Gauhati High Court
Hargovind Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 26 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002CRILJ2006
Author: A.K. Patnaik
Bench: A.K. Patnaik
JUDGMENT A.K. Patnaik, J.
1. In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, Sri Hargovind Singh, has challenged the findings of the General Security Force Court, and the orders passed by the , Inspector General of Border Security Force and the Director General of Border Security Force holding the petitioner guilty of the offence of culpable homicide amounting to murder as well as the punishment of 5 years' rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service.
2. The facts briefly are that the petitioner was serving as a constable in the 13 Bn, Border Security Force. A General Security Force Court was convened to enquire into the allegation against the petitioner that on 8,7.1998 between 1730 Hrs. and 1800 Hrs. when the petitioner and other members of a Link Patrol Party were returning to BOP Bhandarima, the petitioner directed constable Puran Singh to cross the river Deo, and when constable Puran Singh started crossing the river Deo the petitioner remarked "kya aap ladki hai jo pani se darte hain", and constable Puran Singh became angry and exchanged abuses with the petitioner and after crossing the river went to the petitioner and slapped on his left cheek and thereafter there was a scuffle between them and during the scuffle the petitioner fell down on the ground and constable Puran Singh sat on the chest of the petitioner and beat him mercilessly. The two were separated by constable Desh Raj and they took up their respective rifles and were about to proceed further when the petitioner suddenly cocked his rifle and fired one round at constable Puran Singh and the bullet hit constable Puran Singh on the right side of his belly and constable Puran Singh fell down on the ground. Thereafter, constable Puran Singh was picked up and taken away to BOP, Bhandarima, but on the way he succumbed to his injury. At the end of the proceedings in which several witnesses were examined and documents produced, the General Security Force Court, (for short, "GSF Court"), found the petitioner guilty of civil offence of murder under Section 302, Indian Penal Code, and on December 7, 1999 imposed the sentence of imprisonment for life and dismissal from service on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted a petition dated 11th December, 1999 under Sub-section (1) of Section 117-of the Border Security Force Act, 1968, (for brevity, "the BSF Act") to the Confirming Authority pointing out some irregularities in the proceeding before the GSF Court and the illegality in the order passed by the GSF Court. The Confirming Authority, namely, Inspector General, TC & M. Frontier HQs, BSF, after considering the said petition held in his communication dated 31st March, 2000 to the petitioner that there was no violation of any legal or constitutional provision during the trial and that the proceedings have been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the BSP Act and the Rules made thereunder and no interference was therefore warranted on the grounds raised in the petition of the petitioner. He however, held in the said communication dated 31st March, 2000 to the petitioner that there was evidence to show that there was sudden fight between the petitioner and the deceased constable Puran Singh and the offence took place in the heat of passion upon a sudden querrel and without any pre-meditation and, therefore, the offence fell within the exception-4 of Section 300, IPC, punishable under Section 304, IPC. The Confirming Authority thus, held the petitioner guilty of the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder and reduced the quantum of sentence from life imprisonment to 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The order passed by the Confirming Authority under Sub-section (1) of Section 117 of the BSF Act was conveyed by the Commandant, 13 Bn. BSP to the Superintendent of Agartala Prison, Tripura with the request to receive and keep the petitioner in custody for undergoing the sentence of 10 years' rigorous imprisonment. The petitioner then submitted a petition dated 20th July, 2000 under Sub-section (2) of Section 117 of the BSF Act to the Director General of Border Security Force pointing out the irregularities in the proceedings before the GSF Court as well as the illegality in the order of conviction. While the said petition under Sub-section (2) of Section 117 of the BSF Act was pending, the petitioner moved this court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 462 of 2000 and on 30th October, 2000 this court while issuing notice in the said writ petition observed that an endeavour would be made by the Authority before whom the petition under Sub-section (2) of Section 117 of the BSF Act was pending to dispose of the same within two months. Pursuant to the said observation of this court, by a communication dated 12th December, 2000 the petitioner was informed that his