Karnataka High Court
Sri Channakeshwavaswamy Temple vs The Commissioner For Hindu Religious ... on 20 May, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 (NOC) 938 (KAR.), AIRONLINE 2020 KAR 1018, 2020 (3) AKR 161
Author: P.S.Dinesh Kumar
Bench: P.S. Dinesh Kumar
1
W.P. NO.12406/2017
c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MAY, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR
WRIT PETITION No.12406 OF 2017 (GM-R/C)
C/W.
WRIT PETITION NO.1771 OF 2018
In W.P. No.12406/2017
BETWEEN :
1. SRI. CHANNAKESHWAVASWAMY TEMPLE
BAALEHOLE VILLAGE8
MOODIGERE TALUK
CHICKAMAGALORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY ITS
HEREDITARY TRUSTEE
SRI. T.S. SHYAMANNA
2. SRI. T.S. SHYAMANNA
S/O LATE SINGAPPA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS
THOTADOORU HOUSE
THOTADOORU POST-577 179
MOODIGERE TALUK
CHICKAMAGALORE DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI. M. ARUNA SHYAM, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU
RELIGIOUS & ENDOWMENTS
CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU
2
W.P. NO.12406/2017
c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKAMAGALORE DISTRICT
CHICKAMAGALORE
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKAMAGALORE SUB-DIVISION
CHICKAMAGALORE
4. THE TAHASILDAR
MOODIGERE TALUK
MOODIGERE AND THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
1ST PETITIONER TEMPLE
5. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SRI KALASESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE
KALASA, MUDIGERE TALUK
CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W
SHRI. SRIDHAR N. HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R5;
SHRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATEE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANT ON I.A. No.4/17)
....
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH OF THE
ORDER DTD.13.1.2015 PASSED BY THE R-2 THEREBY APPOINTING
R-4 AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE FIRST PETITIONER TEMPLE, VIDE
ANNEX-A AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.
In W.P No.1771/2018
BETWEEN :
1. SRI. B.V. RAMESH
S/O LATE VENKATARAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
BIDIKINAMANE
THOTADURU POST
3
W.P. NO.12406/2017
c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 179
2. SRI. G.S.BHASKAR RAO
S/O LATE SUBRAMANYA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS
GORASUKUDIGE
BALEHOLE POST-577 179
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKMAGALUR DISTRICT ... PETITIONERS
(BY SHRI. A. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND :
1. THE COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU
RELIGIOUS & ENDOWMENTS
CHAMARAJPET
BENGALURU-560 018
2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
CHICKAMAGALORE DISTRICT
CHICKAMAGALORE-577 101
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
CHICKAMAGALORE SUB-DIVISION
CHICKAMAGALORE-577 101
4. THE TAHSILDAR
MOODIGERE AND THE
ADMINISTRATOR OF
CHANNAKESHAVASWAMY TEMPLE
BAALEHOLE VILLAGE
MOODIGERE TALUK
CHICKAMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 179
5. SRI CHANNAKESHAWASWAMY TEMPLE
BAALEHOLE VILLAGE
MOODIGERE TALUK
CHICKAMAGALORE DISTRICT
REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR
4
W.P. NO.12406/2017
c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018
AND THE TAHSILDAR
MOODIGERE TALUK
CHICKAMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 179
6. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER
SRI KALASHESHWARASWAMY TEMPLE
BAALEHOLE
MUDIGERE TALUK
CHICKAMAGALORE DISTRICT-577 179
7. SRI. T.S. SHYAMANNA
S/O LATE SINGAPPA HEBBAR
AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS
THOTADOORU HOUSE
THOTADOORU POST-577 179
MOODIGERE TALUK
CHICKAMAGALORE DISTRICT ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG A/W
SHRI. SRIDHAR N. HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R6;
SHRI. ARUNA SHYAM, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
....
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ORDER PASSED BY R-2 DATED 15.4.2017 THEREBY APPOINTING
THE R-6 AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE R-5 AT ANNEX-A.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS, HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 23.01.2020 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The subject matter of these two writ petitions is appointment of Administrator and Executive Officer to Sri Channakeshavaswamy Temple, Baalehole village, 5 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 Chikkamagalur District. Hence, they are heard simultaneously and disposed of by this common order.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are, petitioners in both writ petitions claim to be Hereditary Trustees. They have placed reliance on communications issued from the office of Maharaja of Mysore to substantiate their claim of Hereditary Trusteeship.
