Allahabad High Court
Firoz Ali vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 8 November, 2024
Author: Rajeev Misra
Bench: Rajeev Misra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:175912 Reserved on: 22.10.2024 Delivered on: 08.11.2024 Court No. - 72 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 17437 of 2024 Petitioner :- Firoz Ali Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Amit Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
1. Heard Mr. Amit Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents-1 to 3.
2. Perused the record.
3. This writ petition has been filed by petitioner-Firoz Ali, challenging the order dated 31.5.2024 passed by respondent-3, Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar in Case No. 038 of 2024 (State Vs. Firoz Ali) under section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, whereby petitioner has been exterminated from the territorial limits of District- Gautam Budh Nagar, for a period of six months and the order dated 2.9.2024, passed by respondent-2, Commissioner, Meerut, Division, Meerut in Appeal No. 1307 of 2024 (Firoz Ali Vs. State of U.P.) under section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act, whereby aforementioned appeal filed by petitioner against order dated 31.5.2024 has been dismissed.
4. Learned counsel for the parties agreed that present writ petition be decided finally on the basis of material on record. Learned A.G.A. further submitted that he does not wish to file any counter affidavit to the writ petition
5. In view of above and as provided in the Rules of Court, present writ petition is being disposed of finally at the admission stage, without calling for a counter affidavit.
6. Record shows that Station House Officer of Police Station- Jarcha, District- Gautam Budh Nagar submitted a report dated 18.4.2024 stating therein that in view of the criminal antecedents of petitioner and also the facts as have emerged against him, proceedings under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 be initiated against petitioner. On the basis of aforesaid report, the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar sent a letter dated 25.4.2024 to the Police Commissioner, Gatutam Budh Nagar proposing therein that proceedings under the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act be initiated against petitioner. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar further approved the aforementioned report submitted by the Station House Officer of Police Station-Jarcha and alongwith the aforesaid letter, also appended the copies of FIRs registered against petitioner, the charge sheet/police report submitted by Investigating Officer in the same, copy of the Beet Report and the approved Goonda Chart of the petitioner.
7. In response to above, respondent-3-the Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar Commissionerate Ghaziabad decided to initiate proceedings under the aforesaid Act against petitioner. Resultantly, Case No. 038 of 2024 (State Vs. Firoz Ali) under section 2/3 of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act,came to be registered against petitioner.
8. In the light of above, a show cause notice dated 30.04.2024, under sections 3(1) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act was issued by respondent-3 Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar, to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why an order of externment be not passed against him. The basis of show cause notice were the criminal antecedents of petitioner, which are as follows:
1. Case No. 169 of 2023, under sections 323,352, 452 IPC, Police Station- Jarcha, District- Gautam Budh Nagar
2. Case No. 349 of 2021, under sections 147, 149, m304, 308, 323, 324, 452, IPC, Police Station- Jarcha, Gautam Budh Nagar
3. Case No. 94 of 2020, under sections 188, 269, 270, 271 IPC, Police Station- Jarcha, Gautam Budh Nagar District Ghaziabad
4. Case No. 291 of 2018, under sections 25/27 Arms Act Police Station- Jarcha, Gautam Budh Nagar
5. Case No. 289 of 2018, under sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC, Police Station- Jarcha, Gautam Budh Nagar
6. Case No. 80 of 2018, under sections 147, 148, 323, 353, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station- Jarcha, Gautam Budh Nagar
7. Beat Information No. 36, dated 27.3.2024 Apart from above, respondent-3- Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar referred to the report dated 18.04.2024 submitted by the Station House Officer of Police Station-Jarcha, wherein it was stated that petitioner is a vicious criminal, petitioner has committed offence, under Chapters 16 and 17 of IPC, there is anxiety and terror in the public at large, no person of the public is ready to lodge a complaint against petitioner or to give evidence against petitioner, therefore, it is not conducive for the society to allow the petitioner to remain free.
