Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Vikram Singh vs Union Of India on 12 April, 2024
O.A./417/2009
(Reserved on 04.04.2024)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad
***
Original Application No.417 of 2009
th
Pronounced on this the 12 Day of April, 2024.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
Vikram Singh S/o Kishori Singh, Ex-Junior Engineer (Carriage and
wagon), N.R. Haridwar R/o Village Satwai P.O. Kala Sagar District
Bijnor.
...........Applicant
By Advocate: Shri S.P. Singh
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern Railway,
Baroda House New Delhi.
2. Additional Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway
Moradabad.
3. Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Carriage and Wagon),
Northern Railway Moradabad.
...Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh
ORDER
By Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A) Present Original Application has been filed by the applicant seeking the following reliefs:
"a/- to issue an order or direction to quashing the removal order dated 20.06.2008 and appellate order dated 2.1.2009 passed by respondent no.3 and 2 respectively.
b/- to issue an order or direction directing the respondent to pay backwages, G.P.F. Gratuity and all retiral benefit with interest to the applicant and also pay pension month to month to the applicant.Page 1 of 13
O.A./417/2009 c/- to issue any other order or direction which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
d/- to award the cost of petition in favour of applicant."
2. Brief facts of this case as narrated in the Original Application are that the applicant was initially appointed on 10.09.1975 on the post of Safaiwala in carriage and wagon under Senior Section Engineer at Haridwar, Northern Railway Division Moradabad. The applicant mentioned his caste as Dhangar in his service record and the attestation form. The Tahsildar, Dhampur, District Bijnor had issued a scheduled caste certificate to the applicant on 27.08.1973 in which it has been mentioned that the applicant belongs to Dhangar community which is a recogniseds scheduled caste under the Scheduled caste and Scheduled Tribes orders (Amendment) Act, 1956. In the year 2007, one Smt. Kamlesh Mishra, wife of Visheswar Dayal, ex-carriage cleaner made a complaint against the applicant that he has been promoted on the basis of a forged caste certificate after which the caste certificate of the applicant dated 27.08.1973 was verified by the Tahsildar, Dhampur and a report was made that the applicant belongs to the caste of Gaderia which comes under other backward caste. Consequently, a charge sheet was issued to the applicant on 16.08.2007 under Rule-9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules 1968 by Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Northern Railway Moradabad to which the applicant made a reply on 18.09.2007 asserting that the original caste certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Dhampur is a valid certificate. The inquiry report was submitted before the disciplinary authority on 12.03.2008 and vide letter dated 20.03.2008 the same was served upon the applicant calling his reply to which the applicant submitted his reply on 04.04.2008 stating that the caste certificate of the applicant was not verified but a new certificate was issued by S.L.W.J. Moradabad, that the applicant Village Pradhan has approved that the applicant is of 'Dhangar' caste and that the District Magistrate Bijnor has directed on 12.09.2007 to all Page 2 of 13 O.A./417/2009 concerned Tahsildar not to cancel schedule caste certificate issued in favour of Dhangar community in pursuant of the stay order passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.9419 of 2007 (Niranjan Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others). Subsequently, the disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of removal from service against the applicant vide its order dated 20.06.2008. Thereafter, the applicant filed an appeal before the Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway Moradabad on 28.06.2008 which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 02.01.2009.
3. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.