3. By his order dated 13th January 2015, Deputy Commissioner appointed Tahasildar, Mudigere as Administrator of petitioners' Temple until further orders. Shri. T.S. Shyamanna, (petitioner No.2 in W.Ps. No. 12406-407/2017) challenged the said order in March 2017.
4. On 15th April 2017, Deputy Commissioner passed another order merging the Temple in question with Sri Kalasheshwaraswamy Temple (for brevity ' Sri Kalasa Temple) and directed its Executive Officer to administer 6 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 Sri Channakeshavaswamy Temple. Shri. Shyamanna amended his writ petition and laid challenge to the said order also.
5. Shri. B.V. Ramesh and Shri. G.S. Bhaskar Rao, (petitioners in W.Ps. No.1771-1772/2018) have challenged the second order passed by the Deputy Commissioner and a consequential order dated 13th November 2017 whereby the Deputy Commissioner has permitted Shri.Shyamanna to participate in the religious activities of the Temple.
6. Thus, petitioners in both writ petitions are aggrieved by the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner which have the effect of taking over the management of temple.
7. Shri. M. Aruna Shyam and Shri. A. Ravishankar, learned Advocates for the petitioners urged following contentions:
7W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018
• that petitioners are Hereditary Trustees and their family has been managing the affairs of the Temple since 1797;
• that Deputy Commissioner has passed orders impugned herein, in violation of principles of natural justice as no prior notice was issued to petitioners;
• an Administrator can be appointed for a maximum period of one year under Section 29 of the Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, 1997 ('1997 Act' for short) by the Rajya Dharmika Parishath or the Zilla Dharmika Parishat. The Deputy Commissioner is not competent to appoint an Administrator. Therefore, order dated 13th January 2015 is bad in law;
• that directions issued to the Executive Officer of Kalasa Temple on 15th April 2017 to administer the Temple in question by merging it with Kalasa Temple is impermissible because petitioners' 8 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 Temple is a 'B' Grade Temple and Kalasa Temple is an 'A' Grade Temple;
• appointment of Executive Officer to a notified institution by the Deputy Commissioner is unsustainable because power under Section 24A of the 1997 Act can be exercised only by the State Government or the Commissioner.
8. In support of his contentions, Shri.Aruna Shyam relied upon Dr.Subramanian Swamy V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and others1.
9. Shri. R.Subramanya, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that petitioners are not Hereditary Trustees. They are only Vahivatdars or Managers. There are differences of opinion among them. Therefore, the Tahasildar submitted a report dated 8th January 2015 proposing appointment of Deputy Tahasildar as the Administrator. The Deputy Commissioner being the 1 (2014)5 SCC 75 9 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 immediate controlling authority has taken appropriate action to ensure that the religious functions including the ensuing Rathothsava (Car Festival) are smoothly carried out. Petitioners in both writ petitions claim that they are Hereditary Trustees. Their dispute can be resolved only by the Rajya Dharmika Parishath under Section 20-A of the 1997 Act. Therefore, unless petitioners resolve their inter se dispute, the order dated 15th April 2017 appointing the Executive Officer of Sri Kalasa Temple as Administrator of Sri Channakeshavaswamy Temple, cannot be disturbed.
10. Shri.Subramanya, further submitted that under Section 4 of 1997 Act, the Deputy Commissioner shall have power of general superintendence and control to carry out provisions of the 1997 Act in respect of Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments. Section 24(2) of 1997 Act also makes it clear that Deputy Commissioner shall be the immediate controlling 10 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 authority in respect of notified Institutions within his jurisdiction. Since there is no provision to continue appointment of Administrator beyond one year, the Deputy Commissioner has passed order on 15th April 2017 and directed the Executive Officer of Sri Kalasheshawaraswamy Temple to manage the affairs of petitioners' Temple.
11. I have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
12. The documents produced by Shri.Shyamanna as Annexures - B to G are communications by the Office of Maharaja of Mysore, the Treasury etc. Annexure - C is dated 6th April 1901, Annexure-D is dated 27th March 1901, Annexure-E is dated 27th March 1907, Annexure-G is dated 28th August 1934.