petition dated 20th July, 2000 addressed to the Director General, BSF, against his conviction by the GSF Court had been considered by the Director General and it had been observed that there was no violation of any legal or constitutional provision during his trial by the GSF Court and that the proceedings had been conducted in accordance with the provisions of the BSF Act and the Rules made thereunder. In the said communication dated 5th December, 2000, the petitioner was further informed that the evidence in the proceedings disclosed that there was a sudden fight between the petitioner and the deceased constable Puran Singh and the offence took place in the heat of passion upon a sudden querrel without any pre-meditation, and considering all these facts and the young age of the petitioner, the Director General, BSF, was further pleased to reduce the term of rigorous imprisonment of 10 years to 5 years but there was no change with respect to his dismissal from service. On 18th October, 2000, this court passed orders in W.P. (C) 462/2000 to the effect that since the petition of the petitioner under Sub-section (2) of Section 117 of the BSF Act had been disposed of by the Confirming Authority no relief could be granted in the said petition and the writ petition was disposed of as having become infructuous, and the petitioner may move against the order dated 5th December, 2000 of the Director General, BSF, in an appropriate forum. The petitioner has, therefore, filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution praying for quashing the findings and sentence of the GSF Court and the orders dated 31st March, 2000 and 12th December, 2000 passed by the Inspector General, BSF and the Director General, BSF respectively under Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 117 of the BSF Act.
3. Mr. K.N. Bhattacharjee, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that under Rule 126 of the Border Security Force Rules, 1969, (hereinafter referred to as "the BSF Rules"), the Law Officer has been entrusted with certain duties in relation to, a proceeding before the GSF Court. He submitted that the GSF Court comprises of persons who are not well versed in law and requires guidance of a law-knowing person while conducting the proceeding. It is for this reason that Sub-rule (1) of Rule 126 of the BSF Rules entrusts certain duties on the Law Officer to give his opinion on any question of law relating to the charge or trial whenever so required by the court, the prosecutor or the accused ; inform the court of any irregularity or other infirmity in the proceedings ; inform the Convening Officer and the Court of any infirmity or defect in the charge or in the constitution of the court ; and to sum up the evidence and give his opinion on any question of law, before the court proceeds to deliberate upon its findings. He further submitted that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 126 of the BSF Rules further provides that it is the duty of the Law Officer to ensure that the accused does not suffer disadvantage in consequence of his position as such, or because of ignorance or incapacity to examine or cross-examine witnesses. Mr. Bhattacharjee referred to Sub-rule (5) of Rule 126 of the BSF Rules which provides that in the discharge of his duties, the Law Officer shall maintain an attitude of strict impartiality. Mr. Bhattacharjee argued that in course of the proceedings, the Law Officer committed, breach of these duties entrusted to him under Rule 126 of the BSF Rules and for this reason the proceedings before the GSF Court suffered grave defects and were not impartial, and the petitioner has suffered conviction and sentence not warranted by law. In this context, Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that it would be clear from the records of the proceedings of the GSF Court that in course of cross-examination of PW 5 on 16th November, 1999 some suggestions were put on behalf of the petitioner by way of denial, but the said suggestions had not been recorded, and when a petition was filed before the GSF Court by the petitioner on 17th November, 1999, the Law Officer did not advise the court properly and instead opined that sufficient opportunity was provided to the petitioner to cross-examine PW 5. Mr. Bhattacharjee further pointed out that there were discrepancies in the evidence of PW 10, Ballastic Expert and in the evidence of PW 6, Mahinder Singh, Commander of the party. Whereas, PW 10 in his evidence stated that the body mechanism of the Rifle with which constable Puran Singh was alleged to have been killed was not found sealed when it was received in the Laboratory and only muzzle end of the Rifle was sealed, PW 6 in his evidence stated that after checking the Rifle he had sealed all the three magazines and also the entire body mechanism of the Rifle. These material discrepancies in the evidence of PW 10 and PW 6 had not been pointed out by the Law Officer to the court while summing up the evidence on 7th December, 1999, Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that