Madhya Pradesh High Court
Hitkarni College Of Engg. And ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 23 July, 2013
Author: Vimla Jain
Bench: Vimla Jain
1
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : JABALPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 13427 OF 2012
Hitkarni College of Engineering
and Technology and another Petitioners
versus
State of M. P. and others Respondents
Present : Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Vimla Jain
..........................................................................................................
Shri Ravish Agrawal, Sr. Counsel, Shri R. N. Singh, Sr.
Counsel with Shri Sankalp Kochar and Shri Arpan J. Pawar
for the petitioners.
Smt. Nirmala Nayak for respondent no. 1.
Shri Pradeep Sharma for respondents no. 2 and 3.
....................................................................................................
ORDER
(23/07/13) As per Rajendra Menon, J:-
Hitkarni Sabha a society registered under the M. P. Society Registration Act, 1973 claims to be a Pioneer Education Society running more than 18 schools and 10 colleges. Two of the institutes run by the said society are the Hitkarni College of Engineering and Technology petitioner no. 1 and Hitkarni College of Architecture and Town Planning petitioner no. 2.
2. The dispute in this writ petition pertains to action of the All India Council for Technical Education in denying 'Extension of Approval' to the institute for various academic sessions. Even though, various averments are made and facts are stated in the writ petition but now due to certain developments that have taken place during the pendency of the writ petition, it is not necessary to burden this order with all these facts.
3. Suffice it to say that the institutes were granted recognition 2 and were functioning in accordance with the approval and permission granted. When certain complaints are said to have been received by the A. I. C. T. E. sometimes in the year 2010, it is said that based on the complaints received by the council and the Central Bureau of Investigation, an enquiry was ordered and a report was submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation through its Head of the Branch at Jabalpur. The report submitted by the said investigating authority is Annexure R-2/1.
4. The investigating authority in its report found three discrepancies in the matter. The same are contained in the conclusion drawn by the investigating authority in para 11 of its report and the discrepancies are pointed out as under :-
1. Land earmarked for Hitkarni College of Architecture and Town Planning is mortgaged with the Bank since 2007.
2. No exclusive building for MCA College is available and the built up area of the college building is less than the requirement fixed by the AICTE.
3. Three Colleges namely Hitkarni College of Engineering & Technology, MCA College and Hitkarni College of Architecture and Town Planning are running in joint campus/building and the facilities are being shared by these three colleges.
5. The recommendation thereafter made was that All India Council for Technical Education should take action on the same. Accordingly, a show-cause notice dated 10/08/11 was issued to the petitioners and petitioners submitted their reply to the show-cause notice on 18/08/11. In the meanwhile, even though the matter was so pending, on 1/09/11 'Extension of Approval' was granted by the All India Council for Technical Education to the institutes in question for the academic session 2011-12.
6. In the meanwhile, the Central Bureau of Investigation through its Superintendent of Police vide its communication dated 10/07/12 informed the All India Council for Technical Education 3 that they are closing the matter and no action was proposed to be taken by the investigating authority, but the council was given liberty to proceed in the matter
7. Based on these material when the claim of the institutes for 'Extension of Approval' was disapproved, a writ petition was filed before this Court being W. P. No. 9411/12 and on 17/07/12, a Division Bench of this Court disposed of the writ petition directing the All India Council for Technical Education to take note of the totality of the circumstances, the explanation and documents submitted by the institute and take a decision. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 13/08/12 was issued whereby the 'Extension of Approval' was denied to the institutes and the three reasons given for denying the approval are contained in the said order. They are as follows :-
i. Land earmarked for Hitkarni College of Architecture and Town Planning is mortgaged with the Bank since 2007 (i.e. , before 29.05.2007) ii. No exclusive building for MCA College is available and the built up area of the college building is less than the requirement fixed by the AICTE.
iii. Three Colleges namely Hitkarni College of Engineering & Technology, MCA College and Hitkarni College of Architecture and Town Planning are running in a joint campus/building and the facilities are being shared by these three colleges.
8. As far as reason given for the denial of 'Extension of Approval' for conducting the M. C. A. course is concerned which is subject matter of Clause (ii), it is being agitated separately in a separate writ petition and it is not considered in this order.
