Bombay High Court
Mrs. Janaki R. Shetty vs The Collector Of Bombay And Ors. on 5 March, 1993
Equivalent citations: 1993(3)BOMCR648
JUDGMENT D.R. Dhanuka, J.
1. The petitioner carries on business in the name and style of M/s. Hotel Sunraj situate at Bandra, Bombay, as Sole Proprietress thereof. The said restaurant is situate at a distance of about 65.54 Sq. metres from St. Elaisis School and the Church.
2. On or about 7th August 1987, the petitioner made an application to the Collector of Bombay, Prohibition and Excise Department for issue of a licence popularly known as `Permit Room Licence' (i.e. F.L. III Licence) under Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 for sale of foreign liquor etc. at the above referred restaurant. The Deputy Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise by name of Shri Ghodke visited the restaurant and made his report to the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise. On 9th December 1987, the Government of Maharashtra informed the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise that the Permit Room Licence known as FL-III Licence be granted to the petitioner on the conditions set out therein. Condition No. 2 prescribed by the Government of Maharashtra in the said Order of sanction reads as under :
ere should be no approved educational institution or registered religious institution or bus stand, station or depot of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation or State or National Highway within 75 metres from the hotel."
On 14th December 1987, the Collector of Bombay communicated his decision to the petitioner to the effect that the request of the petitioner for grant of F.L. III Licence was granted subject to conditions set out therein. After the petitioner complied with the usual conditions prescribed by the Collectorate, the Collector of Bombay issued Licence No. 351 of 1987-88 in favour of the petitioner known as F.L. III Licence as contemplated under Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 permitting sale of foreign liquor at the said restaurant. Condition No. 2 prescribed by the said letter did not have sanction of law at the material time as no such distance restriction was then prescribed by Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 and Circular letter dated 4th September 1987 was not even published in the Official Gazette. As a matter of fad such a condition was not being followed by the authorities at the material time on uniform basis. The said licence was made operative for the period 14th December 1987 to 31st March, 1988. It is not disputed that these licences are normally renewed or regranted every year on 1st of April of each year unless the licence-holder has committed breach of the provisions of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 or the Rules or the valid conditions of licence in the meanwhile. The petitioner paid licence fee of Rs. 20,000/- as well as deposit of Rs. 5,000 to the Collector of Bombay and the Collector of Bombay authorized the petitioner to sell foreign liquors at the said restaurant situate at Rahat Manzil, 76, Ambedkar Road, Bandra (West), Bombay, by virtue of issue and operation of the said licence.
3. On 22nd February 1988, the Collector of Bombay issued a show cause notice to the petitioner calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the said licence should not be cancelled. It was stated in the said show cause notice that it had come to the notice of the Office of the Collector of Bombay that an educational and religious institution i.e. St. Elaisis School and Church existed within distance of 75 metres of the restaurant. There is no other dispute between the parties in respect of any other condition concerning the said Permit Room Licence or in respect of suitability of the premises or otherwise. By her Advocate's letter dated 7th March 1988 and 9th March 1988, the petitioner replied to the said show cause notice. By the said reply letters, the petitioner contended that the condition mentioned in licence dated 14th December, 1987 regarding the distance between the restaurant premises and the compound of the Church and the School was arbitrary and against the Rules. It was alleged by the Department that the petitioner had placed her signature on certain papers whereby the petitioner had agreed to the imposition of all the terms and conditions of licence as prescribed by the respondents. After granting personal hearing to the petitioner, the Collector of Bombay passed an order canceling the said licence on 24th March 1988. A copy of the said order is annexed as Exhibit `F' to the petition.
4. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise. By an order dated 11th April 1988, the Commissioner of Excise and Prohibition dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioner inter alia on the following ground:
"As regards the distance restrictions, Government has not laid down any distance restrictions in the case of Permit Rooms but the Government vide its Letter No. BPA. 1087/14(319)/PRO-2 dated 4th September 1987 has empowered the Collector to cancel any licence if the hotel etc. was near a Church or School. Hence the restriction of 75 metres imposed by the Collector is within his competence in forms of Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953."
This part of the reasoning is totally confusing and completely incorrect. The said Circular letter dated 4th September 1987 does not empower the Collector to cancel any licence if the hotel was situate near the Church or a School. Rule 45 of the said Rules was amended for the first time on 5th January 1990. Such a condition was prescribed by law for the first time on 5th January 1990. Amended Rule 45(1C) of the said Rules is prospective and not retrospective.