Rule 120 of the BSF Rules provides that the proceedings shall be deemed to be in the custody of the Law Officer and may be inspected by the members of the Court, the prosecutor and accused at all reasonable times before the Court is closed to consider the finding and the petitioner made a prayer in his petition dated 25th November, 1999 before the GSF Court requesting that the evidence dictated and typed in the open court be allowed to be inspected by the defence counsel/ defending officer in open court, but the Law Officer instead of advising the court to allow the said prayer of the petitioner advised the court that the submission of the defence did not hold ground and the same was disallowed, Mr. Bhattacharjee submitted that PW 3 in his evidence stated that after he separated the petitioner and constable Puran Singh he snatched away the Rifle from the petitioner. This evidence would show that the Rifle from the hand of the petitioner was taken away by PW 3 and the petitioner could not have fired at constable Puran Singh, and this material piece of evidence should have been brought to the notice of the court by the Law Officer, but while summing up the evidence on 12th December, 1999, the Law Officer did not point out this material piece of evidence to the court. Mr. Bhattacharjee also referred to the evidence of PWs 1 to 4 who stated that at the time of incident they were at BOP Bhandarima. He submitted that they were not the eye witnesses to the incident and yet they have deposed as if they had seen the incident. This aspect of the evidence has not been brought to the notice of the GSF Court at the time of summing up the evidence on 12th December, 1999 by the Law Officer, He further argued that the prosecution relied on the confession of the petitioner given before PW 8 on 9th July, 1998, but a reading of the evidence of PW 8 would show that the said confession was not voluntary but under coercion and hence the confession was hit by Section 24 of the Indian Evidence Act and could not be relied upon for the purpose of convicting the petitioner, and yet this aspect of law was not pointed out by the Law Officer to the court at the time of summing up the evidence on 7th December, 1999. He also referred to the evidence of PW 9, Doctor, who stated that the injury in the abdomen of constable Puran Singh was such that he may die instantly and argued that it was not possible for him to have given a dying declaration relating to cause of his death. This was also not pointed out by the Law Officer at the time of summing up the evidence to the court on 7th December, 1999. Mr. Bhattacharjee further argued that in his cross-examination PW 7 has stated that on 11th July, 1998 the place of occurrence was shown to him by one civilian, namely, Nabin Muni Reang and during investigation he recorded the statements of Nabin Muni Reang and Ganga Ram Reang, who were eye witnesses to the incident, and yet the said eye witnesses have not been examined. He argued that Nabin Muni Reang and Ganga Ram Reang were the civilian eye witnesses whose evidence was very material and the fact that the said two civilian eye witnesses have been withheld was an important factor in favour of acquittal of the petitioner, but this position of law was not pointed out by the Law Officer to the GSF Court while summing up the evidence on 12th December, 1999. He cited the decision of the Supreme Court in Meharaj Singh v. State of UP, (1994) 5 SCC 188, wherein it has been held that where prosecution has failed to produce eye witnesses, it can be presumed under Section 114, Illustration-(g) of the Evidence Act, that the eye witnesses have not been produced as they were not prepared to support the false case. Mr. Bhattacharjee vehemently argued that the Law Officer failed to act impartially and did not ensure that the accused-petitioner was not put to any disadvantage in consequence of his position and by such failure on the part of the Law Officer to act impartially in breach of his duties under Rule 126 of the BSF Rules, the whole trial before the GSF Court was vitiated, and the trial and findings of the GSF Court are liable to be quashed. He cited the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Hardev Singh v. Union of India, 2000 Cri. LJ, 2585, in support of his aforesaid submission. He also relied on the decision of the Delhi High Court in R.S. Bhagat v. Union of India, AIR 1982 Delhi 191, in which the trial before the Court Martial under the Army Act was held to be bad for, inter alia, the reason that there was misdirection by the Judge Advocate relating to erroneous conclusion of law and fact reached by the Court Martial. Mr. Bhattacharjee pointed out that in the present case similarly on account of mis-direction by the Law Officer, the GSF Court has arrived at an erroneous conclusions of law and fact, and this court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution should quash the findings of the GSF Court as confirmed by the Confirming Authority and the Superior Authority under Section 117(1) and (2) of the BSF Act.