9. The present dispute in the writ petition pertains to denial of Extension to the two petitioners' institutions on the grounds of Clause (i) and (iii) as reproduced hereinabove. After the aforesaid 4 action was taken on 13/08/12, it is seen that petitioners rectified many of the deficiencies pointed out, took steps for ensuring proper compliance with the requirement of the statutory provisions and, thereafter, approached the council again for reconsideration of their matter.
10. Taking note of all these factors, it is seen that the council ordered for a review/reconsideration of the matter by the appropriate appeals committee known as the Standing Appeal Committee and the matter was referred to the said committee. The committee conducted its deliberation and submitted a report on 17/04/13. The committee recommended for grant of approval to petitioner no. 1 for starting the B. E. and M. B. A. course for academic session 2013-14 but refused similar benefit to petitioner no. 2 to start the B. Arch. Course for the academic session 2013-14 mainly on the ground that the certificates for demarcation and diversion of land submitted by the S. D. M. cannot be accepted as the certificates are not accompanied by certain search reports and documents based on which the report was submitted.
11. Based on the report of the committee dated 17/04/13, petitioners have amended the petition and now challenge is made to this report of the Standing Appeals Committee dated 17/04/13.
12. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel and Shri R. N. Singh, learned Sr. Counsel took us through the overwhelming documents and evidence available on record, the report of the committee available particularly the report of the appeals committee and argued that on the same set of circumstances and material, 'Extension of Approval' is granted to petitioner no. 1 but it is denied to petitioner no. 2 only because certain documents forming the deficiency for issuance of certificate by the S. D. M. are not available. It was emphasized by them that once the certificate issued by the S. D. M. is accepted in the case of petitioner no. 1, there is no reason for not accepting the same in case of petitioner no. 2.
13. Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel emphasized that after the matter was reconsidered by the appeals committee and 5 when the report was submitted on 17/04/13 and even prior to that, the original order Annexure P-21 dated 13/08/12 was passed with regard to present petitioners, only two deficiencies were highlighted by the respondent council, they are that the land earmarked for petitioner no. 2 institute is mortgaged with the Bank since the year 2007 and the second ground is that both the institute along with the M. C. A. college are running in joint campus/building and the facilities are being shared by these three colleges. That apart, it is pointed out that extension was denied to these colleges on the ground of land being not demarcated
14. Shri Ravish Agrawal invites our attention to the no dues certificate issued by the Bank in question as Annexure P-22 to say that the land has been redeemed from the mortgage and he also points out that there is an amendment to the statutory provision and now on the ground of land being mortgaged, permission cannot be denied and to start the institute, permission can be granted even if the land is mortgaged. Accordingly, it is emphasized by him that on this ground, permission cannot be denied.
15. As far as demarcation and non-submission of proper documents in the matter of land being available in the name of petitioner no. 2 is concerned, Shri Ravish Agrawal invites our attention to the certificate issued by the S. D. M. and placing much emphasis on certain observations made by the Supreme Court in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College and Hospital Vs. Union of India and others, (2011) 4 SCC 623 argued that this is a case where initial grant of approval to run the institute is available but it is a case of only renewal and 'Extension of approval', therefore the approach for the same is different.
16. Inviting our attention to certain observations made by the Supreme Court in para 23 and 24 of the said judgment, it is stressed by him that hypertechnical and unreasonable attitude of the statutory authority simply for denying the benefit is not proper and in the present case, substantial injustice has been done and when the material available on record does show that the institute had complied with the requirement, extension of approval should be 6 granted and the technicalities with regard to cut-off date, submission of documents within a reasonable time should be interpreted in a manner so as to do justice to the petitioners.
17. It is emphasized by him that in the present case as far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, the institute is having recognition for running the course right from the year 1997-98 and is approved for the current academic session i.e. 2013-14 also. The dispute is only with regard to approval for one academic session 2012-13. It is submitted by him that when the institute can be found to be eligible for approval for all these periods, it is surprising that merely on such technical consideration approval is denied for the session 2012-13.
