Karnataka High Court
K.Nanjunda Reddy vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 February, 2023
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No. 6355 OF 2017(LA-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. ANKAPPA
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
(A) SRI.A. GOPALA REDDY
S/O LATE, ANKAPPA
AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS
OCCUPATION: NILL.
(B) SMT. M. RADHA
W/O A. ANANDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.
(C) SRI. A. MANJUNATH
S/O A. ANANDA
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS.
ALL RESIDING AT KAGGADASAPURA VILLAGE
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 093.
2. M. THAYAPPA REDDY
S/O MUNISHAMAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
(A) SRI. T. MUNIRAJU
S/O LATE. M. THAYAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
(B) SRI. T. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE. M. THAYAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
(C) SRI.K.T. RAMACHADNRA
S/O LATE. M. THAYAPPA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
-2-
SL NO. 2(A) TO (C) ARE RESIDNG AT
KAGGADASAPURA VILLAGE
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST
BENGALURU EAST TALUK
BENGALURU - 560 093.
3. K.R. PAPAIAH REDDY
S/O RAMAIAH
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
(A) SRI.P. PRAKASH
S/O LATE. K.R. PAPAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS.
(B) SRI. P. SRINIVAS
S/O LATE. K.R. PAPAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
(c) SRI. P. RAJASHEKAR
S/O LATE. K.R. PAPAIAH REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
SL NO. 4 (A) TO (C) ARE RESIDING AT
KAGGADASAPURA VILLAGE
C.V. RAMAN NAGAR POST
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 093.
4. K.V. KODANDA REDDY
S/O LATE VENKATSWAMY REDDY
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.
(A) SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O LATE. K.V. KODANDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
(B) (i) SMT. SUSHEELAMMA
W/O LATE. RAMASWAMY K.V.
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS.
(B) (ii) SRI. MANJUNATH.R.
S/O LATE. RAMASWAMY K.V.
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS.
4(b) (i) & 4(b) (ii) ARE RESIDING AT NO. 19
6TH 'B' CROSS, BEHIND PRADOM HOMES
C.V. RAMAN POST, KAGGADASAPURA
BENGALURU - 560 093.
-3-
(C) SRI. V. SHAMANNA REDDY
S/O LATE. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS.
(D) SMT. SHANTHA
D/O LATE. VENKATASWAMY REDDY
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS.
(E) SMT. RADHA
D/O LATE. K.V. KODANDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.
(F) SMT. RATHI
D/O LATE. K.V. KODANDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS.
(G) SMT. PADMA
D/O LATE. K.V. KODANDA REDDY
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.
SL.NO. 5(A) TO (G) ARE RESIDING AT
KAGGADASAPURA VILLAGE
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR POST
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 093.
5. CHIKKA SIDDA REDDY
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA
SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR
SRI. C.S. GOPALA REDDY
S/O LATE CHIKKA SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT KAGGADASAPURA VILLAGE
C.V.RAMAN NGAR POST
BANGALORE EAST TALUK
BANGALORE - 560 093.
6. BYRAPPA
S/O MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 731, SHAKAMBARI NAGAR
7TH CROSS, 12TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE
J.P.NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 078.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.H.M.MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE)
-4-
AND:
1. THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER,
V.V. TOWER, 3RD FLOOR,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. STATE OF KARNTAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
VIKASA SOUDHA,
DR.B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560001,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
3. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
BENGALURU DISTRICT,
BENGALURU.
4. THE DEFENCE ESTATE OFFICER,
K. KAMARAJ ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560042.
5. THE MANAGER,
THE ESTATE MANAGEMENT UNIT,
DRDO, C.V. RAMAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560093.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.ANITHA N. , HCGP FOR R1 T O R3
SRI.H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN, DSGI FOR R4 & R5)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE
RECORDS ON THE FILE OF THE RESPONDENTS, PERUSE THE
SAME, ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION, QUASH THE ACQUISITION
NO.LAQ 2 SR 7/88-89 DTD 16.07.1988 AND DECLARATION
NO.RD/71/AQB/89 DATED 19.01.1989 ISSUED UNDER SECTION
6(1) READ WITH SECTION 17(1) OF THE LAND ACQUISITION
ACT, ISSUED BY THE R-1 VIDE ANNX-A & B RESPECTIVELY, IN
SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER LANDS ARE CONCERNED BY
ISSUE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI,
CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE
-5-
RESPONDENTS TO RESTORE THE LANDS TO THE PETITIONER
AND ETC.,
THIS W.P. IS BEING HEARD AND RESERVED ON
24.11.2022 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
In this petition, petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned acquisition proceedings pursuant to the preliminary notification dated 16.07.1988 and final declaration dated 19.01.1989 issued by the respondents and for other reliefs.
