Madhya Pradesh High Court
Dhanesh Kumar Arkhel vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 6 September, 2023
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1 W.P. No.13390/2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 6th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
WRIT PETITION No. 13390 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
DHANESH KUMAR ARKHEL S/O
SHRI M.P. ARKHEL, AGED ABOUT
57 YEARS, OCCUPATION: THE
THEN ASSTT. ENGINEER
ATTACHED TO THE OFFICE OF
CHIEF ENGINEER PUBLIC WORKS
DEPARTMENT JABALPUR ZONE
JABALPUR R/O. PLOT NO. 9-10
KRISHNA HOMES BILHARI DISTT.
JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI PRAVEEN DUBEY - ADVOCATE )
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
VALLABH BHAWAN BHOPAL
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI G.P.SINGH - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE )
.........................................................................................................
This petition coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 23.05.2016 passed by respondent in File No.17-09/2013/Establishment/2019 and order dated 12.04.2017 passed by respondent in File No.17-09/2013, by which services of the petitioner 2 W.P. No.13390/2017 have been terminated.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that a departmental enquiry was initiated against him and the Enquiry Officer without appreciating the evidence have given a conclusion in three lines that petitioner has failed to disapprove the charges levelled against him. No separate reasons were assigned for holding as to why the charges, which were levelled against the petitioner, were found to be proved. It is submitted that such an enquiry report cannot be said to be based on appreciation of evidence and in fact it is a case where the punishment was imposed on the basis of no evidence.
3. To buttress his contentions, learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Swami Prasad Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others reported in 2011 (2) MPLJ 317 and judgment dated 24.08.2016 passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Devvrath Mishra Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.18465/2012, which was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ Appeal No.43/2017.
3. It is further submitted that petitioner was departmentally chargesheeted along with one Ravi Saxena, who was also saddled with the same punishment. Ravi Saxena had filed Writ Petition No.4767/2018, which has been allowed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 24.03.2023 by holding that the departmental enquiry is based on no evidence and the matter has been remanded back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the case in the light of recommendation made by Engineer-in-Chief and to modify the major punishment inflicted upon the petitioner into a minor punishment, if so 3 W.P. No.13390/2017 requires. It is submitted that the present petition is duly covered by the order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Saxena (Supra) and, therefore, this petition may also be decided in the terms and conditions of the aforesaid case.
4. Per contra, the counsel for respondent/State has vehemently opposed the contentions of counsel for petitioner. However, after going through the enquiry report, the counsel for State could not point out any reasons for holding the charges proved against the petitioner. Furthermore, the counsel for State also could not point out any distinguishable feature in the case of Ravi Saxena (supra) and the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned counsel for parties.
6. A Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi Saxena (Supra) has passed the following order :-
"Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are ready to argue the matter, therefore, it is heard finally.
2. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against the order passed by the disciplinary authority on 03.03.2016 (Annexure-P/13) whereby the authority inflicted punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner and also the order of appellate authority dated 16.01.2018 (Annexure-P/16) whereby an appeal preferred by the petitioner against his order of dismissal has been rejected.
3. The facts in brief lie in a narrow compass which are as under:-
3.1 That, the petitioner was engaged on daily wage basis as a Civil Engineer in the respondent/Department in the year 1994 and due to his satisfactory performance he was regularized vide order dated 07.10.2009 (Annexure P/1). There was neither any adverse remark 4 W.P. No.13390/2017 nor any disciplinary proceeding or even any complaint made against the petitioner regarding his work and as such, his service record was unblemished. 3.2 That, one Fantom Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Contractor') was constructing Shahpura-Bhatonda Road in Dindori Division and the petitioner was the In-charge Sub Engineer. The contractor vide letter dated 04.03.2012 requested the Executive Engineer to make payment of price variation as per the work undertaken by him in the agreement. The contractor also annexed the calculation chart of price variation of the amount to be paid and as such, the total amount payable was Rs.3,75,81,000/-. The Executive Engineer forwarded the letter dated 04.03.2012 of the contract to the SDO (Dindori) with a remark to put up the bill immediately. The SDO, Dindori further forwarded the file to the petitioner and directed to put up the file immediately for payment. As per the petitioner, his work was only to measure the work actually done on the field and to check the material and quality of the construction but he was not authorized to sanction any payment. The payment could be sanctioned only by the higher authority i.e. Executive Engineer. 3.3 An objection was raised by the Auditor that the payment of escalation cannot be made to the contractor as per the letter of Chief Engineer, PWD and Chief Engineer also issued instruction to the Executive Engineer accordingly. Despite clear objection of the auditor as well as instruction issued by the Chief Engineer, the Executive Engineer proceeded for payment of amount to the Contractor.