9. In response to the said show cause notice dated 30.04.2024, petitioner filed his objections dated 20.5.2024 to the same duly supported by an affidavit, disputing the contents of the show cause notice. It was pleaded by the petitioner that he belongs to a decent family, petitioner has not committed any such crime on account of which, fear or terror can be said to be present in the society, the image of petitioner is not such that it may cause damage to property and life of the public at large. Case Crime No. 169 of 2023, under Sections 323, 352, 452 IPC was lodged against petitioner as part of pressure tactics, Case Crime No. 349 of 2023, under Sections 147, 149, 304, 308, 323 IPC was registered against unknown person, the statements of relatives of deceased have already been recorded in the Court of A.D.J.-VI, Gautam Budh Nagar, who have turned hostile, the other criminal cases have been launched against petitioner on account of enmity, Case Crime No. 94 of 2020, under Sections 188, 269, 270, 271 IPC has already been withdrawn by State Government. Referring to the judgment of this Court in Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shankar Pandey Vs. State of U.P, 2010 SCC OnLine All 2411, it was prayed by petitioner that the show cause notice be withdrawn.
10. Respondent-3-Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar thereafter examined the reply submitted by petitioner and evaluated the same in the light of material disclosed in the report of the Station House Officer concerned as well as the material appended along with the letter of Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar. After having undertaken the aforesaid exercise, respondent-3 came to the conclusion that presence of petitioner within the territorial limits of District-Gautam Budh Nagar is not conducive for the society itself. He, accordingly, passed an order dated 31.5.2024, under Section 3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970, whereby petitioner was exterminated for a period of six months from the territorial limits of District-Gautam Budh Nagar.
11. Perusal of order dated 31.05.2024 passed by respondent-3 will go to show that respondent-3 has firstly narrated the reply submitted by the petitioner to the show cause notice, the objections raised by State counsel to the reply submitted by petitioner and has thereafter, referred to the criminal antecedents of petitioner and the adverse facts stated against petitioner in the report of Station House Officer of Police Station Jarcha. It is only on the basis of above that respondent-3 has recorded an abrupt conclusion that an order under Section-3 of U.P. Control of Goondas Act is warranted against petitioner. It is thus apparent that no finding has been returned by respondent-3 in the light of provisions contained in Section-2(b) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. As such, respondent-3 has exterminated the petitioner from the territorial limits of District-Gautam Budh Nagar without even recording a prima-facie finding that petitioner is a habitual offender.
12. Against order dated 31.5.2024, passed by respondent-3 petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent-2 Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut in terms of Section 6(1) of the Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act. The same was registered as Appeal No. 1307 of 2024 (Firoz Ali Vs. State of U.P.), under section 6(1) of Uttar Pradesh Control of Goondas Act. The said appeal filed by petitioner was rejected by Appellate Authority i.e. respondent-2- Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut vide order dated 2.9.2024.
13. Perusal of same will go to show that Apellate Court upon appraisal and appreciation of the material on record came to the conclusion that petitioner is a vicious criminal, which fact is also established as per report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Gautam Budh Nagar and the presence of the petitioner within the territorial limit of Gautam Budh Nagar is not conducive for the society, therefore, none of the grounds raised and pressed in support of appeal found favour with the appellate authority.
14. Thus feeling aggrieved by aforesaid orders dated 2.9.2024 and 31.05.2024, petitioner has now approached this court by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
15. Mr. Amit Kumar, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent-3-Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar has passed the order impugned dated 31.05.2024 without recording his subjective satisfaction in the matter. He has then referred to the above order and with reference to the same, he submits that respondent-3 has not recorded any reason in the impugned order dated 31.05.2024 necessitating an order under Section 3(3) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act against petitioner. He thus submits that respondent-3 has simply recorded a bald conclusion. As such, the order impugned dated 31.05.2024 is not only illegal and arbitrary but also without jurisdiction. Respondent-3 has simply narrated the contents of the show cause notice, the reply submitted by petitioner to the show cause notice and the objections raised by the State counsel to the reply submitted by petitioner. On the basis of above, respondent-3 has drawn an abrupt conclusion that an order under Section 3(3) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act is required to be passed against petitoner. Since no reasons have been assigned in the order impugned, therefore, there is nothing in the order to show that respondent-3 has applied his mind to the facts of the case and thereafter came to a derivative conclusion that an order under Section 3(3) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act needs to be passed against petitionoer in the facts and circumstances of the case. He, therefore, submits that the order impugned dated 31.05.2024 passed by respondent-3-Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar cannot be sustained either in law and fact.
16. It is by now well settled that the veracity of an order has to be examined in the light of reasons recorded in the order itself. Reference in this regard be made to paragraph 8 of the judgement of Supreme Court in M. P. Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, AIR 1978 SC 851, wherein following has been observed by the Bench;-
"The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought ,out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (1) "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself."
