Karnataka High Court
Pallavi Vastrad vs The State Of Karnataka on 8 November, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
WRIT PETITION NO.11958 OF 2023 (EDN-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. PALLAVI VASTRAD
W/O P S VASTRAD
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS
R/AT NO.301, J S GRANDE APARTMENT,
POORNA PRASAD ROAD
OFF RACE COURSE ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
2. SATISH HANUMAIAH
S/O LATE HANUMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
R/AT NO.568, 9TH MAIN ROAD,
VIJAYANAGAR MC LAYOUT
BANGALORE-560040
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGI, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. ANJANA C.H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,
2
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE UNDER SECRETARY
(UNIVERSITY 2)
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001
3. THE REGISTRAR
VISVESVARAYA TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
JNANA SANGAMA, BELAGAVI-590018
4. DR. H.S. MANJULA
MAJOR, PROFESSOR
COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT, UVCE, K.R. CIRCLE
BENGALURU - 560 001
5. DR. REDDAPPA H.N
MAJOR
ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
TRAINING & PLACEMENT DIVISION
UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
K.R. ROAD, V.V. PURAM
BENGALURU - 560 004
6. THE UNDER SECRETARY
TECHNICAL EDUCATION
HIGHER EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001
....RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, AG FOR
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R1 & R6
SRI. SANTOSH S. NAGARALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3
SRI. RAVI VARMA KUMAR, SR. ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. BELLE RAVIVARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5)
3
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES
226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE NOTIFICATION BEARING NO ED/100/UBV/
2023 DATED 24/05/2023 ISSUED BY THE R2 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND QUASHING THE NOTIFICATION
BEARING NO.VTU/PS/2023-24/1176 DATED 02/06/2023
VIDE ANNEXURE B ISSUED BY THE R3 WHEREBY THE
NOMINATION AND APPOINTMENT OF THE PETITIONERS
AS MEMBERS OF EXECUTIVE COUNCIL OF VISVESVARAYA
TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY WAS WITHDRAWN.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 26.10.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs:
1. Issue a writ of Certiorari quashing the notification bearing No.ED/100/UBV/2023 dated 24.05.2023 issued by the respondent No.2 vide Annexure-A.
2. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the notification bearing No.VTU/PS/2023-
24/1176 dated 02.06.2023 vide Annexure- B, issued by the respondent No.3 whereby the nomination and appointment of the 4 petitioners as members of executive council of Vishvesvaraya Technological University was withdrawn.
3. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the notification bearing No.ED323 TEC 2022 dated 26.06.2023 passed by the respondent No.6 vide Annexure-E.
4. Issue any other writ or order/s as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts leading rise to filing of this writ petition are as under:
The petitioners were nominated as members of Executive Council of Visvesvaraya Technological University (VTU) as per the notification dated 25.03.2023, as Government nominees under Section 19(3)(d) of The Karnataka Visvesvaraya Technological University Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1994', for short), w.e.f. 23.03.2023, for a 5 period of 3 years. The term of office of the petitioners as members of Executive Council was prescribed for a period of 3 years. After change in the Government post election, respondent No.2 issued notification dated 24.05.2023, whereby nomination made by the preceding Government to the Syndicate / Executive Council / Executive Committee, etc., to various universities were revoked or withdrawn. Pursuant to the said notification, respondent No.3 issued a notification dated 02.06.2023, notifying that the membership of the petitioners on the 9th Executive Council of VTU was withdrawn and nominated respondents Nos.4 and 5 as members of Executive Council vide notification issued by respondent No.6.
Respondents No.2 and 3 issued impugned notifications dated 24.05.2023 and 02.06.2023, which are arbitrary, without application of mind. Hence, the 6 petitioners aggrieved by the impugned notifications, filed this writ petition.
