arc not in accordance with the Rule 38 of the Conduct of Election Rules is devoid of substance for the reason that elections were conducted as per the Articles of Association and it is no where stated in it while conducting elections, the rules which are issued under the Representation of People Act, 1951 will govern the elections. Articles of Association constitutes a contract between the share holders and governs the internal management, and administration of the Club. Such Articles of Association has never been held to have force of law as held by the Apex Court in Co-operative Central Bank Limited v. Additional Industrial Tribunal Andhra Pradesh, . Therefore any breach or violation thereof would not confer any right on the petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India unless the petitioner is able to establish that while conducting the elections there is any violation of the provisions of the Companies Act and the elections so held contravenes the provisions of the Companies Act. Therefore, the contention advanced by the learned Counsel that by printing of ballot papers, the Secretary of the Club contravened the provisions of the rules framed under Representation of People Act, 1951 cannot be accepted and the same is rejected.
31. The next contention of the petitioner is that placing 8 ballot boxes in a row is arbitrary and in fact there shall be only one ballot box as per the Articles of Association.
32. To substantiate his contention, the petitioner is not able to show any provision or rule that by placing 8 ballot boxes vitiates the election. Moreover the same have been placed for the convenience of the members instead of standing in a "Q" which consumes considerable time. The question whether by placing 8 ballot boxes causes prejudice to the petitioner and materially affects the election, cannot be decided in a petition under Article 226, for which the petitioner has to establish by leading evidence before an appropriate forum.
33. Similarly, the third contention 'supply of intoxicating drinks amounts to corrupt practice' cannot be gone into the writ petition, which again required to be proved by leading evidence and necessary pleadings. In that view of the matter, the application filed by the petitioner permitting him to lead evidence is rejected.
34. This Court in Avanthi Explosives v. Principal Subordinate Judge, Company Cases 1987 Vol.62, 301, clearly held that the jurisdiction of the civil Court under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure is preserved unless specifically or by implication excluded by the Companies Act, 1956. Therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that he has no other alternative remedy and filing of civil suit can take long time to decide the matter, hence he can invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be sustainable and the same is rejected.
35. The second contention raised by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties deserves to be accepted. Admittedly, the petitioner challenged the election of Board of Stewards to the Hyderabad Race Club. The Club, which is having legal entity, is entitled to manage its own affairs in the manner prescribed by the Articles of Association and the entire management of the club vests with the Board of Stewards. Thus, the club is the proper and necessary party to the writ petition. Without impleading the Club as a party respondent to the writ petition, the writ petitioner is not entitled to any relief claimed by him in the writ petition and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties also.
36. In the result, I do not see any merits in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed with exemplary costs.
37. What would be the exemplary costs will depend upon the nature of litigation and bona fides of the petitioner. The petitioner invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to decide the election dispute which is nothing but a luxurious litigation and it has consumed considerable time. Hence, I am constrained to impose exemplary costs, quantified at Rs.5,000/- to be paid by petitioner to the A.P. State Legal Services Authority within four weeks from today. In default of such payment, A.P. State Legal Services Authority shall take appropriate action for recovery of the said amount.