5. The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the orders passed by the Collector of Bombay canceling the above referred licence being order dated 24th March 1988 and the order passed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise dated 11th April 1988, copies whereof are at Exhibits `F' and `G' to the petition.
6. The petitioner has contended that the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise obviously misread the Government Circular dated 4th September 1987 and the impugned order dated 11th April 1988, thus suffers from patent error of law apparent on the face of the record. The petitioner has further contended that the condition of distance between the restaurant on the one hand and religious or educational institution on the other hand could have been prescribed by the Government of Maharashtra only in exercise of its rule making power under section 143 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 and not otherwise. In case of wine shop licence, such a condition was prescribed in the year 1981 by amending Rule 25 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. Similar amendment was not made in Rule 45 of the said Rules until 5th January, 1990. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited attention of the Court to the amendment made in Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 by Notification No. BPA. 1090/II-PRO-2, dated 5th January, 1990. Sub-rule (1C) of Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 as amended by the said notification reads as under :
"(1C) No licence under sub-rule (1B) shall be granted in respect of any hotel or restaurant which is situated within a distance of seventy-five meters from any educational or religious institution or from any bus stand, station or depot of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation or from the boundary of any National or State highway:
Provided that nothing contained in this sub-rule shall apply in respect of an existing hotel or restaurant for which a valid licence in Form FL-III is held by the Manager or Proprietor thereof immediately before coming into force of the Bombay Foreign Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 1990."
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said Rule is prospective in its application as obvious from the proviso to the said Rule and the petitioner cannot be made to suffer by unauthorized application of the said Rule by the Department with retrospective effect without authority of law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in any event the said Circular dated 4th September, 1987 or even the subsequent Circulars issued by the Government of Maharashtra in the month of June/July 1988 in respect of the subject matter under section 139(1)(n) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 could have no legal efficacy as the said Circulars were admittedly of a general nature and were never published in the Official Gazette as required by section 139(2) of the said Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the Proviso to the amended Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 clearly provides that the amended Rule shall have no application in respect of an existing hotel or restaurant for which a valid licence in Form FL III was held by the Manager or Proprietor thereof immediately coming into force of the Bombay Foreign Liquor (Amendment) Rules, 1990. The learned Counsel has submitted that in case the Court is persuaded to take the view that the impugned order of cancellation of licence Exhibit `A' to the petition was issued without authority of law, it would follow as a matter of consequential relief that the licence is deemed to have been regranted or renewed year after year on 1st of April of each succeeding year without payment of any licence fee and the petitioner's case should be treated on par with the cases where the owners of restaurant factually possessed valid licence F.L. III as on 5th January 1990. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has thus submitted that there being no other dispute between the parties on any other aspect concerning the said licence or observance of terms and conditions thereof by the petitioner, the Court should straightway issue a writ of mandamus or pass an order directing the Collector of Bombay to issue licence in Form FL-III in favour of the petitioner on the footing that the petitioner is deemed to have held a valid existing licence as on 5th January, 1990. In other words, the petitioner deserves to be treated on par with other licence-holders to whom similar licences were granted by the Collectorate and whose licences were not cancelled as that of the petitioner.
7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the petitioner has been singled out by the Department and there are several such cases where the licences in F.L. III have been granted by the Collector of Bombay to the owners of the restaurants even though the distance between the place where the restaurant is situate and the compound of the School or the religious institution is less than 75 metres. In para 15 of the affidavit in rejoinder filed by the petitioner, the petitioner has disclosed the names of at least 14 parties in support of her plea of discrimination. In this view of the matter, the concerned respondents were directed to check up facts from their respective files and reply to the allegation of discrimination as particularised in detail in para 15 of the said affidavit in rejoinder. In the affidavit of Shri Preetam Laxman Athavale, the Under Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, Home Department, being affidavit dated 16th February 1993, it is admitted by the respondents that at least in two cases, FL III licences were granted even though the restaurants concerned were situate within the distance of 75 metres from the religious or educational institution. It appears from the said affidavit that on 29th June, 1988 FL-III licence was granted to the Fingara Restaurant and on 24th May, 1988, FL III licence was granted to Hotel Sarvodaya. It is sought to be explained by para 2 of the said affidavit that FL III licence was granted to the Fingara Restaurant in breach of existing Circulars as a special case. In para 3 of the said affidavit, the deponent admitted that Hotel Sarvodaya was also situate at distance of 42 metres from the Jain Mandir at Malad. In 13 other cases, similar licences were granted at or about the same time even though the hotel was not situate beyond 75 metres from the educational institution or religious institution. A case of individuals discrimination is thus clearly proved by the petitioner having regard to the admissions made in the said affidavit dated 16th February, 1993. The explanation given in the said affidavit dated 16th February, 1993 for the differentiation made is totally unsatisfactory.