13. Annexure-Z6 is the letter dated 14th January 2015 written by the Tahasildar, Mudigere addressed to 11 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 Shri.Shyamanna, stating that Tahasildar has been appointed as the Administrator of petitioners' Temple. By the same letter, Tahasildar also directed Shyamanna to handover ornaments belonging to the Deity for the purpose of Car Festival.
14. Thus, indisputably, the Administrator has taken over management of the petitioners' Temple from Shri.Shyamanna.
15. The Administrator can be appointed under Section 29 of 1997 Act by the Rajya Dharmika Parishath or Zilla Dharmika Parishath for a maximum period of one year.
16. Learned Additional Advocate General is right in his submission that the power of general superintendence and control for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the 1997 Act in respect of notified Temples vests with the Deputy Commissioner. No 12 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 material is placed by the State Government to show that the situation warranted appointment of an Administrator. On the contrary, in his communication dated 7th April 2017, (Ex. Z8), the Police Sub-Inspector, Kalasa Police Station, has stated that between 2010 and March 2017, no complaint has been registered with regard to petitioners' Temple. Admittedly, 1997 Act has been notified on 30th April 2003. Tahasildar, Mudigere was appointed as the Administrator on 13th January 2015. To a pointed question by the Court as to what actions of superintendence were exercised by the Deputy Commissioner between 2003 till appointment of Administrator, the learned Additional Advocate General had no answer except stating that Deputy Commissioner is the controlling authority as per the 1997 Act. Thus, the State Government or their Officers have not recorded any fact situation much less a 'grave situation' if any, had ensued warranting appointment of an Administrator. Assuming that the Deputy Commissioner acted bonafide 13 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 based on the purported Report of the Tahasildar and appointed the Tahasildar, Mudigere as the Administrator, as an emergency measure, the appointment could not have been extended beyond one year in view of the embargo contained in Section 29 of the Act. It is relevant to note that appointment of an Administrator can be made only by the Rajya or Zilla Dharmika Parishath under Section 29 of the 1997 Act. Even such appointment, shall not exceed one year. Therefore, the Deputy Commissioner could have exercised his power of General Superintendence only in grave situation as an immediate measure. The order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 13th January 2015 was challenged by Shri.Shyamanna by filing his writ petition on 18th March 2017. Within less than one month there from, on 15th April 2017, the Deputy Commissioner merged petitioners' Temple with Sri Kalasa Temple and directed the Executive Officer of Kalasa Temple to administer petitioners' Temple. The said order has been passed 14 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 pursuant to a letter written by the Tahasildar, Mudigere on 13th April 2017 stating that it had become difficult for him to administer petitioners' Temple and that a different Administrator be appointed. Interestingly, the Deputy Commissioner has noticed in the letter that there is no provision to continue appointment of Administrator beyond one year and accordingly, withdrawn the earlier order appointing the Administrator. Though the date of the earlier order is mentioned as 15th April 2017, it was clarified by the learned Additional Advocate General that what was withdrawn was order dated 13th January 2015. His submission is placed on record.
17. It is not in dispute that by his letter dated 14th January 2015, the Tahasildar has called upon Shri. Shyamanna to hand over the ornaments belonging to the deity. This pre-supposes that Shri. Shyamanna was managing the affairs of the Temple as on that date. 15 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018
18. Thus, it is clear that, firstly, the respondents have not placed any material to show that situation in 2015 warranted appointment of Administrator. Secondly, the Deputy Commissioner has no authority to appoint the Administrator. Thirdly, appointment of Administrator could not have been continued beyond one year in view of the embargo contained in Section 29 of the 1997 Act. Fourthly, having noted that 1997 Act did not permit continuance of Administrator beyond one year, to circumvent the embargo, the Deputy Commissioner could not have merged petitioners' Temple with another 'A' Grade Temple and directed the Executive Officer of that Temple to take immediate charge of petitioners' Temple. The 1997 Act has been brought into force with a preamble that it was expedient to make better provision for management and administration of Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments. It is the specific case of petitioners that they are Hereditary Trustees and it is evidenced by the documents produced as 16 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 Annexures - B to G noted above which are more than one century only and not controverted by the State.