3. Respondents No.1 and 6 jointly filed statement of objections contending that respondent No.2 issued a notification dated 24.05.2023, whereby the appointments and nominations made by the preceding Government to the Syndicate / Executive Council, etc., were revoked or withdrawn. Pursuant to the said notification, respondent No.3 issued a notification dated 02.06.2023, the membership of the petitioners on the 9th Executive Council of VTU as withdrawn. It is contended that a person nominated does not have any vested right to the post. The nomination is an honorary nomination. It is contended that the rights created by a statute can also be limited or curtailed by such statute and in the absence of some other competing right under the statute or under the Constitution of India, right to 7 post cannot be claimed. It is contended that the doctrine of pleasure can be impliedly read in a provision and once the doctrine of pleasure is applicable, neither the principles of natural justice nor question of giving an opportunity before removal, would arise. It is contended that even though it is not wholly unregulated, the power avails to the State Government to curtail duration of nomination/ recall/withdraw nomination as a matter of policy. It is contended that the initial nomination of petitioners Nos.1 and 2 itself depended on the pleasure and subjective satisfaction of the Government. If such appointments made initially by nomination was based on political consideration, there can be no violation of any of the provisions of the Constitution, in case the legislature authorized the State Government to terminate such appointments at its pleasure and to nominate new members in their place. It is contended 8 that the petitioners have no legally vested right to demand that they may continue the membership of the Executive Council for a period of 3 years and hence, prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
4. Heard Sri. Prabhuling Navadagi, learned senior counsel for the petitioners and Sri. Shashikiran Shetty, learned Advocate General for respondents No.1 and 6; Sri. Ravivarma Kumar, learned senior counsel for respondents No.4 and 5.
5. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were nominated as Executive Council members of VTU vide notification dated 23.03.2023, under Section 19(3)(d) of the Act of 1994, for a term of 3 years. He submits that there is no situation which gives rise to the termination of the office as contemplated under Section 47 of the Act of 1994. He submits that the premature termination 9 of the petitioners as a members of Executive Council is unsustainable. He submits that no reasons have been assigned for termination of the petitioners as members of Executive Council. He submits that there is violation of established principles of rule of law and Government cannot arbitrarily revoke or withdraw the nomination under the garb of doctrine of pleasure, since the discretion of the pleasure has to be exercised reasonably. In order to buttress his argument he has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. B.P. Singhal V. Union of India & Ors.
(2010) 6 SCC 331
2. Dnyaneshwar Digamber Kamble V. State of Maharashtra & Ors.
2015 SCC Online Bom 6597:
(2016) 1 Mah LJ 602
3. B.K. Uday kumar V. State of Karnataka, by its Principal Secretary to Government and Ors. 2020 SCC Online Kar 43:
(2020)3 Kant LJ 100 (DB)
4. G. Ashok Kumar V. State of Karnataka & Ors. WP No.33296/2019 (S-TR) 10 Order dated 21.10.2019 passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka
5. State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. V. K. Shyam Sunder & Ors. (2011)8 SCC 737
6. Kumari Shrilekha Vidyarthi & Ors V. State of UP & Ors. (1991) 1 SCC 212 He further submits that the impugned notifications issued by the respondents No.2, 3 and 6 are without application of mind. He submits that the power of withdrawal of pleasure can be used reasonably and only for public good. He submits that the withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sheer will, whims and fancies of the State Government. He further submits that merely because some other political party has come into power, the political party should not be subversive of the rule of law. The impugned notifications issued by respondents No.2, 3 and 6 are arbitrary and same are liable to be set aside. Hence prayed to allow the writ petition.
11
6. Per contra, learned Advocate General submits that the petitioners have been nominated, but they are not appointed and they do not have vested right to continue as executive members of VTU. He submits that at the time of exercising doctrine of pleasure, principles of natural justice need not be followed. Nominated members cannot be equated with the elected members and the scope for judicial review for the exercise of such power is limited. He further submits that nominating authority has the inherent right to terminate their appointment at any time. He submits that the petitioners were nominated on the recommendation of the then Hon'ble Chief Minister. He submits that when the petitioners are nominated as the representatives of the Government, they can enjoy the confidence of the Government, but they cannot have vested rights. The petitioners were nominated on the pleasure of the Government. He 12 further submits that there is no procedure prescribed for nomination of the members of the executive council. He further submits that no reasons are required to withdraw the nomination of the petitioners. In order to buttress his arguments, he has placed reliance on the following judgments:
1. State of U.P. vs. State Law Officers' Assn., (1994) 2 SCC 204
2. Om Narain Agarwal vs. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur, (1993) 2 SCC 242
3. H. Rajaiah vs. State of Karnataka, 2000 SCC Online Kar 143
4. A.M.Bhaskar vs. State of Karnataka, 2013 SCC Online Kar 5315
5. Cheviti Venkanna Yadav vs. State of Telangana, (2017) 1 SCC 283
6. Dr. Jagannatha Reddy vs. State of Karnataka, W.P.No.5945/2015
7. Arvind Guruji vs. Under Secretary to Government of Karnataka Higher Education, W.P.No.200108/2018
8. The State of Karnataka vs. Dr. Deepthi Bhava & Ors., W.A.No.617/2021
9. Dr. Govindaraju vs. State of Karnataka, W.A.No.669/2021
10. S.M.Hurakadli vs. State of Karnataka, W.P.No.102631/2021 13
11. Krishna vs. State of Maharashtra, (2001) 2 SCC 441 He submits that the petitioners have no right to challenge the impugned notifications. Hence prayed to dismiss the writ petition.