2. The material on record discloses that on 16.07.1988, the respondents issued a preliminary notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1984 (for short 'the L.A.Act') proposing to acquire 125 acres of land including the subject lands of the petitioners for the purpose of establishing a High Technological Park by the Defence Department. Subsequently, an additional 2 acres 36 guntas was added to the acquisition and a final notification dated 19.01.1989 was issued under Section 6(1) of the L.A.Act by invoking the urgency clause under Section 17 of the L.A.Act and by dispensing with the -6- enquiry required under Section 5-A of the L.A.Act. Subsequently, the award was passed on 10.05.1990 and possession was taken on 24.07.1989. As per the award, compensation was fixed at Rs.1,30,000/- per acre payable in favour of the petitioners and other land losers. Subsequently, being dissatisfied with the award, petitioners filed reference applications under Section 18 of the L.A.Act seeking enhancement of compensation and the same was allowed by the reference Court vide order dated 13.08.1998, which increased the compensation to Rs.2,48,000/- per acre. The respondent - beneficiary challenged the said awards of the reference Court in MFA No.5403/1999 & connected matters which were referred to the High Court Lok Adalat. On 27.08.2001, the appeals were settled between the petitioners and respondents reducing the compensation payable from Rs.2,48,000/- as determined by the reference court to Rs.2,22,000/- together with all statutory benefits in full and final settlement of the claim of the petitioners.
3. It was relevant to state that the said settlement before the Lok Adalat was arrived at pursuant to the joint -7- memo filed by the petitioners and the respondents. Subsequently, the petitioners and other land losers raised certain objections with regard to calculation of statutory benefit which were disputed by the respondents and the matter came up before the Lok Adalat once again on 06.05.2002, whereby the Lok Adalat noted that since the matters had already been disposed of by settlement, if the claimants - petitioners were not satisfied with the calculation or deposit, it was open for them to levy execution so that the Executing Court can pass appropriate orders.
4. Subsequently, the Execution petitions were taken up for consideration by the Executing court and since there was a dispute regarding the memos of calculations filed by the petitioners and the respondents, orders were passed by the Executing Court in favour of the petitioners which were challenged by the respondents in W.P.No.4612/2004 c/w W.P.No.4613/2004 which was disposed of by this Court on 01.08.2005 and the matter was remitted back to the Executing court.
-8-
5. The aforesaid execution proceedings are still pending, in which the petitioners contend that the entire amounts payable by the respondents in terms of the Lok Adalat awards together with benefits have not been paid by them to the petitioners.
6. Meanwhile, petitioners challenged the aforesaid Lok Adalat awards passed by this Court in MFA No.5403/1999 & connected matters by preferring W.P.No.11372/2017 and connected petitions before this Court seeking setting aside of the Lok Adalat awards. Simultaneously, petitioners have also filed the present petition challenging the acquisition notifications and proceedings. In this context, it is necessary to state that the aforesaid W.P.No.11372/2017 filed by the petitioners against the Lok Adalat awards, has been dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 24.03.2022 and consequently, the Lok Adalat awards dated 27.08.2001 have attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioners.
-9-
7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned HCGP for respondents - State and learned DSGI for respondents 4 and 5.
8. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the impugned notifications and acquisition proceedings pursuant thereto, deserve to be quashed for the following reasons:-
(i) The respondents invoked the urgency clause as provided under Section 17 of the L.A.Act, thereby dispensing with the enquiry required under Section 5-A of the L.A.Act, despite there being no compelling reasons to do so, thereby depriving the petitioners of their right over the subject lands and in the absence of sufficient or valid reasons or circumstances to invoke the urgency clause under Section 17, the impugned acquisition proceedings are vitiated and deserve to be quashed.