18. Accordingly, as far as petitioner no. 1 is concerned, learned Sr. Counsel emphasized that the action of the respondents in taking the impugned decision is an unreasonable one, is arbitrary and cannot be accepted. As far as the Architecture college i.e. petitioner no. 2 is concerned, it is an institute having approval and recognition since the academic session 2009-10. It continued to have the recognition till the academic session 2011-12 but it was only from the academic session 2012-13 and 2013-14 that the institute has not been granted approval.
19. As far as approval to the Architecture college for this period is concerned, it is emphasized that the only reason now given is that the certificates submitted by the S. D. M. is not supported by the search reports and other documents.
20. Shri Ravish Agrawal emphasized that once the S. D. M. discharging statutory functions under the M. P. Land Revenue Code has issued a certificate of demarcation based on the requirement contemplated in the process of hand-book approved by the Govt. of M. P. , an assumption has to be drawn that everything required under law for issuance of the demarcation certificate has been complied with and, therefore, the documents forming part of the process undertaken by the statutory authority for issuance of the certificate is not at all relevant for granting approval. It is emphasized by Shri Ravish Agrawal that the respondent council 7 does not dispute veracity and tenability of the demarcation certificate issued by the S. D. M. but only refuse approval to petitioner no. 2 on the ground that certain documents which form part of the process undertaken for issuance of demarcation certificate is not submitted.
21. This attitude of the respondents is an unreasonable attitude and if analyzed in the backdrop of the law laid down in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College (supra) , it has to be held unsustainable and can be interfered with.
22. It is the contention of learned Sr. Counsel that after the recommendations are made by the appeals committee on 17/04/13 when only technical and very formal objections are available that also which are found to be unsustainable, benefit to the petitioner cannot be denied when the institutes are functioning for a long period of time and there is no complaint substantial in nature subsisting as on date.
23. Shri Pradeep Sharma refuted the aforesaid and invited our attention to the report submitted by the C. B. I. and the facts about a false affidavit said to have been submitted by petitioner no. 2 in the year 2007 and emphasized that as far as recognition to the institutes are concerned, they are being denied on the basis of the report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation and as serious discrepancies as are indicated by the council in its order dated 13/08/12 Annexure P-21 and by the appeals committee in its report dated 17/04/13, have been pointed out, the council has not committed any error in rejecting the claim for approval or permission. It was submitted by him that in the report submitted by the Central Bureau of Investigation, various discrepancies, serious in nature have been found and, therefore, now, no further indulgence be made .
24. That apart, it is submitted by him that even if the institutes have complied with the requirement for getting approval, at this stage, now after the various cut-off dates itself fixed by the Supreme Court in the case of Parshvanath Charitable Trust and others. Vs. All India Council for Technical Education and 8 others, (2013) 3 SCC 385 is over, no further recognition can be granted and the petition should be dismissed leaving it to the council for taking fresh action for the next academic session 2013-14. Accordingly, submitting that the discrepancies which have come on record are so serious in nature, therefore approval cannot be granted, he says that action of the council be upheld.
25. With regard to discrimination in the matter of granting approval on the same set of circumstances to petitioner no. 1 and denying it to petitioner no. 2, Shri Pradeep Sharma emphasized that in the case of petitioner no. 2 as a false affidavit is submitted by them in the year 2007, this disentitles them to similar treatment and the council is justified in taking a different view.
26. In rebuttal, Shri Ravish Agrawal argued that initially when the impugned action was taken on 13/08/12, petitioners represented to the council and when the matter was referred to the Standing Appeals Committee, the entire question including the question of submitting of false affidavit by petitioner no. 2 was subject matter of consideration by the Appeals Committee. The Appeals Committee took note of all these factors and while submitting its report dated 17/04/13 did not find any error and did not recommended for denying of approval on the ground of submission of false affidavit. The Appeals Committee has not found any error in this matter of submitting false affidavit by petitioner no. 2. On the contrary, its recommendation and report dated 17/04/13 only goes to show that it refused grant of approval on the ground of demarcation, mortgage of land with the bank and submission of certain documents along with the demarcation certificate.
27. Shri Ravish Agrawal submitted that in view of the above, it has to be seen by this Court that in the matter of submission of false affidavit, the Standing Appeals Committee has not found any error, therefore the grounds of discrimination still exist and merely, because some affidavit has been submitted in the year 2007, action taken against the petitioner no. 2 cannot be upheld. Accordingly, he submits that it is a fit case where mandamus can be issued for 9 grant of approval to petitioner no. 1 institute for the academic session 2012-13 and to petitioner no. 2 institute for the session 2012-13 and 2013-14.
28. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and bestowed our anxious consideration. From the circumstances as have been narrated hereinabove and after taking note of the report submitted by the Standing Appeals Committee dated 17/04/13, it is clear that now the respondents council itself has reviewed the entire matter after the Central Bureau of Investigation had submitted the report and even after the initial order of non-grant of extension was passed on 13/08/12, the matter was taken up by the Standing Appeals Committee and now the question pertains to a report submitted by the committee dated 17/04/13 and the consequential action to be taken based on this report. Before adverting to consider the aforesaid question, as emphasized by Shri Ravish Agrawal, learned Sr. Counsel, it may be appropriate to consider what is the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of evaluating such case for granting initial approval so also in the case of renewal or 'Extension of Approval'.
29. In the case of Priyadarshini Dental College (supra) , the Supreme Court was considering the question of granting permission for starting a Dental college and similar statutory provisions as are contemplated in the Indian Dentists Act, 1948 and the regulations framed therein have been taken note of. In the said case also, the question of fixing a cut-off date and the effect of granting recognition after the cut-off date in accordance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court has been decided keeping in view the principle laid down in the earlier case of Mridul Dhar (minor) and another Vs. Union of India and others, (2005) 2 SCC 65 , that apart various other cases have been taken note of and, thereafter, in para 23 and 24, the question has been considered and answered in the following manner :-
23. In all these cases, the petitioners, who were the applicants for renewal were existing dental colleges, which were functioning for three or four years and each college had admitted hundreds of students either 10 directly or through the State Government allotment.
The colleges had the benefit of initial permission and several renewals of permission. Refusal of renewal of permission in such cases should not be abrupt nor for insignificant or technical violations. Nor should such applications be dealt in a casual manner, by either granting less than a week for setting right the "deficiencies" or not granting an effective hearing before refusal. The entire process of verification and inspection relating to renewal of permission, should be done well in time so that such existing colleges have adequate and reasonable time to set right the deficiencies or offer explanations to the deficiencies. The object of providing for annual renewal of permissions for four years, is to ensure that the infrastructural and faculty requirements are fulfilled in a gradual manner, and not to cause disruption.
24. In the context of what has happened in these cases, it is necessary to emphasize the distinction between the applications for fresh permissions and applications for renewal of permissions. They require distinct time schedules. The process of decision making under the regulations, for grant of fresh or initial permission for establishment of new dental colleges is exhaustive and elaborate, when compared to the process of decision making in regard to grant of renewal of permission for the four subsequent years. Before grant of initial grant of permission, the DCI and the Central Government are required to consider the following aspects : whether the institution would be in a position to offer the minimum standards of dental education in conformity with the Act and the Regulations; whether the institution has adequate resources; Whether the institution has provided or will provide within the time limit specified in the scheme, necessary staff, equipment, accommodation, training and other facilities to ensure proper functioning of the institution; whether the institution has provided or would provide within the time limit specified in the scheme, adequate hospital facilities; whether faculty having recognized dental qualifications and personnel in the field of practice of dentistry will be available to impart proper training to the students; and whether other factors prescribed by the regulations have been complied. On the other hand, for the purpose of grant of renewal of permission, DCI has to make recommendations by considering only whether the prescribed faculty and infrastructure are available.
(Emphasis supplied)
30. If the aforesaid principle laid down by the Supreme Court is taken note of, it is clearly held that when for a college, if the benefit of initial permission is granted, refusal of renewal of permission should not be undertaken in an abrupt and insignificant 11 manner or for technical violation. It has been held by the Supreme Court that complaints should not be dealt with in a casual manner and a reasonable time to set right the deficiency should be granted. The object of providing annual renewal is emphasized by the Supreme Court and it has been finally concluded that for grant of renewal of permission, the paramount consideration is to ensure that the infrastructural and faculty requirements are fulfilled in a gradual manner.