7. Sri. Ravivarma Kumar, learned senior counsel for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that Section 19 of the Act of 1994, provides authorities of the University. Section 19(3) provides that the Executive Council shall consist of Vice-Chancellor, ex-officio Chairman, Secretary to the Government in-charge of Higher Education or his nominee not less than the rank of Deputy Secretary to the Government. Section 19(3)(d) of the Act of 1994 provides that "three representatives of the Government of Karnataka nominated by the State Government, one of whom shall be the Director of Technical Education" and Section 19(3)(g) of the Act of 1994 provides that "two 14 eminent persons connected with Engineering, Technology or allied sciences education co-opted by the Council". He submits that the petitioners were appointed at the pleasure of the Government and subsequently the Government has withdrawn the nomination of the petitioners. He submits that there need not be any reasons to withdraw the nomination of the petitioners. He further submits that as per Article 155 of the Constitution of India, the Governor was appointed by the President and not nominated. He submits that the judgment in the case of B.P.SINGHAL (SUPRA) is not applicable to the case in hand. He submits that the petitioners are nominated and he submits that any person nominated to the Executive Council, does not have any vested right to the post. He submits that when the Government nominates another person and communicates to the concerned, it will automatically indicate that the 15 pleasure exercised is to nominate a different person to be on the Executive Council and that action would extinguish the earlier nomination. He submits that the petitioners are required to accept the position gracefully as there is no requirement to terminate either with or without compliance of principles of natural justice, like in the case of appointment to a post and further he also places reliance on the judgment placed on record by the respondent - State. In support of his submissions, he has relied on the following judgments:
1. Om Narain Agarwal and Others V. Nagara Pali Sahjahanapur and Others [1993(2) SCC 242]
2. Sadandaiah V. State of Karnataka [ILR 1993 Kar 3119]
3. Vishnu V. State of Karnataka [1995(6)KarLJ 95]
4. Krishna S/o Bulaji Borate V. State of Maharashtra [2001(2) SCC 441
5. Premalatha V. State of Karnataka [2002 (1) KCCR 424] 16
6. Ramangoud v. State of Karnataka [2002(2) KLJ 327
7. Khusro Quraish V. State of Karnataka WP No.38946/2010
8. Sri. A.M. Bhaskar V. State of Karnataka WP No.25964-25967/2013 and WA 5445-5446/2013 (Dismissed)
9. Cheviti Venkanna Yadav V. State of Telangana 2017(1)SCC 283
10. The State of Karnataka V. Dr. Deepthi Bhava WA 617/2021 On these grounds, he prays to dismiss the writ petition.
8. Perused the records and considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
9. The issue that requires consideration is as to whether the action of taking away the petitioners from the Executive Council is to be considered as arbitrary, capricious or unreasonable?.
17
10. The petitioners have contributed in the field of education. They were nominated as members of Executive Council of VTU vide notification dated 25.03.2023 as per Section 19(3)(d) of the Act of 1994 for a period of 3 years and the same expires with the term of 9th Executive Council of VTU. That in the month of May 2023, elections were held for the Members of Assembly. A new Government came into power in the State of Karnataka and started undoing what was done by the previous Government under the pressure of various political parties. On 24.05.2023, respondent No.2 issued a notification whereby the appointments and nominations made by the preceding Government to various committees in various universities were revoked. Pursuant to the said notification dated 24.05.2023, the membership of the petitioners on 9th Executive Council of VTU was revoked vide notification dated 02.06.2023. The 18 respondent No.6 vide notification dated 26.08.2023 vide Annexure-E, nominated respondents No.4 and 5 as Members of Executive Council of VTU under Section 19(3)(d) of Act of 1994, in place of petitioners. In order to consider the case in hand, it is necessary to examine Section 19 of the Act, which reads as under:
'Section 19(3)(d) enumerate that there can be only three representatives of Government of Karnataka nominated by the State Government one of whom shall be the Director of Technical Education.' Sub section 4 provides, the term of office of the Members of the Executive Council shall be 3 years.