(ii) Despite having entered into a settlement before the Lok Adalat, the respondents have not fully satisfied with the Lok Adalat award and not paid the entire amount due to
- 10 -
the petitioners, which is one more circumstance that would vitiate the acquisition proceedings.
(iii) Though the respondents sought to acquire the subject lands for the purpose of its Defence project, the acquired land was not utilized for the said purpose, which is yet another reason for quashing of the acquisition proceedings.
(iv) In support of his contentions, learned counsel places reliance upon the following judgments:-
(i) Bank of Baroda vs. Sadruddin - (2004) 1 SCC 360;
(ii) Union of India vs. Kishori Lal Gupta - (1960) 1 SCR 493;
(iii) Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills vs. State of Uttar Pradesh - (1979) 2 SCC 409;
(iv) Delhi Airtech Services vs. State of U.P.
- 2022 SCC Online SC 1408;
(v) Hamid Ali Khan vs. State of U.P. - 2021 SCC Online SC 1115;
(vi) Lalaram vs. Jaipur Development Authority - (2016) 11 SCC 31;
(vii) Town Panchayath vs. Krishnappa & Others - W.A.No.1006/2014 dated 07.11.2022;
- 11 -
(viii) Muralidhar vs. State of Maharastra - 2021 SCc Online Bombay 5535;
9. Per contra, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents, in addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the statement of objections and referring to the material on record submits that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches alone. It is contended that merely because the respondents may not have utilized the entire acquired lands for the purpose of the project, the same was no ground to seek quashing of the acquisition proceedings. It is pointed out that having compromised the matter before the Lok Adalat of this Court and having failed in their challenge to the same, the petitioners are estopped from questioning the acquisition proceedings and as such, the petition is liable to be dismissed.
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.
- 12 -
11. In my considered opinion, the petition is devoid of merit and the same is liable to be dismissed for the following reasons:-
(a) The undisputed material on record clearly establishes that there is almost delay of 30 years in filing the present petition. Except for stating that the acquisition was a result of fraud and the delay in challenging the acquisition notifications, is of no consequence, no other facts or grounds are urged as to why there is such a long and inordinate delay in preferring the petition. Under these circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the long, inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners in challenging the acquisition after a lapse of 30 years is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches alone.
(b) The undisputed material on record also establishes that the possession of the subject lands having been taken on 24.07.1989, the award was passed on 10.05.1990 and enhanced compensation was awarded by the reference court at the instance of the petitioners on
- 13 -
13.08.1998 in LAC No.60/1992. The compensation having been enhanced to Rs.2,48,000/- per acre by the reference court, the appeals preferred by the respondents herein in MFA No.5403/1999 and connected matters was referred to the High Court Lok Adalat, wherein a Joint memo was filed and the matter was settled and awards were passed by the Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat awards were also challenged by the petitioners herein in W.P.No.11372/2017 and connected matters which were dismissed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court on 24.03.2022, by holding as under:-
In these batch of writ petitions the petitioners have sought for setting aside the order and award passed by the High Court Lok Adalath Committee, Bengaluru dated 27.08.2001/03.09.2001/21.09.2001.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the present writ petitions are, that second respondent has acquired the lands of the petitioners and other properties for public purpose and published the Gazette Notification under Section 4(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short LA Act, 1894) invoking emergency clause under Section 17 of the LA Act, 1894 vide notification bearing No. LAQ(2) SR-7/88-89 dated 16.07.1988 and final notification bearing No. RD/71/AQB/89 dated 19.01.1989 vide Karnataka Gazette dated