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older:"
17. According to the learned counsel for petitioner, all the criminal cases registered against petitioner are of the years 2018, 2020 and 2021. As such, they are more than six, four and three years old respectively. The show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.04.2024. However, since 2022 upto 30.04.2024, no criminal case was registered against petitioner. On the above premise, he thus submits that petitioner cannot be classified as a Goonda within the meaning of term Goonda as defined in Section 2 (b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act as petitioner is not a habitual offender. For ready reference, Section 2 (b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 is reproduced herein-below:
"2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -
(b) "Goonda" means a person who -
(i) either by himself or as a member or leader of a gang, habitually commits, or attempts to commit, or abets the commission of an offences punishable under section 153 or section 153-B or section 294 of the Indian Penal Code or Chapter XV, Chapter XVI, Chapter XVII or Chapter XXII of the said Code ; or
(ii) has been convicted for an offence punishable under the Suppersession of Immoral Traffic in Women and Girls Act, 1956 ; or
(iii) has been convicted not less than thrice for an offence punishable under the U. P. Excise Act, 1910 or the Public Gambling Act, 1867 or section 25, section 27 or section 29 of the Arms Act, 1959 ; or
(iv) is generally reputed to be a person who is desperate and dangerous to the community ; or
(v) has been habitually passing indecent remarks or teasing women or girls ; or
(vi) is a tout ;
Explanation - 'Tout' means a person who -
(a) accepts or obtains, or agrees to accept or attempts to obtain from any person for himself or for any other person, any gratification whatever as a motive or reward for inducing, by corrupt or illegal means any public servant or member of Government, Parliament or of State Legislature, to do or forbear to do anything or to show favour or disfavor to any person or to render or attempt to render any service or disservice to any person, with the Central or State Government, Parliament or State Legislature, any local authority, corporation, Government Company or public servant ; or
(b) procures, in consideration of any remuneration moving from any legal practitioner interested in any legal business, or proposes to any legal practitioner or to any person interested in legal business to procure, in consideration of any remuneration moving from either of them, the employment of legal practitioner in such business ; or
(c) for the purposes mentioned in explanation (a) or (b), frequents the precincts of civil, criminal or revenue courts, revenue or other offices, residential colonies or residences or vicinity of the aforesaid or railway or bus stations, landing stages, lodging places or other places of public resort ; or
(vii) is a house grabber.
Explanation - 'House-grabber' means a person who takes or attempts to take or aids or abets in taking unauthorized possession or having lawfully entered unlawfully remains in possession, of a building including land, garden, garages or out-houses appurtenant to a building.
[(viii) is involved in offences punishable under the Regulation of Money Landing Act, 1976 ;
(ix) is involved in offences punishable under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1966 and the Indian Forest Act, 1927 ;
(x) is involved in illegally transporting and/or smuggling of cattle and indulging in acts in contravention of the provisions in the Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 and the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 ;
(xi) is involved in human trafficking for purposes of commercial exploitation, forced labour, bonded labour, child labour, sexual exploitation, organ removing and trafficking, beggary and the like activities."
18. On the above edifice, the learned counsel for petitioner submits that respondent-3-Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar has adopted a hyper technical approach in passing the impugned order dated 31.05.2024. Respondent-3 has completely ignored the fact that petitioner is not in the habit of committing repeated offence. Furthermore, no criminal case was registered against petitioner after the year 2021 upto 31.10.2024 i.e. almost three years. He therefore concludes that simply on the basis of the criminal cases registered against petitioner upto the year 2021 as detailed above, petitioner cannot be classified as a goonda within the provisions of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. At this stage, it would be apt to refer to paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the judgement rendered by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 12979 of 2024 (Wahid @ Abdul Wahid Vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) decided on 02.09.2024. For ready reference, the same are reproduced herein below:-
"10. A perusal of the notice dated 30.3.2024 reveals that it is consisted of three criminal cases lodged against the petitioner and that was the cause of passing the order under Section 3(3) of the Act for his externment from the boundaries of district Ghaziabad. It further reveals from the perusal of the said show cause notice that it does mention general nature of material allegations which makes the said notice bad in law in view of the law laid down in Bhim Sen Tyagi vs. State of U.P., 1999 (39) ACC 321, Shiv Prakash Dubey @ Kattu vs. State of U.P. and another, 2007(2) AcrJ 506 and Rajkumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2009(1) AcrJ 314.