4. In reply to the aforesaid submissions of Mr Bhattacharjee, Mr. P.K. Dhar, learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel, submitted that the Xerox copy of the proceedings of the GSF Court would show that PWs 1 to 4 were all eye witnesses to the incident and the contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee that they had not seen the incident is not correct. He referred to the evidence of PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 in support of his aforesaid submission. He further argued that PW 5 was not an eye witnesses to the incident and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner that suggestions given to PW 5 by way of denial have not been recorded even if true would not materially affect the findings of the GSF Court. Mr. Dhar further referred to the summing up done by the Law Officer on 7th December, 1999 before the GSF Court to show that the Law Officer has summed up the evidence and referred to the relevant law to enable the GSF Court to record its findings in a fair and reasonable manner consistent with the law on the subject. Mr. Dhar further submitted that in accordance with the provisions in Rule 129 of the BSF Rules, the petitioner was furnished with the copies of all relevant documents, and the submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee that the petitioner was not allowed inspection nor furnished with the copies of relevant documents and the evidence is not at all correct. He further submitted that although the GSF Court convicted the petitioner for the offence of murder under Section 302, IPC, and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment and the punishment of dismissal from service, the Inspector General of BSF has converted the conviction to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 302, IPC, and imposed the sentence of 10 years' rigorous Imprisonment and the Director General of BSF has further reduced the sentence to 5 years' rigorous imprisonment while at the same time retaining the punishment of dismissal from service. According to Mr. Dhar, the whole approach of various Authorities under the BSF Act have been fair to the petitioner and the provisions of the BSF Act and the BSF Rules as well as the principles of natural justice has been followed in the trial of the petitioner, and this is not a fit case in which the High Court should interfere in the matter in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. Mr Dhar cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in Inder Jit Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 2085. Union of India v. A. Hussain, AIR 1998 SC 577 and Union of India v. Himmat Singh Chahar. AIR 1999 SC 1980, to show that judicial review by the High Court in court martial proceedings under the Army Act and the Navy Act is limited and is not wide enough to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the findings of the Competent Authority in the court martial proceedings. He submitted that the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court will equally apply to the GSF Court proceedings under the BSF Act and the BSF Rules.
5. I have perused the Xerox copy of the proceedings of the GSF Court relating td the trial of the petitioner held during the period 11.11.1999 to 7.12.1999 and in particular the evidence of PWs 1 to 6. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 have stated in the first paragraph of their evidence that at the time of incident they were performing general duties at BOP Bhandarima, but the said PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 have stated thereafter in the subsequent paragraphs of their evidence that on 8.7.1998 a patrol party was detailed to escort the Commander, Sub. Mohinder Singh upto the half way point between BOP Bhandarima and BOP Amar and that they were part of the said patrol party. Each of the aforesaid PWs 1 to 4 therefore did not remain at BOP Bhandarima on 8.7.1998 but went as part of the escort party along with the petitioner and the deceased constable Puran Singh. Further, each of the aforesaid PWs 1 to 4 have in their examination-in-chief narrated in detail the incident including the scuffle between the petitioner and the deceased constable Puran Singh, the exchange of abuses between them and as to how after they were separated the petitioner cocked his rifle and fired one shot at constable Puran Singh who fell down with his belly bleeding profusely. Thus, the submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee that PWs 1 to 4 were not the eye witnesses to the incident and they remained at BOP Bhandarima performing general duties at the time of incident oil 8.7.1998 is not at all correct.