4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that Dhangar is a sub-caste of Gadaria Caste and this fact is borne out from the judgement dated 10.07.2006 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 34520 of 2006 (Har Swaroop Gautam Vs. State of U.P. & Another), Census of India 1961 Volume XV Part VIIA Chapter II published by Government of India, Books for e.g. Tribes and Castes of Centre Provisions of India by R.V. Russel, Tribes and Caste of North Western India and one by W. Crooke, judgement of Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.40462 of 2009 (All India Dhanger Samaj Mahasangh, U.P. & Others Vs. State of U.P. & Others) reported in 2012(4) A.D.J. 147=2012(3) E.S.C. 1329, Land Records Manual, Article on Gadaria on the website Wikipedia, Government order dated 03.01.2007 issued by the Principal Secretary Government of Uttar Pradesh wherein the Dhangar have been sated to be a "Gotra" of Gadaria. It is a different thing that in the Government order dated 03.01.2007 the Principal Secretary had written that Scheduled Caste Certificate be not issued as it was not Dhangar community which has been notified as Scheduled Caste. Similarly Government Order dated 28.01.2002 was issued by Government of U.P. wherein Entry No.27 was referred as (धांगर). However, subsequently, in pursuance of the direction dated 14.03.2012 of the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 40462 of Page 3 of 13 O.A./417/2009 2009 (All India Dhangar Samaj Mahasangh, U.P. & Others Vs. State of U.P.) reported in 2012(4) A.D.J. 147, 2012(3) E.S.C. 1329 to decide as to whether it was Dhangar sub caste of Gadhariya or धगड़ cognate of Oraon which was specified in Entry No. 27 of the Scheduled Caste Order. The matter was considered by National Commission for Scheduled Caste and it was held that it was Dhangar (धनगर) community i.e. sub caste of Gadaria which was notified as Scheduled Caste at item no. 7. This was taken note of by the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in its final order dated 03.09.2013 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 12436 of 2007 (Rajveer Singh Dhangar Vs. State of U.P. & Others) and Government Order dated 24.10.2013 issued by Government of Uttar Pradesh.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that according to Article 366(24) Constitution of India as well as Para No.2 of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order 1950 it is clear that caste, races or tribes or parts of, or groups within, castes or tribes specified in schedule of the Constitution (Schedule Caste) Order 1950 shall be deemed to be scheduled caste and simply by saying that the applicant is Gaderia does not mean that his sub caste is not Dhangar (धनगर) or that the applicant is not a Dhangar as per which he belongs to a scheduled caste category. He argues that there are several cases where the caste falls in Other Backward Caste category while the sub-caste of the same falls under the Scheduled Caste category. It is further stated that the caste certificate was issued in 1973 after due inquiry on the basis of report of Sadar Kanoongo and his caste has been mentioned as Dhangar in the attestation form and service record and the endorsement "verified" has been put in by the official handling the aforesaid document.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant further contends that matter pertaining to grant/verification/cancellation of certificate of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes/O.B.C. was considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Page 4 of 13 O.A./417/2009 Additional Tribes Development reported in the A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 94-1994(6) S.C.C. 241-1994(5) J.T. 488 decided on 02.09.1994 wherein certain directions were given according to which there was to be a Caste Scrutiny Committee which was to be of state level and was inter alia to comprise of officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of social certificate. Similarly, each Directorate was to constitute a vigilance cell. Vigilance Cell was to consist of senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in overall incharge and such members of Inspectors of Police to investigate in social status claims. It was further directed that the Inspector should go to residence. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all facts, he should examine school records, he should examine parent/candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate with all particulars. Accordingly to these directions Director concerned on receipt of report and in the event of claim of social status being found in the report to be "not genuine" or doubtful or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed then the Director concerned shall issue show cause notice supplying copy of the report of the vigilance officer and after receipt of reply, convene the Caste Scrutiny Committee with the Joint/Addi. Secretary as Chairperson who shall give all reasonable opportunity to candidate/parent to adduce evidence. Public notice may be given after giving opportunity. It was further directed that the committee (Caste Scrutiny Committee) may make such enquiry as it may deem expedient and consider claims vis- à-vis objections by candidate or opponent and pass order with brief reasons in support thereof. It was further directed that if after inquiry the scrutiny committee finds the claim to be false or spurious they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and disclaiming the same. The order passed by the committee was to be final and conclusive only subject to proceedings under Article 226. No suit or other proceedings before any authority would lie. He argues that these directions/guidelines given by Hon'ble Supreme Court were considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Daya Ram Vs. Sudhir Batham reported in Page 5 of 13 O.A./417/2009 2011(12) J.T. 174 and they were held to be given by Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 142, 32 Constitution of India and they were complete code in itself. In paragraph No. 23 of Dayaram's case it was further held that if there is to be legislation governing or regulating grant of caste certificate, if caste certificate are issued after due and proper enquiry then such caste certificates will not call for verification by the Scrutiny Committee. He states that in pursuance of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Km. Madhuri Patil's case and order dated 27.10.1995 by Lucknow Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad in Writ Petition No. 2884 (M.B.) of 1995 (Dr. Anand Pratap Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Others) and in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation) Act Government of Uttar Pradesh issued Government Order dated 05.01.1996. The aforesaid Government Order dated 05.01.1996 laid down the mechanism for verification of caste certificates in the light of directions of the Madhuri Patil. Learned counsel for the applicant argues that the above procedure was not followed in the case of the applicant.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant also submitted that as per the decision of Supreme Court as well as High Courts as well as by decision of Principal Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 15.05.2013 in Original Application No. 309 of 2013 (Km. Mithlesh Verma Vs. Government of N.C.T. of Delhi) & Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in 2014(3) A.D.J. 595 (Bindra Prashad Gond Vs. State of U.P.), the Tehsildar had no jurisdiction either to verify the validity of the caste certificate or cancel the caste certificate. At best he was required only to report as to whether the caste certificate had been issued by him or not but he did not do so. The Division Bench of Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 68285 of 2012 (Kamlesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others) has also held that Tehsildar has no power to cancel the caste certificate. Similar view has been expressed in 2014(8) A.D.J. 690 (D.B.) (Praveen Kumar Vs. State of U.P.). The jurisdiction to verify the caste certificate and whether it should be Page 6 of 13 O.A./417/2009 validated or invalidated is that of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and not the Tehsildar who will have no jurisdiction once the caste certificate has been issued.
8. The applicant's counsel has further averred that the Tehsildar submitted his report dated 16.11.2006 solely on the basis of report dated 18.10.2006 submitted by the Lekhpal solely on which the Incharge Revenue Inspector based his report and the applicant was not associated with any inquiry prior to submission of report dated 18.10.2006 by the Lekhpal and the Revenue Inspector nor the applicant was associated with any inquiry prior to submission of report dated 16.11.2006 by the Tehsildar or even prior to submission of reports dated 24.07.2007 and 06.08.2007 and neither of their authors were produced by the department in the disciplinary proceedings depriving the applicant of cross-examining them. He states that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 1100 (Rajiv Arora Vs. Union of India) that principles of natural justice demand that maker of the report should be examined. He submits that the disciplinary authority has held in punishing order that it was not clear that the caste certificate submitted by applicant is forged and it was not proved that act of the applicant in submitting the caste certificate was malafide. The applicant was at the fag end of his service career who retired on 30.06.2008. The factum that petitioner belongs to Dhangar (धनगर) is further corroborated from the fact that during pendency of present original application the Competent Officer/Tehsildar has issued scheduled caste certificate dated 06.10.2015 in favour of applicant certifying that applicant belongs to Dhangar (धनगर) which is a schedule caste.