19. Petitioners' case is, appointment of Administrator by the Deputy Commissioner is bad in law. Learned Additional Advocate General sought to sustain Administrator's appointment on the ground that Deputy Commissioner has power of general superintendence. Controlling authorities are defined under Section 24 and the role of Deputy Commissioner is defined under Sec. 24 (2) of the Act. Section 24 of the Act reads as follows:
24. Controlling Authorities.- (1) Subject to the powers and jurisdiction of the Rajya Dharmika Parishat the Commissioner shall be the Chief Controlling Authority in respect of all matters connected with notified institutions and he shall perform such duties and exercise such powers of superintendence and control as the state Government may by rules impose or as the case may be confer on him in respect of all or any class of notified institutions.
(2) The Deputy Commissioner shall subject to such terms and conditions as may by prescribed, be the immediate controlling authority in respect of notified institutions within his jurisdiction. 17 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018
(3) The Assistant Commissioner shall subject to the authority of the Deputy Commissioner perform such duties and exercise such powers as may be prescribed.
24-A. Appointment of Executive Officer and term of office.-
(1) The State Government or the Commissioner as the case may be, may appoint any officer to be the executive officer to a notified institution or to a group of notified institutions.
(2) The cadre of the executive officer to be appointed to the notified institution may be, based on the income of such institution.
(3) The executive Officer shall hold office for such term as may be fixed by the State Government and he shall exercise such power and perform such duties as may be prescribed.
(4) The executive Officer shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code 1860.
20. In the statement of objections filed through the Assistant Commissioner, Chikkamagalur Sub-Division, State have described petitioners as 'Vahivatdars'. But State have admitted that the Vahivatdars are looking after the affairs of the Temple. The relevanty portion of the Statement of objection reads thus: 18 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018
"4. The Respondents submits that on going through the records produced by the Petitioners to the Writ Petition, it only reflects that Ancestor and Petitioner were only managing the affairs of the Temple and for that some remuneration was paid to them by the Devotees. The Petitioners are not only the persons who used to manage the affairs of the Temple there are others who along with Petitioners are managing the affairs of the Temple and they were called as VAHIVATDARS. There are about four people who were managing the affairs of the Temple and were called as VAHIVATDARS, they are as follows:
(1) T.V. SEETHARAMAIAH (2) G.S.BHASKAR RAO GORASUKUDIGE (3) B.V.RAMESH BIDKINAMANE (4) B.VENKATARAMANAIAH And lastly the Petitioner T.S.Shyamanna. These Vahivatdars were all looking after the affairs of the Temple on rotation basis [yearly one person used to manage]. The Vahivatdars used to issue receipt to the devotees for whatever the devotees offered to the Temple. Copy of the receipts issued by the vahivatdars are herewith produced and marked as ANNEXURE R.1-R.7."
(Emphasis supplied)
21. Section 29 of the 1997 Act reads thus:
29. Appointment of Administrator.- The Rajya Dharmika Parishat or the Zilla Dharmika Parishat as the case may be shall appoint an officer of the State Government as Administrator in place of the Committee of management dissolved or suspended under sub-section (1) or (3) of section 28 or after the expiry of the term of 19 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 office of the Committee under Section 26 or for any other reasons and till a new Committee of Management is constituted or for a period of six months whichever is earlier:
Provided that for the reasons to be recorded in writing the Rajya Dharmika Parishat or Zilla Dharmika Parishat, by order extend the said period by any further period, not exceeding six months at a time. So however, the said period shall not exceed one year in total.
22. Thus, statute provides for appointment of Administrator under Section 29 of 1997 Act by the Rajya Dharmika Parishat or the Zilla Dharmika Parishat. Therefore, the said power cannot be exercised by the Deputy Commissioner in the garb of 'power of general superintendence' for unlimited period.
23. In Subramanian Swamy V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and others2 it is held as follows:
65. Even if the management of a temple is taken over to remedy the evil, the management must be handed over to the person concerned immediately after the evil stands remedied. Continuation thereafter would tantamount to usurpation of their proprietary rights or violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution in favour 2 (2014)5 SCC 75 20 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 of the persons deprived. Therefore, taking over of the management in such circumstances must be for a limited period. Thus, such an expropriatory order requires to be considered strictly as it infringes the fundamental rights of the citizens and would amount to divesting them of their legitimate rights to manage and administer the temple for an indefinite period. We are of the view that the impugned order [Sri Sabanayagar Temple v. State of T.N., (2009) 4 LW 705 : (2009) 8 MLJ 1503] is liable to be set aside for failure to prescribe the duration for which it will be in force.