31. If in the backdrop of the aforesaid principle, we analyze the deficiencies pointed out by the respondents in the present case, it would be seen that the deficiencies are mainly two, the first is that the land earmarked for Hitkarni College of Architecture and Town Planning is mortgaged with the Bank since 2007 and, therefore, it cannot be granted approval.
32. Available on record are the documents evidencing that the land has been redeemed and is no more under Mortgage and the statutory regulation filed by the petitioner does show that as on date such a requirement of law has been diluted.
33. That being so, we are of the considered view that as far as this objection is concerned, it would fall in the category of a highly technical and unsubstantial objection as classified by the Supreme Court in the case of Priyadarshini Dentral College (supra) . As far as second objection is concerned, it is stated that three colleges are functioning in the same campus and, therefore, the building and facilities are being shared by these colleges.
34. Petitioners have filed various documents and other material to say that now the facilities are being bifurcated and various activities are being pointed out which goes to show that the facilities are being separated. Be it as it may be, it is seen that this discrepancy is not taken note of in the case of petitioner no. 1 for the current academic session, 2013-14, inspite of the said objection for petitioner no. 2, in case of petitioner no. 1, this objection is not found to be serious enough to deny the recognition.
35. That being so, there is no reason for denying similar treatment to petitioner no. 2 also. That apart, the three objections 12 which is borne out from the returns and additional returns filed by the council goes to show that they have denied approval to petitioner no. 2 mainly on the ground that the certificate issued by the S. D. M. is not supported by certain documents like the search report etc. which according to them form the deficiency for grant of the approval. The report of the appeals committee is available on record and the same goes to show that a detailed search report should be obtained with regard to demarcation and availability of land for the institute along with the certificate should be obtained from the S. D. M. and, thereafter, the matter will be processed as per the A. I. C. T. E. norms.
36. The demarcation certificates have been obtained by the petitioners from the statutory authority and they are available on record. The certificates go to show that the Hitkarni College of Engineering and Technology, Jabalpur has a land measuring 10.34 acres and the certificate issued by the S. D. M. Sub Division Gorakhpur Annexure A-1 indicates that the land is registered in the name of the institute and is free from all encumbrances and the building plan and construction have been approved by the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. Similar is the certificate issued to the Hitkarni College of Architecture and Town Planning which goes to show that this institute is in possession of 2.88 acres of land and the land is free from all encumbrances and constructions have been made after due approval of the Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur.
37. The certificates issued in this regard by the S. D. M. are statutory in nature, issued after complying with the requirements of the M. P. Land Revenue Code and there is no reason as to why these certificates should not be accepted, merely because the documents on the basis of which the certificate is issued are not available. The Sub Divisional Officer exercises statutory powers while issuing Demarcation Certificate and therefore, when a certificate is issued by him after due enquiry in accordance to the Land Revenue Code and the Revenue Book Circular issued by the State of Madhya Pradesh, an assumption has to be drawn that the 13 Certificate has been issued after complying with the requirement of law and once the Certificate is accepted by the Council it is not at all necessary to insist upon production of the search report or other documents based on which the Certificate of Demarcation is issued. The respondents having not denied the genuineness or otherwise of the Certificate of the Demarcation are in a very unreasonable manner insisting upon certain documents which are not at all required now when the Demarcation Certificate issued by the competent Revenue Court is available.
38. On the contrary, the overwhelming material available on record and the reason given by the council for denying the benefit to the institutes prima facie seems to be highly technical and insignificant in nature and if the reasons are analyzed in the backdrop of the principle in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College (supra) , we see no reason to deny the benefit to the institute petitioner no. 1 for the year 2012-13, as already indicated hereinabove, proper facilities are available and for the academic session 2013-14, it has been granted approval.
39. If that be so that the said institute i.e. petitioner no. 1 should not be granted permission for the academic session 2012-13. It was having the approval for a period of more than 5 years, and two years thereafter, the institute has been granted approval and, therefore, denial for the academic session 2012-13 is nothing but an unreasonable and arbitrary decision based on technical and insignificant objection which cannot be upheld by this Court. On the contrary, the evidence and material available on record shows that the institute is entitled for approval and now the approval should be granted.
40. As far as petitioner no. 2 is concerned, approval to this petitioner for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 is denied mainly on three counts.