3.4 Thereafter, the petitioner was issued charge- sheet on 26.08.2013 (Annexure P/5) containing a charge of making payment of Rs.3.62 crores as price escalation without the sanction of competent officer. In addition to this, the petitioner was accused that the construction work of road was incomplete and damaged, drum delineators and milestones were not erected despite sanction.
3.5 That, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply 5 W.P. No.13390/2017 dated 03.10.2013 vide Annexure P/6 denied the charges and also about not committing any misconduct. The petitioner also filed the note-sheet containing signature of the Auditor, Sub Divisional Officer and the Executive Engineer but it does not contain the signature of the petitioner. The note-sheet contains remark of the Executive Engineer whereby he approved for payment. The said note-sheet is Annexure P/7. A copy of last and final running bill dated 06.06.2014 is also available on record as Annexure P/8. The final amount has been recommended by three officers namely Sub Engineer Vinod Kumar Khare, Sub Divisional Officer Ajit Kumar Nagdev showing that at the relevant point of time, petitioner was not posted at this place but another Sub Engineer Shri Vinod Kumar Khare was posted and bill was finally paid as per the instructions of Executive Engineer. The work relates to the Division Shahpura whereas petitioner had already been transferred from this Division to PWD (PIU), Dindori.
3.6 The enquiry was concluded and then petitioner received a show cause notice dated 09.11.2015 along with the enquiry report. The enquiry report reproduce the cross examination of the witnesses but their examination-in-chief was not reproduced. According to the petitioner, it was a sketchy enquiry report which on the face of it, appears to have been written in utter disregard of provisions of Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966. However, according to the petitioner, the effect of statements reproduced in the enquiry report showed that all the witnesses denied knowledge of the allegation against the petitioner.
3.7 The petitioner submitted reply on 07.01.2016 (Annexure P/12) mentioning therein that he is an employee of a very low stature having no authority to sanction or approve works and everything has been done by the Executive Engineer and not by him. The petitioner did not receive any reply on his reply dated 07.01.2016 till date and vide order dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure P/13), the services of the petitioner were 6 W.P. No.13390/2017 terminated by the respondents.
3.8 Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner challenged the same by filing W.P. No.5664/2016 which got disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2017 (Annexure P/14) directing the respondents to decide the departmental appeal within a period of three months. The said order dated 11.05.2017 has again been assailed by the petitioner by filing W.A. No. 487/2017 which also disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court by order dated 09.08.2017.
3.9 Thereafter, the petitioner preferred departmental appeal on 24.08.2017 (Annexure P/15) before the Governor, State of M.P. but without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the departmental appeal has been decided vide order dated 16.01.2018 (Annexure P/16).
3.10 The petitioner preferred a review before the said authority mentioning the subsequent development took place in the case in which Contractor has also been given a clean chit and the order of his blacklisting was also set aside. The Engineer-in-Chief in the review advised that considering the order passed in favour of Contractor in his appeal, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner was improper and the Department should reduce the same converting into a minor punishment of withholding of annual increment but the advise of Engineer-in-Chief has not been given effect to and as such, petitioner claimed that the order of disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority deserve to be set aside and the petition should be allowed. The order passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority both have been assailed by the petitioner in this petition mainly on the ground that it is a case of no evidence.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of no evidence. He submits that during departmental enquiry four witnesses were examined, but they had stated before the Enquiry Officer that they are not aware about the facts relating to the charge levelled against the petitioner but despite that, the sole charge 7 W.P. No.13390/2017 levelled against the petitioner was found proved. He further submits that though the disciplinary authority after acting upon the enquiry report, passed the order of dismissal, but the said authority did not assign any reason as to on what basis, charge levelled against the petitioner was found proved. He submits that finding without there being any reason is no finding in the eyes of law. He also submits that on the basis of charge of escalation amount paid to the Contractor, an order of blacklisting of the Contractor was issued against which the Contractor preferred an appeal before the authority and that appeal got decided by the authority in which it was found that the amount paid to the Contractor under the head of escalation of price was proper and there was no illegality in it, meaning thereby, the charge levelled against the petitioner was without any foundation. He submits that while deciding the appeal preferred by the Contractor, when he was not found guilty, then the finding given by the authority in the Contractor's case has direct bearing over the decision taken against the petitioner. He submits that thereafter the petitioner preferred a review before the authority asking them to take into account the finding and observation made in the appeal preferred by the Contractor and then, the Engineer-in-Chief after considering the said aspect observed that in view of the finding given in the appeal of Contractor, the punishment inflicted upon the petitioner was improper and the department should reduce the same by imposing a minor punishment of withholding of annual increment. However, the observation of Engineer-in-Chief has not been given effect to and nothing has been done thereafter. He submits that under such a circumstances, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and also the appellate authority deserve to be set-aside and this petition should be allowed granting the petitioner all consequential benefits. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon several decisions of the Supreme Court viz. (1985) 3 SCC 379 [Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and others]; (1995) 6 SCC 749 [B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. 8 W.P. No.13390/2017 Union of India and others]; (1999) 5 SCC 762 [Bank of India and another Vs. Degala Suryanarayana], (2009) 2 SCC 570 [Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and others] and (2010) 2 SCC 772 [State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha].
5. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate has opposed the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and relied upon several decisions of Supreme Court viz. (2008) 5 SCC 569 [Chairman & Managing Director, VSP and others Vs. Goparaju Shri Prabhakar Hari Babu], (2009) 15 SCC 620 [Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhari and others]; (2010) 11 SCC 233 [General Manager (P) Punjab and Sindh Bank and others Vs. Daya Singh]; (1997) 2 SCC 699 [Depot Managar, A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya and others] and (1997) 5 SCC 129 [High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Udaysingh and others].
6. I have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
7. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, especially the enquiry report submitted by the petitioner along with the show cause notice dated 09.01.2015 (Annexure P/11), it is clear that in the enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer has reproduced the charge levelled against the petitioner and also reproduced the statement of witnesses recorded during the course of enquiry. So far as witness No.1 namely Shri Sumati Kumar, Divisional Accounts Officer is concerned, he has very categorically stated that for the work described in the alleged charge, no bill was produced before him. He has also stated that he has never raised any objection in regard to the excess payment made than that of sanction. He has also admitted that the loss caused in the work and also installation of Mile Stones and delineator over the work was not in his knowledge. Likewise, witness No.2 namely Ajeet Kumar Nagdeve, S.D.O., Public Works 9 W.P. No.13390/2017 Department, Shahpura has also admitted that facts contained in the charge-sheet were not in his knowledge. Thereafter, witness No.3 S.K. Nayak, Sub-Eingneer, PWD in his examination has very categorically admitted that he was not posted at the relevant place but was posted at Dindori Sub-Division No.2 and, therefore, he had no information. He has also admitted that so far as the charge No.2 which relates to escalation payment is concerned, he had no information. Even asking specific question by the delinquent as to who made the final payment, he did not disclose anything. Similarly witness No.4 Shri Vinod Kumar Khare, Sub-Engineer, PWD, Sub-Division, Shahpura has also admitted this fact that the charge No.2 and the fact relating to escalation payment, he had no information because he was posted at Amarpur Section. The enquiry finally concluded with the observation that on the basis of record available, the excess payment amounting to Rs.362.17 lacs has been made in the head of Escalation and charge proved against the petitioner on the basis of facts and records available.
8. It is surprising as to on what basis the Enquiry Officer has found charge proved when none of the witnesses said anything against the petitioner but all the witnesses have stated that they had no information about the facts contained in the charge. The document available on record as Annexure RJ/1 is an order dated 05.01.2016 showing that the revised sanction was approved and price of escalation was also directed to be refunded. Thereafter, the appeal preferred by the Contractor against the order of suspension of registration of the Company and also against the order of blacklisting in which not only the suspension of registration was set aside but it was also observed that the price of escalation was rightly done and that payment was in accordance with law and the Contractor was given a clean chit, meaning thereby whatever allegation made against the petitioner who was suspended on the basis of said charge, ultimately found without any substance and foundation.
10 W.P. No.13390/20179. The Supreme Court in case of Anil Kumar (supra) dealing with the manner in which enquiry officer has to proceed in the enquiry has observed as under:-
"5. We have extracted the charges framed against the appellant. We have also pointed out in clear terms the report of the enquiry officer. It is well- settled that a disciplinary enquiry has to be a quasi- judicial enquiry held according to the principles of natural justice and the enquiry officer has a duty to act judicially. The enquiry officer did not apply his mind to the evidence. Save setting out the names of the witnesses, he did not discuss the evidence. He merely recorded his ipse dixit that the charges are proved. He did not assign a single reason why the evidence produced by the appellant did not appeal to him or was considered not creditworthy. He did not permit a peep into his mind as to why the evidence produced by the management appealed to him in preference to the evidence produced by the appellant. An enquiry report in a quasi-judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion. It cannot be an ipse dixit of the enquiry officer. It has to be a speaking order in the sense that the conclusion is supported by reasons. This is too well settled to be supported by a precedent. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. v. Union of India [AIR 1966 SC 671 : (1966) 1 SCR 466 : (1966) 1 SCJ 204] this Court observed that a speaking order will at best be a reasonable and at its worst be at least a plausible one. The public should not be deprived of this only safeguard. Similarly in Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. Slate of U.P. [AIR 1966 SC 671 : (1971) 1 SCR 201] this Court reiterated that satisfactory decision of a disputed claim may be reached only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that appealed to the authority. It should all the more be so where the quasi-judicial enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character. In this case the enquiry report is an order sheet which merely produces the stage through which the enquiry passed. It clearly disclosed a total non-application of mind and it is this report on which the General Manager acted in terminating the service of the appellant. There 11 W.P. No.13390/2017 could not have been a more gross case of non- application of mind and it is such an enquiry which has found favour with the Labour Court and the High Court.