66. Super-session of rights of administration cannot be of a permanent enduring nature. Its life has to be reasonably fixed so as to be co-terminus with the removal of the consequences of maladministration. The reason is that the objective to take over the management and administration is not the removal and replacement of the existing administration but to rectify and stump out the consequences of maladministration. Power to regulate does not mean power to supersede the administration for indefinite period.
67. "Regulate" is defined as to direct; to direct by rule or restriction; to direct or manage according to the certain standards, to restrain or restrict. The word "regulate" is difficult to define as having any precise meaning. It is a word of broad import, having a broad meaning and may be very comprehensive in scope. Thus, it may mean to control or to subject to governing principles. Regulate has different set of meanings and must take its colour from the context in which it is used having regard to the purpose and object of the legislation. The word "regulate" is elastic enough to include issuance of directions, etc. (Vide K. Ramanathan v. State of T.N. [(1985) 2 SCC 116 : 1985 SCC 21 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 (Cri) 162 : AIR 1985 SC 660] and Balmer Lawrie & Co.
Ltd. v. Partha Sarathi Sen Roy [(2013) 8 SCC 345 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 804 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 114] .)
68. Even otherwise it is not permissible for the State/statutory authorities to supersede the administration by adopting any oblique/circuitous method. In Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Coop. Group Housing Society Ltd. [(2010) 13 SCC 336 : (2010) 4 SCC (Civ) 904] , this Court held:
(SCC p. 344, para 21) "21. It is a settled proposition of law that what cannot be done directly, is not permissible to be done obliquely, meaning thereby, whatever is prohibited by law to be done, cannot legally be effected by an indirect and circuitous contrivance on the principle of quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur et omne per quod devenitur ad illud. An authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by 'shift or contrivance'."
69. We would also like to bring on record that various instances whereby acts of mismanagement/ maladministration/misappropriation alleged to have been committed by Podhu Dikshitars have been brought to our notice. We have not gone into those issues since we have come to the conclusion that the power under the 1959 Act for appointment of an Executive Officer could not have been exercised in the absence of any prescription of circumstances/conditions in which such an appointment may be made. More so, the order of appointment of the Executive Officer does not disclose as for what reasons and under what circumstances his appointment was necessitated. Even otherwise, the order in which no period of its operation is prescribed, is not sustainable being ex facie arbitrary, illegal and unjust.22 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018
24. In the case on hand, Deputy Commissioner has ordered appointment of Administrator on 13th January 2015 without recording any cogent reasons justifying the appointment and to circumvent the embargo in Section 29 of the 1997 Act. The said order was withdrawn and the Temple has been merged with another Temple. This is impermissible.
25. In view of above discussion, order dated 13th January 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner appointing Administrator to Sri. Channakeshavaswami Temple and subsequent order dated 15th April 2017 merging it with Sri Kalaseshwaraswami Temple are without jurisdiction and unsustainable in law. Hence the following ORDER
(i) Rule issued and made absolute;
(ii) Writ petition No.12406/2017 are allowed; 23 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018
(iii) Order dated 13th January 2015 passed by the Deputy Commissioner appointing Administrator to Sri Channakeshavaswamy Temple (Annexure - A) is quashed;
(iv) Order dated 15th April 2017 merging
Sri Channakeshavaswamy Temple with
Sri Kalasa Temple and directing it's Executive Officer to take charge of Sri Channakeshavaswamy Temple (Annexure- Z9) is quashed;
(v) Respondents are directed to hand over the administration to Shri. Shyamanna (second petitioner in W.P. No.12406/2017) forthwith;
(vi) Writ Petition No.1771/2018 is partly allowed and order dated 15th April 2017 merging Sri Channakeshavaswamy Temple with Sri Kalasa Temple and directing it's Executive Officer to take charge of 24 W.P. NO.12406/2017 c/w. W.P. NO.1771/2018 Sri Channakeshavaswamy Temple (Annexure-A) is quashed;
(Vii) Petitioners in W.P. No.1771/2018 shall be at liberty to work out their remedies in appropriate forum, insofar as other prayers in this writ petition.
No costs.
26. In view of disposal of these writ petitions, pending interlocutary applications do not survive for consideration and the same are also disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SPS