6. PW 5, M. P. Singh was serving in the post of Commander of BOP Bhandarima and he himself did not go with the escort party. He has stated that the Officiating Commander Sub. Mohinder Singh had gone to BOP Bhandarima for disbursing pay on 8.7.1998 and for his onward journey to BOP Amar an escort party was detailed which consisted PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4, the deceased constable Puran Singh and the petitioner. He was therefore not an eye witness to the Incident which took place during the return journey of the escort party. He has given evidence to prove the relevant entries in Kote in-out register, Ext-N and Naka Patrol register of BOP Bhandarima, 15 Bn. BSF, Ext-O. He has further stated that at 1850 hours the 'accused came running to the BOP and informed him "maine Puran Singh ko goli maar di hai" when he enquired further, the accused-petitioner told him that he (petitioner) had querrel with constable Puran Singh. Since PW 5 was not an eye witness to the incident which took place, any suggestion by way of denial to him at the time of his cross-examination was not very material. That apart, it appears from cross-examination of PW 5 that some suggestion were made to him on behalf of the defence which PW 5 had denied. PW 5 has stated that it is not correct to suggest that entries in the register have been made in order to implicate the accused falsely. He has also stated that it is incorrect to suggest that he had put one round in the chamber of the rifle of the accused himself. He has also stated that it is incorrect that he has given false statement in the court. Thus, if the Law Officer gave his opinion to the GSF Court on 17th November, 1999 that sufficient opportunity was provided to the accused by way of cross-examination and also later on by way of questions suggested by the defence, he cannot be said to have acted with partiality. He has also stated in his opinion that if the defence wants, it can at any stage of the proceedings call or recall any of the witnesses and seek clarification, and has further advised the GSF Court to close the court and consider the submission of the defence.
7. PW 6 is Subedar Mohinder Singh. He has stated that on 8.7.1998 he asked the Post Commander HC MP Singh to detail a Link Patrol Party to escort him (witness) upto the half way point between BOP Bhandarima and BOP Amar, and, accordingly, a patrol party was detailed which consisted of PWs 1 to 4, the deceased constable Puran Singh and the petitioner. He has further stated that he left the BOP at around 1610 hours and reached the half way point at around 1720 hours. After taking rest, at around 1750 hours he left for BOP Amar while the patrol party of BOP Bhandarima resumed its return journey. Since the scuffle between the petitioner and constable Puran Singh took place during the return journey, PW 6 was not an eye witness to the incident. In the cross-examination, PW 6 has stated that he had sealed all the three magazines and also the entire body machanism of the rifle. PW 10 is Sri NP Waghmare, Senior Scientific Officer (Ballastic), Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Calcutta. He has stated that a case was received from the Commandant, 13 Bn. BSP vide Memo. No. 2455 on 28.2.1999 and it was received in sealed condition along with a sample seal and he tallied both the seals and found that the exhibits were sealed as per the sample seal and he unpacked the seals and examined them in his laboratory. In cross-examination however he has stated that the body mechanism of the rifle was not sealed when it was received in the laboratory, but the muzzle end of the rifle was sealed. Thus, it appears that the entire body mechanism of the rifle and all the three magazines were sealed in one packet, but after the packet was unpacked, it was found that only the muzzle portion of the rifle had been sealed. There does not seem to be any discrepancy between the statement of PW 6 that he had sealed all the magazines and the entire body mechanism of the rifle and the statement of PW 10 that he had received all the articles in one packet in sealed condition and it was only after the seal was opened and packet was unpacked that he found that while the body machanism of the rifle had not been sealed, the muzzle end of the barrel of the rifle was sealed. The submission of Mr. K.N. Bhattacherjee that there was discrepancy between the evidence of PW 10 and PW 6 in this regard is not correct, the Law Officer was therefore not obliged to point out this discrepancy before the GSF Court while summing up the evidence on 7th December, 1999.
8. It also appears from the summing up of the evidence by the Law Officer on 7th December, 1999 that he has referred to the provisions of Section 24 of the Evidence Act and has stated before the GSF Court that the law envisaged under Section 24 of the Evidence Act requires the court to be satisfied that the confession made was free and voluntary and it was not brought out by the influence of hope or fear. The Law Officer has further stated in his summing up that it was upto the GSF Court to decide whether they should give consideration to the application given in writing by the accused to PW 8 or otherwise. It was for the GSF Court to consider whether to treat the confession voluntary or not, and it is difficult to hold that the Law Officer did not advise the GSF Court correctly on law and did not act with impartiality.