6. Where a disciplinary enquiry affects the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice, the minimum expectation is that the report must be a reasoned one. The Court then may not enter into the adequacy or sufficiency of evidence. But where the evidence is annexed to an order sheet and no corelation is established between the two showing application of mind, we are constrained to observe that it is not an enquiry report at all. Therefore, there was no enquiry in this case worth the name and the order of termination based on such proceeding disclosing non- application of mind would be unsustainable."
10. In case of B.C. Chaturvedi (supra), the Supreme Court has observed that the Court/Tribunal may interfere in a matter of departmental enquiry where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence and as such, observed as under:-
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the 12 W.P. No.13390/2017 technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case."
11. Further, the Supreme Court in case of Degala Suryanarayana (supra) has also observed that though strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings but the allegation levelled against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. The Supreme Court as such observed as under:-
"11. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the 13 W.P. No.13390/2017 findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The court cannot embark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 4 SCR 718] the Constitution Bench has held:
"[T]he High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not.""
12. Further in case of Roop Singh Negi (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been 14 W.P. No.13390/2017 treated as evidence."
13. The Supreme Court in case of Saroj Kumar Sinha (supra) has observed that departmental enquiry against the government servant cannot be treated as a casual exercise and held as under:-
"30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service." .
14.Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the subsequent development, I am of the opinion that it is a case of no evidence. The report of enquiry officer holding the charge proved is nothing but a perverse finding and the order passed in the appeal preferred by the Contractor reveals that the report of the Enquiry Officer and finding given thereof is illegal because the payment made to the Contractor as per the revised sanction and under the head of escalation when found in accordance with law and as per rules, then petitioner cannot be punished for the same saying that he was guilty of submitting the revised bill or for payment of escalation price.
15.Counsel for the respondent/State although placed reliance upon several decisions referred hereinabove, but those are not applicable in the present case for the reason that facts of the present case are not similar to those cases. In maximum cases, the scope of interference in the matter of departmental enquiry has been laid down by the Supreme Court and confined to the extent that interference is permissible only when there is any violation of principles of natural justice in decision making process and substituting the opinion of 15 W.P. No.13390/2017 disciplinary authority based upon the evidence adduced during the course of departmental enquiry. However, in the present case, as has been discussed in the preceding paragraphs, this case is of no evidence and the authority of the respondent/department has also realised this fact that the petitioner was not at fault so as to suffer major punishment.
16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The orders passed by the disciplinary authority on 03.03.2016 (Annexure-P/13) and the appellate authority on 16.01.2018 (Annexure-P/16) are, therefore, set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to take into account the recommendation made by the Engineer-in-Chief and modify the major punishment inflicted upon the petitioner into a minor punishment, if so requires. It is further made clear that if the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that in view of subsequent event and recommendation made by the Engineer-in-Chief, no further punishment is required to be inflicted upon the petitioner then order in this regard may also be passed. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the said authority within a period of 60 days from the date of submitting copy of this order.
17.With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
No order as to costs."
7. This Court has also heard the present case at length and could not find any distinguishable feature with the case of Ravi Saxena (Supra).
8. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 23.05.2016 passed by respondent in File No.17-09/2013/Establishment/2019 and order dated 12.04.2017 passed by respondent in File No.17-09/2013 are hereby set aside.
9. The matter is remanded back to the disciplinary authority to take into account the recommendation made by Engineer-in-Chief and 16 W.P. No.13390/2017 modify the major punishment inflicted upon the petitioner into a minor punishment, if so requires. It is further made clear that if the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that in view of subsequent event and recommendation made by the Engineer-in-Chief, no further punishment is required to be inflicted upon the petitioner, then the order in this regard may also be passed.
10. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by the said authority within a period of 60 days from the date of submitting copy of this order.
11. With aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
12. No order as to costs.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE TG/-
TRUPTI GUNJAL 2023.09.08 18:17:15 +05'30'