9. Submission of learned counsel for the respondents is that the applicant had produced a fake caste certificate demonstrating that he belonged to Dhangar Community of Scheduled Caste while as a matter of fact, he belongs to Gadaria community of OBC and since the applicant had forged a caste certificate, he has rightly been punished with removal from services after due procedure. It Page 7 of 13 O.A./417/2009 is further submitted that once the Tehsildar Dhampur District Bijnor has verified that the applicant belongs to Gadaria community of OBC, then there is no validity and/ or legality of the Caste Certificate issued earlier showing that the applicant belonged to Dhangar community of Scheduled Caste and the same shall automatically be proved to be forged one. He states that it is true that the District Magistrate Bijnor vide letter dated 22.09.2007 had directed all the Tehsildars not to cancel the caste certificate of persons belonging to Dhangar community of Scheduled Caste while in the present case, the issue is as to whether the applicant belonged to Dhangar community of Scheduled Caste or Gaderia community of OBC between which there is no similarity and the Tehsildar Dhampur District Bijnor has already verified that the applicant belongs to Gadaria community of OBC. Thus, the appellate authority, after going through the points raised by the applicant and after examining entire evidence on record, has rightly dismissed the appeal of the applicant by means of a reasoned and speaking order.
10. We have heard the rival submissions of learned counsel appearing for both the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
11. The main issue involved in this case is whether the applicant's caste certificate produced at the time of appointment certifying him as belonging to the Dhangar caste which is admittedly a Scheduled Caste is genuine or not since the same has been alleged by the respondents as being forged based on the departmental inquiry report and on the basis of which the applicant has been penalized with removal from service. The impugned removal order dated 20.06.2008 reads as follows:-
"The charges are framed against CO on the basis of Ex. P-3 i.e. verification of caste certificate issued by Tehsildar Dhampur, in which it is mentioned that Charged official belonging to "Gadaria Caste(OBC)" As per the Scheduled Caste and Schedules Tribes orders (Amendment) Act, 1956 Gadaria caste does not belongs to Scheduled Caste. On the other hand the investigation is silent for caste certificate submitted by the CO at the time of initial appointment is a false/forged document or wrongly issued by the State Page 8 of 13 O.A./417/2009 Government. This aspect was also not cleared in the D&AR enquiry and also no comments were given by the IO. The IO proved the charge against CO simply and did not comment on the malafide intention; where as the charge against the CO is of malicious forgery. The conclusion 10 report is on the basis of only Ex. P-3 which is a document issued by Tehsildar Dhampur which shows only the CO is of Gadaria caste (OBC) but not attested or not given any comments on the caste certificate issued on 27.08.1973. Thus it is not clear the caste certificate submitted by the CO is a forged document. In view of the above it is very clear that the caste of the CO is "Gadaria" not "Dhangar" which does not come under SC at the time of appointment of the CO. In what circumstances he submitted an SC certificate is not clear & the act of the CO is malafide is also not proved at any stage. The clarification of the CO that he purchased a land from the SC community thus is an SC candidate is not at all acceptable in view of Ex. P-3. The charge against CO that he submitted an SC certificate whereas he does not belong to SC community at the time of appointment is proved beyond any doubt. Thus I conclude from the above that the CO is guilty of submitting an SC certificate and getting its benefit wrongly. So I am imposing penalty of "Removal from service" against the CO.
12. It can be easily drawn from the above order that there is no clear proof regarding the caste certificate dated 27.08.1973 submitted by the applicant being forged or false since the Tehsildar Dhampur has neither attested nor given any comments on the same. As per the document issued by the Tehsildar, the respondents have concluded that the applicant belongs to the Gadaria caste which comes under OBC and not Dhangar which is a Scheduled Caste. The applicant has contended that Dhangar is a sub-caste of the Gadaria caste and it comes under Scheduled Castes category. The caste certificate issued on 06.10.2015 annexed at page 102 (Annexure A-12 of the OA) upholds the claim of the applicant that he belongs to the Dhangar caste which is undisputedly a Scheduled Caste.