11. The Court takes notice of this fact that three criminal cases and one beat information are assigned to the present petitioner, which are described in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Though any criminal activity of a person may be taken as a challenge to the law and order and a crime against society, but however, the criminal cases assigned to the petitioner are somehow of a personal nature and category and moreover it is also notable that out of the three criminal cases two cases are said to be committed in the year 2016 and thereafter in a span of about seven years no criminal activity on the part of the petitioner was disclosed in the impugned order and this situation raises a genuine question that if for a period of about seven years the petitioner never indulged in any criminal activity and the next criminal case was assigned to him in the year 2023, how the Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad was satisfied that the petitioner falls within the category of 'goonda', as defined in Section 2(b) of the Act. In the circumstances of this case, it appears that a very hyper technical approach has been adopted by the Additional Police Commissioner, Commissionerate, Ghaziabad while passing the impugned order dated 10.4.2024.
12. In Shankar Ji Shukla vs. Ayukt, Allahabad Mandal, Allahabad and others, 2005(52) ACC 638 it has been held that a person cannot be held to be 'goonda' only on the basis of one or two acts, he can be held to be goonda only when he is in habit of committing repeated offence. The same view has been expressed in Lalani Pandey @ Vijay Shanker Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2011 (1) ACrJ 207."
19. It is lastly contended by the learned counsel for petitioner that the appellate authority i.e. respondent-2, Commissioner Meerut Division, Meerut has dismissed the appeal filed by petitioner by passing an order of affirmance. No attempt was made by the appellate authority to examine and evaluate the grounds raised and pressed on behalf of petitioner in support of the appeal filed before him. The appellate authority has not made any endeavour to consider as to whether in the given set of facts and circumstances, the case of petitioner falls within the ambit and scope of Section 2 (b) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 or not. Much emphasis was laid to the penultimate part of the order dated 02.09.2024, wherein following has been observed;-
"अपीलार्थी के विरुद्ध अवर न्यायालय के नोटिस में अधिसूचित प्रतिकूल परिस्थितियों के आधार पर एक बार गुण्डा नियत्रण अधिनियम के अंतर्गत कार्यवाही किये जाने पर उन्हीं परिस्थितियों के ही आधार पर गुण्डा नियंत्रण अधिनियम के अंतर्गत पुनः कार्यवाही सामान्यतः नहीं होनी चाहिये, परन्तु यदि अपीलार्थी के सम्बन्ध में पुनः उक्त अधिनियम की धारा-3 में वर्णित परिस्थितियां दृष्टिगोचर होती हैं तो उनके आधार पर विधिनुसार कार्यवाही करने हेतु अधीनस्थ न्यायालय स्वतन्त्र है।"
However, no finding has been returned by respondent-2 in the light of above i.e. how the subsequent proceedings under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 can be sustained against petitioner on the same facts.
20. It is thus urged by the learned counsel for petitioner that the appellate authority has failed to duly exercise the jurisdiction vested in him. The appellate authority has thus not exercised it's jurisdiction diligently. The appeal filed by petitioner has been rejected by the appellate authority in a casual and caviler fashion. Consequently, the order of the appellate authority being unsustainable in law and fact, is also liable to be quashed by this Court.
21. Per contra, the learned A.GA.. representing State-respondents-1 to 3 has vehemently opposed the present writ petition. According to the learned A.G.A., both the orders impugned in present writ petition passed by respondents-3 and 2 (Annexures 2 and 1 to the writ petition respectively) are perfectly just and legal, therefore, the same are not liable to be interfered with by this Court.
22. According to the learned A.G.A., proceedings under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act were initiated against petitioner on the grounds that petitioner has criminal history of six criminal cases as well as a Beet report dated 07.07.2020. As such, it cannot be said that petitioner is a man of clean antecedents.
23. It was then contended by the learned A.G.A. that on account of conduct of petitioner, there is eminent despair and anxiety within the members of public at large. Petitioner is a vicious criminal. No member of the public has the courage to lodge a complaint against petitioner or to give evidence against petitioner. It is on account of above that respondent-3-Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar derived his subjective satisfaction that the presence of petitioner within the territorial limits of District-Gautam Budh Nagar is not conducive for the society at large.