9. Coming now to the submission of Mr. Bhattacharjee that in view of the evidence of the Doctor, PW 9, constable Puran Singh could not have possibly given the dying declaration relating to cause of his death, in my considered opinion, the said submission even if accepted would not make a material difference to the findings of the GSF Court inasmuch as there were four (4) eye witnesses, namely, PWs 1 to 4, to the incident. For this very reason, the arguments of Mr. Bhattacharjee that the Law Officer has not informed the GSF Court that PW 3 had stated that he had snatched the rifle from the accused soon after the scuffle between the accused and constable Puran Singh, and that the two eye witnesses Nabin Muni Reang and Ganga Ram Reang have not been examined have also no force. PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 have narrated in vivid details as to how the scuffle between the petitioner and the deceased constable Puran Singh took place and how the petitioner fired a shot at constable Puran Singh out of anger. There is sufficient evidence through the eye witnesses PWs 1, 2, 3 and 4 as corroborated, by PWs 9 and 10 (Doctor and Ballastic Expert) to sustain the conviction of the petitioner under Section 304, IPC, and in such a case the High Court cannot interfere with the findings of the GSF Court and the Authorities under Section 117(1) and (2) of the BSF Act in exercise of its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution.
10. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Himmat Singh Chahar, AIR 1999 SC 1980 :
"..... It is of course true that notwithstanding the finality attached to the orders of the Competent Authority in the Court Martial Proceeding the High Court is entitled, to exercise its power of judicial review by invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 but that would be for a limited purpose of finding out whether there has been infraction of any mandatory provisions of the Act prescribing the procedure which has caused gross miscarriage of justice or for finding out that whether there has been violation of the principles of natural justice which vitiates the entire proceeding or that the authority exercising the Jurisdiction had not been vested with jurisdiction under the Act. The said power of judicial review cannot be a power of an Appellate Authority permitting the. High Court to re-appreciate the evidence and in coming to a conclusion that the evidence is sufficient for the conclusion arrived at by the Competent Authorities in Court Martial Proceedings."
The aforesaid principles will equally apply to a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution in which the findings of the GSF Court and the Confirming and Superior Authorities under Section 117 of the BSF Act are under challenge, and the High Court will only interfere if there has been any infraction of any mandatory provisions of the Act prescribing the procedure which has caused gross miscarriage of justice or where there is violation of the principles of natural justice vitiating the entire proceedings of the GSF Court or the Confirming Authorities have exceeded their jurisdiction.
11. The provision which is alleged to have been violated in this case is Rule 126 of the BSF Rules whereunaer the Law Officer has been entrusted with certain duties. As discussed above, the Law Officer has not committed any breach of the said duties nor has he acted with partiality. In Hardev Singh v. Union of India, 2000 Cri. LJ 2585, cited by Mr. Bhattacharjee, the court found that the petitioner in that case had made a complaint that the Law Officer had acted right from the commencement of the trial in a biased, prejudicial and partial manner towards the defence and had been openly prompting the prosecution witnesses for giving replies during their cross-examination and had prejudiced the mind of the members and presiding officer against the defence. On the facts, the High Court of Punjab & Haiyana had observed that the attitude of the Law Officer was not impartial and he had not properly ensured that the accused did not suffer any disadvantage during the trial in consequence of his position as such, and the procedural safe guards and the duty cast on the Law Officer had been violated causing prejudice to the accused on the fact of it. This is not the case in the facts of the present case. Thus, the said decision of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana has no relevance, for deciding the present writ petition.
12. The only other statutory provision which is alleged to have been violated is Rule 120 of the BSF Rules providing for inspection of the proceedings of the GSF Court by the accused. Mr. Bhattacharjee's submission is that the petitioner's prayer in his petition dated 25.11.1999 to inspect the evidence dictated and typed in open court was not allowed. But on a reading of the said petition dated 25.11.1999 of the petitioner, I find that the petitioner wanted to inspect the drafts of the deposition of the witnesses as and when they were recorded. This prayer was turned down on the ground that after the minor corrections are made in the drafts only the fair copies are allowed to be inspected. Thus, it is not as if the petitioner was not allowed inspection of the fair copies which ultimately, constituted the proceedings of the GSF Court.
13. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merit in this writ petition which is accordingly dismissed. Considering however the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their respective costs.