13. So far as the procedure of the departmental inquiry is concerned, the respondents have given no clarification on the allegation of the applicant that he has not been given the opportunity of cross-examining the authors of the reports dated 18.10.2006, 16.11.2006, 24.07.2007 and 06.08.2007 which form the basis of indictment of the applicant. Thus, the inquiry has not been held properly as per the rules. In addition to this, apparently, the Page 9 of 13 O.A./417/2009 procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Tribes Development reported in the A.I.R. 1995 S.C. 94-1994(6) S.C.C. 241-1994(5) J.T. 488 decided on 02.09.1994 for Caste Scrutiny has also not been followed in the instant case. The said procedure as prescribed in para 13 of the above judgement is as follows:-
"13....It is, therefore, necessary that the certificates issued are scrutinised at the earliest and with utmost expedition and promptitude. For that purpose, it is necessary to streamline the procedure for the issuance of social status certificates, their scrutiny and their approval, which may be the following:
1. The application for grant of social status certificate shall be made to the Revenue Sub-Divisional Officer and Deputy Collector or Deputy Commissioner and the certificate shall be issued by such officer rather than at the Officer, Taluk or Mandal level.
2. The parent, guardian or the candidate, as the case may be, shall file an affidavit duly sworn and attested by a competent gazetted officer or non-gazetted officer with particulars of castes and sub-castes, tribe, tribal community, parts or groups of tribes or tribal communities, the place from which he originally hails from and other particulars as may be prescribed by the Directorate concerned.
3. Application for verification of the caste certificate by the Scrutiny Committee shall be filed at least six months in advance before seeking admission into educational institution or an appointment to a post.
4. All the State Governments shall constitute a Committee of three officers, namely, (1) an Additional or Joint Secretary or any officer higher in rank of the Director of the department concerned, (11) the Director, Social Welfare/Tribal Welfare/Backward Class Welfare, as the case may be, and (III) in the case of Scheduled Castes another officer who has intimate knowledge in the verification and issuance of the social status certificates.
In the case of the Scheduled Tribes, the Research Officer who has intimate knowledge in identifying the tribes, tribal communities, parts of or groups of tribes or tribal communities.
5. Each Directorate should constitute a vigilance cell consisting of Senior Deputy Superintendent of Police in over-all charge and such number of Police Inspectors to investigate into the social status claims. The Inspector would go to the local place of residence and original place from which the candidate hails and usually resides or in case of migration to the town or city, the place from which he Page 10 of 13 O.A./417/2009 originally hailed from. The vigilance officer should personally verify and collect all the facts of the social status claimed by the candidate or the parent or guardian, as the case may be. He should also examine the school records, birth registration, if any. He should also examine the parent, guardian or the candidate in relation to their caste etc. or such other persons who have knowledge of the social status of the candidate and then submit a report to the Directorate together with all particulars as envisaged in the pro forma, in particular, of the Scheduled Tribes relating to their peculiar anthropological and ethnological traits, deity, rituals, customs, mode of marriage, death ceremonies, method of burial of dead bodies etc. by the castes or tribes or tribal communities concerned etc.
6. The Director concerned, on receipt of the report from the vigilance officer if he found the claim for social status to be "not genuine" or 'doubtful' or spurious or falsely or wrongly claimed, the Director concerned should issue show-cause notice supplying a copy of the report of the vigilance officer to the candidate by a registered post with acknowledgement due or through the head of the educational institution concerned in which the candidate is studying or employed. The notice should indicate that the representation or reply, if any, would be made within two weeks from the date of the receipt of the notice and in no case on request not more than 30 days from the date of the receipt of the notice.
In case, the candidate seeks for an opportunity of hearing and claims an inquiry to be made in that behalf, the Director on receipt of such representation/reply shall convene the committee and the Joint/Additional Secretary as Chairperson who shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate/parent/guardian to adduce all evidence in support of their claim. A public notice by beat of drum or any other convenient mode may be published in the village or locality and if any person or association opposes such a claim, an opportunity to adduce evidence may be given to him/it. After giving such opportunity either in person or through counsel, the Committee may make such inquiry as it deems expedient and consider the claims vis-a-vis the objections raised by the candidate or opponent and pass an appropriate order with brief reasons in support thereof.