24. On the above premise, the learned A.G.A. contended that since an order under Section 3(3) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act is preventive in nature, therefore, no illegality can be attached to the orders impugned in present writ petition. The orders impugned do not suffer either from jurisdictional error nor the same are the outcome of exercise of jurisdiction by both the authorities below in such a manner so as to vitiate the same and warranting interference by this Court. He thus concludes by submitting that present writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
25. Having heard the learned counsel for petitioner, the learned A.G.A. for State-respondents 1 to 3 and upon perusal of record, this Court finds that it is an undisputed fact that petitioner is a man of criminal antecedents inasmuch as there are seven criminal cases registered against him. However, criminal cases were registered against petitioner in the years 2018, 2020 and 2021. The notice under Section 3(3) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 was issued against petitioner on 30.04.2024. In view of above, it cannot be conclusively concluded that the petitioner is a habitual offendor and therefore, liable to be classified as a goonda within the meaning of Section 2 (b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. Respondent-3-Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar, ignoring the above and without recording any reason necessitating an order of externment against petitioner in terms of Section 3 (3) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act passed the impugned order dated 31.05.2024. In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in M.P. Singh Gill (supra), the veracity of an order is to be judged in the light of the reasons recorded in the order itself. Since respondent-3 while passing the order dated 31.05.2024 has not recorded any reason but simply a bald conclusion, therefore, the order dated 31.05.2024 is unsustainable in law and fact. Respondent-3 has adopted a hyper technical approach in passing the impugned order dated 31.05.2024. The appellate authority has simply concurred with the view expressed by respondent-3 by passing an order of affirmance. The order impugned dated 02.09.2024 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent-2, Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut does not reflect that an attempt was made by the Appellate Authority i.e. respondent-2, to examine and evaluate the grounds raised and pressed by the petitioner in support of the appeal filed by him. The appellate authority has simply mentioned the facts of the case, the grounds raised on behalf of petitioner in support of appeal and on the facts mentioned in the adverse report dated 18.04.2024 submitted by the Station House Officer of Police Staiton-Jarcha as noted herein above and further as no such ground has been elaborated by petitioner warranting interference with the order impugned has drawn an abrupt conclusion that no illegality can be attached to the order dated 31.05.2024 passed by respondent-3 in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 3(3) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. As such, no reason has been assigned by the appellate authority regarding the legality of the order dated 31.05.2024. The appellate authority has miserably failed to examine the appeal in the light of provisions contained in Section 2(b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970. Apart from above, the Appellate Authority has itself observed that on the same grounds previously proceedings under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 were initiated agaisnt the petitioner but without dealing with the same issue as to how the subsequent proceedings under the U.P. Control of Goondas Act, 1970 could be initiated on the same grounds has dismissed the appeal. Though on behalf of the State, various adverse facts were pleaded against petitioner i.e. petitioner is a vicious criminal, on account of conduct of petitioner, there is anxiety and threat in the public at large, no person of the public is ready to lodge an F.I.R. or give evidence against petitioner but this Court finds that no attempt was made on behalf of State to evidence the said facts by leading cogent and reliable evidence.
26. In view of the discussion made above, the inescapable conclusion is that both the authorities, ie. respondent-3-Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar and respondent-2, Commissioner Meerut Division Meerut have failed to exercise their jurisdiction diligently. Petitioner has been exterminated from the territorial limits of District-Gautam Budh Nagar in exercise of jurisdiction by Respondents 3 and 2 not diligently but in a casual and cavalier fashion inasmuch as no attempt has been made by respondents 3 and 2 to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the provisions contained in Section 2(b) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act nor any reason has been recorded by the Additional District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar in support of the conclusion drawn that an action under Section 3(3) of U.P. Control of Goondas Act is warranted against petitioner nor the appellate authority has dealt with the grounds raised and pressed in support of the appeal with reference to the record as well as Section 2(b) of the U.P. Control of Goondas Act.
27. As a result, the present writ petition succeeds and is liable to be allowed.
28. It is, accordingly, allowed.
29. The order impugned dated 31.05.2024 passed by respondent-3-Police Commissioner, Commissionerate Gautam Budh Nagar and the order dated 02.09.2024 passed by respondent-2, Commissioner, Meerut Division Meerut (Annexures-2 and 1 to the writ petition respectively) are, hereby, quashed.
30. In the facts and circumstances of the case, cost is made easy.
Order Date :- 08.11.2024 Arshad