- 14 -
11.05.1989. Respondent No. 2 has awarded compensation at the rate of Rs.1,30,000/- per acre.
Petitioners, dissatisfied with the award, have filed the reference application under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894, claiming higher compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- per acre. Respondent No. 2 referred the matter under Section 18 of the LA Act, 1894 to City Civil Court, Bengaluru for adjudication of the reference applications. The Additional City Civil Court (CCH-17) after detailed enquiry and considering the documents and evidence on record fixed the compensation at Rs.2,48,000/- per acre. Respondent No. 1 - Defence Estate Officer preferred appeals before this Court in M.F.A. Nos. 5397/1999, 5403/1999, 5409/19999, 5405/1999, 5412/1999, 5418/1999, 5343/1999, 5413/1999, 5402/1999, 5408/1999 and 5386/1999. The said appeals have been referred to High Court Lok Adalat. The Lok Adalat on the basis of the joint memo filed by the appellants and the respondents, fixed the compensation at Rs.2,22,000/- per acre as against Rs.2,48,000/- per acre with a direction to deposit the award amount within two months before the reference Court. It is the contention of the petitioners that inspite of such direction, the respondents have not deposited the award amount as per the award passed in the Lok Adalat within two months. The petitioners have filed execution cases which are pending consideration before the reference Court. It is the contention of the petitioners that compromise was done forcibly and though the
- 15 -
petitioners were not ready for compromise, it was done only on the assurance that the amount will be deposited within two months from the date of the order. But, the respondents have not fully deposited the award amount. That respondent No.1 was depositing the award amount in installments and has not deposited the award amount in time as per the award passed by the Lok Adalat and therefore they have filed the present writ petitions seeking to recall the compromise recorded by the Lok Adalat on 27.08.2001. It is the contention of the petitioners that High Court Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to compromise the matters where value of the property in dispute exceeds Rs.10,00,000/-.
3. Heard Sri. Jayakumar S. Patil, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri. Lokesh Malavalli for petitioners, Sri. M.N. Kumar and Smt. Anupama Hegde, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for respondent No. 1.
4. It is the submission of the learned Senior Counsel that the respondents have not deposited the award amount along with statutory benefits and calculations made by the respondents is not proper. The respondents have made payments to persons who filed applications under Section 28-A of the LA Act, 1894 on the basis of the award passed by the High Court Lok Adalat with all statutory benefits and they are not making payment to petitioners on the basis of
- 16 -
the same calculations paid to the persons who have approached under Section 28-A of the LA Act, 1894.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 contended that they have made proper calculations and deposited amount as per their calculations. It is his further submission that the petitioners, consequently upon deposit of decretal amount before the reference Court had again approached the Lok Adalat stating that the calculations done by respondent No. 1 was not agreed to by them and requested the Lok Adalat for clarification. The Lok Adalat by its order dated 06.05.2002 has passed the order as under:
"As the matters are already disposed of by settlement, if claimants are not satisfied with the calculations or deposit it is open to levy execution so that the executing Court can pass appropriate orders."
6. It is their further submission that petitioners thereafter have filed execution petitions. It is their further submission that respondent No. 1 challenged the order passed by the executing Court in W.P. No. 4612/2004 and 4613/2004 before this Court and they were allowed with a direction to the executing Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law within a period of two months. It is their further submission that in similar acquisition cases respondent No. 1 had filed W.P. Nos. 50679/2012, 10615/2013, 10617/2013 and 10619/2013 before this Court against the orders passed by the executing Court and this Court while allowing the writ petitions has held that the respondents are not entitled for any interest on
- 17 -
solatium prior to 19.09.2001 relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sunder Vs. Union of India reported in 2001 AIR SCW 3691 and in the case of Gurpreet Singh Vs. Union of India reported in (2006) 8 SCC 457. It is their further submission that petitioners did not make out any grounds for challenging the consent award passed by the Lok Adalat and the same was passed without any force, coercion or undue influence. The petitioners after accepting the consent award passed way back in the year 2001 had prosecuted the execution petition before the executing Court and now after lapse of nearly 15 years have challenged the award passed by the Lok Adalat and therefore the petitions are not maintainable on the ground of delay and laches and the action of the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of law.
7. Even though the petitions have been filed seeking setting aside of the award passed by the Lok Adalat dated 27.08.2001, learned counsel for the petitioners has not chosen to argue and make out any grounds for setting aside the award. Instead he chose to argue only regarding the manner of calculations of the amount as per the award. What is the amount the petitioners are entitled as per the award is to be calculated by the executing Court. The petitioners have not challenged any order passed by the executing Court in the present writ petitions. The execution cases filed by the petitioners are pending before the reference Court. The petitioners are at
- 18 -
liberty to agitate regarding the mode and method of proper calculation of the amount as per the award passed by the Lok Adalat, as per the decisions of the Apex Court and the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 10617/2013 (LA-RES) dated 04.09.2013.