From the perusal of the Act of 1994, there is no specific procedure contemplated to nominate a person. The person thus nominated by the nominating authority will therefore remain on the executive council until he/she enjoys the pleasure of nominating authority.19
11. Section 47 deals with the vacating of office, which reads as under:
'Section 47 enumerate the post of membership falls vacant if any member resigns or convicted by Court of law for an offence which involves moral turpitude'.
12. Though there is no provision prescribed under the Act of 1994, for removal of membership of the Executive Council, Section 16 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which deals with power to appoint to include power to suspend or dismiss, which reads as under:
"16. Power to appoint to include power to suspend or dismiss. - Where, by any Central Act or Regulation, a power to make any appointment is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, the authority having for the time being power to make the appointment shall also have power to suspend or dismiss any person appointed whether by itself or any other authority in exercise of that power."20
Section 16 provides that if a person is appointed under any Act or Regulation, the authority may have power to suspend or dismiss.
13. Section 21 deals with the power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind the notifications, orders, rules or byelaws, which reads as under:
"21. Power to issue, to include power to add to, amend, vary or rescind notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws. - Where, by any Central Act or Regulations a power to issue notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws is conferred, then that power includes a power, exercisable in the like manner and subject to the like sanction and conditions (if any), to add to, amend, vary or rescind any notifications, orders, rules or bye-laws so issued."
Section 21 empowers an authority which has power to issue notification, has undoubted power to rescind or modify the notification in the like manner. 21
14. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of RASID JAVED VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER reported in AIR 2010 SC 2275 held that, the authority which has a power to issue a notification has the power to rescind or modify the notification in the like manner. Though the nominating authority i.e., State issued the notifications nominating the petitioners as members of Executive Council. Subsequently, in view of change in the Government the nominating authority withdrawn the membership of the petitioners as Executive Members of Council and nominated respondent Nos.4 and 5. In view of the same, the petitioners are required to accept the position gracefully as there is no requirement to terminate either with or without the compliance of principles of natural justice like in the case of appointment of post.
22
15. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Cheviti Venkanna Yadav Vs. State of Telangana and others reported in (2017) 1 SCC 283 in para Nos. 33 and 34 held as under:
"33. The aforesaid argument suffers from a fallacy. The members were not elected. They were not appointed by any kind of selection. They were chosen by the State Government from certain categories. The status of the members has been changed by amending the word 'appointed' by substituting it with the word 'nominated'. Thus, the legislature has retrospectively changed the meaning. In our considered opinion, by virtue of the amendment, the term which has been reduced for a nominted member stands on a different footing. In Om Narain Agarwal Vs. Nagar Palika, Shahjahanpur (SCC p.254, para
11) it has been held that if an appointment has been made initially by nomination, there can be no violation of any provision of the Constitution in case the legislature authorized the State Government to terminate such appointment at its pleasure and to nominate 23 new members in their place. It is because the nominated members do not have the will or authority of any residents of the Municipal Board behind them as may be present in the case of an elected member. The Court further observed that such provision neither offends any article of the Constitution nor is the same against any public policy or democratic norms enshrined in the Constitution.
34. The word 'appointment' has been substituted by 'nomination'. It is an appointment by nomination. It is from certain categories for the purpose of representation.
It is not appointment as the word ordinarily connotes. The legislature, in its wisdom, has substituted the word 'appointment' and made it 'nomination with retrospective effect'. To enable it to curtail or reduce the term, the procedure for removal remains intact. A nominee can go from office by efflux of time when the period is over. That is different than when he is removed. A nominated member, in praesenti, can also be removed by adopting the procedure during the period. Otherwise, he shall continue till his term is over; and the 24 term is one year. The plea of vested right is like building a castle in Spain. It has no legs to stand upon and, therefore, we unhesitatingly repel the said submission."
16. It is well settled legal proposition that rights created by statute can also be curtailed by such a statute and in the absence of some other competing right under the statute or under the Constitution of India, right to the post cannot be claimed. It is equally well settled legal proposition that doctrine of pleasure can be impliedly read in a provision and once the doctrine of pleasure is applicable neither the principles of natural justice nor question of giving an opportunity before removal would arise and does not provide any provision for removal of members of Executive Council. In the absence of any specific provision which provides for removal of Executive Council, clause 16 and 21 of the General clauses Act, 1897 would apply.