1. It has submitted a false affidavit in the year 2007.
2. The land was not mortgaged with the Bank.
3. Proper demarcation of the land in the name of 14 the institute has not been ordered, and three institutes are functioning in the same premises.
41. As far as question no. 2 and 3 are concerned, now after issuance of the certificates by the Bank with regard to release of the property, so also the demarcation certificate issued by the S. D. M. with regard to demarcation, both these objections are no more in existence. As far as the question of both the institutes functioning in the same premises or campus is concerned, similar objections were available with regard to the petitioner No.1 Engineering College also but after the proceedings were held before the Standing Appeals Committee which culminated in submission of the report dated 17.4.2013, with regard to the petitioner No.1, this objection was not found to be substantial enough to deny them benefit of approval for the academic session 2013-14. If existence of both the institutes in the same campus or building is not a bar for granting approval in the case of petitioner No.1 then on the same analogy and principle petitioner No.2 is also entitled for approval and on the ground which was not found to be tenable enough to deny approval in the case of petitioner No.1, action taken against petitioner No.2 is clearly unsustainable, discriminatory in nature and cannot be approved by this Court.
42. Nothing is brought to the notice of this Court by the Counsel as to why similar treatment as has been granted to petitioner No.1 in the matter of existence of common campus cannot be granted to petitioner No.2 when on the same set of circumstances in the matter of sharing of campus, approval can be granted to petitioner No.1 and when both the institutes were functioning in the same campus for a long period of time of more than 5 years, we see no reason to uphold this objection only with regard to petitioner No.2. This action is not only discriminatory but is unreasonable and arbitrary and it is nothing but a devise to somehow deny approval to petitioner No.2 on technical consideration which have no function or basis nor is of so grave or substantial in nature that approval can be denied to petitioner No.2. The only objection now to be considered is the question of submitting false affidavit by this 15 petitioner in the year 2007.
43. As far as submission of false affidavit by this institute is concerned, the so called affidavit is submitted in the year 2007 and, thereafter, for the year 2010-11, the institute was granted approval and after the original order Annexure P-21 was issued on 13th August, 2012, keeping in view the reasons indicated for denial of approval in para 5, it is seen that no such reason is indicated for denying the approval. That apart, it can be assumed by this Court that after the order was passed on 13/08/12 and when the matter was referred to the Standing Appeals Committee which submitted its report on 17/04/13, the entire question was reconsidered by the said Appeals Committee and now when the Appeals Committee reviewed the entire matter and submitted its report on 17/04/13, even for the purpose of granting approval for the year 2013-14, the committee did not find it significant enough to deny 'Extension of Approval' due to submission of false affidavit. If the Standing Appeals Committee found that petitioner no. 2 was not entitled for approval due to submission of false affidavit, such denial or reason would have been mentioned in its report dated 17/04/13.
44. On the contrary, the report dated 17/04/13 speaks about various other deficiencies as are indicated hereinabove and in the report, it is nowhere stated that the submission of false affidavit by the petitioner no. 2 institute disentitles it from claiming any approval. It is therefore to be assumed that the default of submitting a false affidavit was committed in the year 2007 which has lost all its significance now, as the authorities including the C. B. I. did not take note of this fact and when approval is already granted for the academic session 2011-12, this reason is found be baseless.
45. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to allow this petition. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. Orders impugned dated 13/08/12 and the recommendations made by the Appeals Committee dated 17/04/13 denying benefit to the petitioners institute are quashed. The A. I. C. T. E. is directed to issue 'Extension of Approval' to 16 petitioner no. 1 institute for the year 2012-13 and the petitioner no. 2 institute for the year 2012-13 and 2013-14 and permit them to conduct the course by admitting students for the said academic session in accordance with law.
46. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and after taking note of the principles laid down in the case of Priyadarshini Dental College (supra) and after taking note of the nature of deficiencies and discrepancies that have come on record, it is clear that no useful purpose would be served by remanding the matter back to the council for fresh consideration, instead, interest of justice requires that the matter should be decided once and for all in this petition itself.
47. With the aforesaid, petition stands allowed and disposed of.
(Rajendra Menon) (Smt. Vimla Jain)
Judge Judge
Vy/-