7. In case the report is in favour of the candidate and found to be genuine and true, no further action need be taken except where the report or the particulars given are procured or found to be false or fraudulently obtained and in the latter event the same procedure as is envisaged in para 6 be followed.
8. Notice contemplated in para 6 should be issued to the parents/guardian also in case candidate is minor to appear before the Committee with all evidence in his or their support of the claim for the social status certificates.
9. The inquiry should be completed as expeditiously as possible preferably by day-to-day proceedings within such period not exceeding two months. If after inquiry, the Caste Scrutiny Page 11 of 13 O.A./417/2009 Committee finds the claim to be false or spurious, they should pass an order cancelling the certificate issued and confiscate the same. It should communicate within one month from the date of the conclusion of the proceedings the result of enquiry to the parent/guardian and the applicant.
10. In case of any delay in finalising the proceedings, and in the meanwhile the last date for admission into an educational institution or appointment to an officer post, is getting expired, the candidate be admitted by the Principal or such other authority competent in that behalf or appointed on the basis of the social status certificate already issued or an affidavit duly sworn by the parent/guardian/candidate before the competent officer or non-official and such admission or appointment should be only provisional, subject to the result of the inquiry by the Scrutiny Committee.
11. The order passed by the Committee shall be final and conclusive only subject to the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
12. No suit or other proceedings before any other authority should lie.
13. The High Court would dispose of these cases as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months. In case, as per its procedure, the writ petition/miscellaneous petition/matter is disposed of by a Single Judge, then no further appeal would lie against that order to the Division Bench but subject to special leave under Article 136.
14. In case, the certificate obtained or social status claimed is found to be false, the parent/guardian/the candidate should be prosecuted for making false claim. If the prosecution ends in a conviction and sentence of the accused, it could be regarded as an offence involving moral turpitude, disqualification for elective posts or offices under the State or the Union or elections to any local body, legislature or Parliament.
15. As soon as the finding is recorded by the Scrutiny Committee holding that the certificate obtained was false, on its cancellation and confiscation simultaneously, it should be communicated to the educational institution concerned or the appointing authority by registered post with acknowledgement due with a request to cancel the admission or the appointment. The Principal etc. of the educational institution responsible for making the admission or the appointing authority, should cancel the admission/appointment without any further notice to the candidate and debar the candidate from further study or continue in office in a post."
14. In view of the above facts and discussions, we come to the conclusion that the caste certificate of the applicant dated 27.08.1973 has not been proved to be forged/ false as is clear from the impugned order dated 20.06.2008 itself, the disciplinary Page 12 of 13 O.A./417/2009 inquiry has not been held as per rules providing ample opportunity to the applicant for cross-examining the authors of the documents relied upon to prove the charges against him and the caste scrutiny has not been done as per the procedure laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Tribes Development (Supra) which requires the constitution of a Caste Scrutiny Committee of state level, issuing a show cause notice if the claim of social status in the report is found to be spurious after the vigilance officer has personally made the verification by visiting the residence of the claimant and after the receipt of reply, the Caste Scrutiny Committee has to be convened which shall give reasonable opportunity to the candidate to adduce evidence in support of his claim etc. Thus, the validation or invalidation of the Caste Certificate is within the authority of the Caste Scrutiny Committee and not the Tehsildar.
15. Accordingly, the present Original Application is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to conduct a scrutiny of the applicant's caste certificate dated 27.08.1973 as per the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil Vs. Additional Tribes Development (supra) as quoted above in paragraph 13 of this order and if the aforesaid caste certificate of the applicant is found to be genuine, the impugned removal order dated 20.06.2008 and appellate order dated 02.01.2009 shall stand quashed and the respondents shall pay the applicant the backwages, G.P.F, Gratuity and all retiral dues along with the arrears with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
16. Thus, the O.A. stands disposed of with the above directions. All the associated M.As. also stand disposed of. No costs.
(Mohan Pyare) ( Justice Om Prakash VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Madhu
Page 13 of 13