8. The award passed by the Lok Adalat is sought to be quashed on the ground that the petitioners have been forced to enter into compromise. The compromise came to be recorded before the Lok Adalat during August/September, 2001. The present petitions came to be filed in the year 2017. Till the filing of the present writ petitions the petitioners have not made the said allegation of forcing them to enter into compromise in any of the proceedings either before this Court or before the reference Court/executing Court. It is only when a dispute arose regarding the mode and method of calculations the petitioners have approached this Court challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat on the ground that there is force to enter into compromise. The said attitude of the petitioners is not bonafide and it is an after thought. When the petitioners have filed execution cases seeking execution of the award passed by the Lok Adalat they are estopped from challenging the award passed by the Lok Adalat on the ground that they were forced to enter into compromise.
9. The award under challenge in the present petitions has been passed in the year 2001 and the
- 19 -
present petitions are filed in the year 2017, i.e., after passage of 16 long years. There is no explanation by the petitioners for the delay in approaching this Court. The claim of the petitioners is defeated by delay and laches. It is trite law that if there is delay and laches on the part of the petitioners, on the same ground the writ Court can refuse to grant relief. The Apex Court in the case of Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Dugal Kumar, reported in 2008 (14) SCC 295 has observed thus:
"24. ... ... It is well settled that under Article 226 of the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the grounds to refuse the relief by a writ court is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution, that he should come to the court at the earliest reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to exercise discretion in favour of the applicant."
8. The petitioners have not made out any grounds to set aside the award passed by the High Court Lok Adalat Committee and hence, the following;
ORDER Writ petitions are dismissed.
(c) As can be seen from the aforesaid order passed by this Court, which has attained finality and become conclusive and binding upon the petitioners, both the
- 20 -
contentions urged by the petitioners viz., that the Lok Adalat compromise was entered into forcibly by the petitioners and that the respondents have not paid the amounts due to the petitioners in terms of the compromise have been rejected by this Court. It is also significant to note that having accepted the Lok Adalat award and having challenged the same and having failed, the only claim available to the petitioners is with regard to non-payment of the amounts due to them in terms of the Lok Adalat award and the said question is still pending adjudication before the Executing court. Under these circumstances, merely because certain amounts are alleged to be due from the respondents, who have allegedly not complied with the terms and conditions of the Lok Adalat award, the said circumstance cannot be made the basis to enable the petitioners to challenge the acquisition proceedings.
(d) The contentions urged by the petitioners as regards illegal invocation of the urgency clause in Section 17 in order to contend that the acquisition proceedings are vitiated is clearly misconceived and untenable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case; undisputedly, the
- 21 -
petitioners accepted the acquisition notifications, proceedings and the possession having been taken by them and the sole grievance of the petitioners as long back as in 1992, was to seek reference to the reference court under Section 18 of the L.A.Act and the matter having been settled before the Lok Adalat and the challenge to the same having been rejected by this Court as stated supra, the conduct of the petitioners in not challenging the acquisition proceedings from 1990 onwards till 2017, when the present petitions were filed and having chosen, elected and opted only to seek higher compensation without challenging the acquisition itself is sufficient to establish that the claim of the petitioners in the present petitions are barred by the principles of estoppel, acquiescence, abandonment and waiver.
(e) The contention of the petitioners that the acquisition is vitiated on account of non-utilisation of the subject lands for the purpose for which they were acquired is also devoid of merit in the light of the well settled principle of law as held by the Apex Court and this Court in several judgments to the effect that once land is acquired
- 22 -
and stands vested in the authorities, the land losers become persona non grata and it is not open for the person to seek restoration of the land either on the ground that the original public purpose has seized or that the land cannot be used for any other purposes, as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sulochana Chandrakant Galande vs. Pune Municipal Transport - (2010) 8 SCC 467; under these circumstances, even this contention of the petitioners cannot be accepted.
12. As stated supra, though several judgments have been relied upon by the petitioners, in view of the findings recorded above in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the said judgments would not be applicable and consequently, the same are not discussed in detail.
13. For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Srl.