25
17. The Hon'ble Division bench of this Court in writ Appeal No.617/2021 in the case of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. DR. DEEPTI BHAVA AND OTHERS , held that in the absence of any specific provision in the Act for removal of the nominated members prior to reconstitution of senate or Syndicate, the provisions of Sections 21 and 24 of the Act have to be read along with Sections 16 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Therefore, the State Government has power to recall the nominations of the persons, nominated to the senate or Syndicate even before reconstitution of senate or Syndicate in its entirety. As observed above, the VTU Act does not contain a clause to removal of the Member of the Executive Council. Sections 16 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1987, have to be read into and the power to nominate carries with it the power to remove. Applying the provisions of the Sections 16 and 21 of the General Clauses Act, the 26 Government is well within its power to remove or to withdraw the petitioners' membership of the Executive Council.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.P. SINGHAL (SUPRA). The said judgment does not come to the rescue of the petitioners in any way. The said judgment was rendered in the context of removal of the Governor of a State. Governor is appointed by the President under Article 55 of the Constitution of India and the Governor will act as a link between the Union Government and State Government.
19. In the case of KUMARI SHRILEKHA VIDYARTHI AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 212, the District Government Counsel were appointed following the 27 issuance of notifications, prescription of qualifications and experience and preparations of the panels etc. The procedure prescribed by legal remembrancer's manual was scrupulously followed while making appointment to the offices of the Government Counsel.
20. In the instant case, it is not the case of the petitioners that applications were called for from the desirous educationist for being nominated to the member of the Executive Council. The judgments placed and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the present case in hand.
21. The Co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of A.M BHASKAR AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION (UNIVERSITY) reported in ILR 2013 KAR 4182 had considered the 28 judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court as referred above and held that the said judgments have been rendered in the case of appointment and not nomination and further held that the petitioners have no legally vested right to demand that they be continued as the members of the Syndicate for the fixed period of 3 years. The petitioners are neither elected nor appointed, they are nominated and they will hold the office so long as Government does not withdraw its pleasure. The said decision is aptly applicable to the case in hand.
22. The learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submits that no reasons have been assigned for withdrawal of membership of the petitioners and he places a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division bench of Bombay High Court in the case of DNYANESHWARI DIGAMBER KAMBLE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in 2015 29 SCC ONLINE BOMBAY 6597 wherein it is held that withdrawal of pleasure cannot be at the sweet will, whim and fancy of the State Government and it can only be for valid reasons. Moreover, the power of withdrawal of pleasure can be used reasonably and only for public good and further he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of D.K.UDAYKUMAR VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in (2020) 3 KLJ 100, wherein the Hon'ble Division bench has reiterated the proposition of law laid down in the case OF DNYANESHWARI DIGAMBER KAMBLE referred (supra). The judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners are not applicable to the present case in hand.
23. Learned Advocate General has placed a reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF UP VS. UP STATE LAW OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, reported in (1994) 2 SCC 204 wherein 30 it is held that, when the nominations are made exercising the pleasure, they do not have vested right to that position and the nominating authority has the inherent right to terminate their appointment at any time.
24. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of OM NARAIN AGARWAL VS. NAGARPALIKA SHAHAJAHANPUR reported in (1993) 2 SCC 242 held that unequal cannot be treated equally, which is to say that nominated members cannot claim equity and the security of the elected members. He has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of H.RAJAIAH AND ORS. VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS., reported in ILR 2000 KAR 4989 wherein it is held that the scope of judicial review in the matters of nominations must be limited and cancellation of nomination cannot be invalidated, merely because of allegations of political consideration. 31
25. Further, the learned Advocate General placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. DR. DEEPTHI BHAVA AND OTHERS in W.A.No.718/2021 connected with other writ appeals, wherein it is held that there was no vested right to the nominated to the post when there is no procedure for removal of nominated members, the doctrine of pleasure can be impliedly read into the provision. Considering the judgments placed on record by the learned Advocate General, the issuance of nominating respondent Nos.3 and 4 and withdrawal of the petitioners as membership as a member of executive is legally valid under Section 19(3) of VTU Act, read with Sections 16 and 21 of the General Clauses Act. The removal of petitioners is a non-stigmatic and non- punitive. The petitioners have not made out any 32 grounds to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
SD/-
JUDGE RD/SSB/SKS