8. In the impugned order, the Commissioner of Excise and Prohibition has relied on Circular dated 4th September, 1987. I have carefully gone through the said Circular. The said Circular does not empower the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise to cancel any licence if the hotel is situate near a Church or a School. It is beyond my comprehension as to why the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise has read something in the Circular which the Circular does not contain at all. It was observed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in the impugned Appellate Order that the restriction of 75 metres imposed by the Collector was within his competence under Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules could not be amended by the Collector. The said rule was amended for first time on 5th January, 1990. The above referred ground for cancellation of licence shows non-application of mind to the relevant rules. The Appellate Authority obviously has not read Rule 45 of the said Rules or has misinterpreted the said Rule. Rule 45 of the said Rules did not contain any distance restriction prior to 5th January, 1990. A copy of the above referred Circular dated 4th September, 1987 is annexed as Exhibit "1" to the affidavit in reply made by Shri Suresh Atmaram Patel on 5th October, 1988. The subsequent Circulars dated 7th July, 1988 and other connected inter-departmental communication are Annexure `2' and `3' to the said affidavit. The relevant portion of the said Circular dated 4th September, 1987 states as under :
"Though presently there are no distance restrictions applicable to FL-III Licences from approved educational institute/religious institute or Bus Stand, Depot etc. of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, the Superintendent of Prohibition and Excise should mention whether such place is close to the Hotel/Restaurant".
The said Circular states nothing more on the subject under consideration.
9. Section 139(1) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 empowers the State Government to issue general instructions pertaining to the grant or otherwise of licences, permits, passes or authorizations under the Act. The State Government is thus entitled to issue instructions of general nature and prescribe distance between the place where the restaurant is situate on one hand and the educational or religious institution situate nearby on the other hand with reference to which the licence would be granted or refused as a relevant criteria, provided such general instructions are duly published in the Official Gazette. It is the mandate of the law that all such administrative or executive instructions, if of general nature, must necessarily be notified in the Official Gazette. The learned Counsel Shri Desai does not dispute that the requirement of publication in the Official Gazette prescribed under section 139(2) is a mandatory requirement. The learned Counsel for the respondents does not dispute that the above referred Circular dated 4th September, 1987 and the subsequent Circular dated 7th July, 1988 were not published in the Official Gazette although the said Circulars were of a general nature. Section 139(1)(n) of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 reads as under :
"(n) issue such other instructions in any manner pertaining to the grant or otherwise of licences, permits, passes or authorizations under this Act, as the State Government may deem proper."
Section 139(2) of the said Act reads as under :
"(2) An order made under sub-section (1) shall if it is of a general nature or affecting a class of persons, be notified in the Official Gazette."
Neither the Collector of Bombay nor the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise was entitled to prescribe such a condition for grant of licence. Even the State Government could not do so except in the manner prescribed by sections 143 and 139(1) and 139(2) of the Act. Thus the said licence could not have been cancelled by the Collector or by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise on the ground of alleged breach or non-observance of the said general Circulars which were not notified in the Official Gazette or the condition incorporated in the licence based on Circulars having no legal efficacy.
10. The learned Counsel Shri Desai submits that the conditions of licence were prescribed by the authorities under the order of sanction dated 9th December, 1987 (Exhibit 4 to the affidavit in reply) and the special order dated 14th December, 1987 addressed by the Collector of Bombay to M/s. Hotel Sunraj on 14th December, 1987, copy whereof is Exhibit `5' to the affidavit in reply. It cannot be forgotten that these special orders merely incorporated decision to incorporate particular condition in the licence to be issued on the basis of impugned Circulars referred to hereinabove. It is admitted that prior to 4th September, 1987, the Collector of Bombay used to grant Permit Room Licences to the various restaurants on their satisfying all other conditions, without reference to the criteria of distance between the place where the restaurant was situate and the place where the educational or religious institution was situate. Since the said Circulars have no legal efficacy and the said Order dated 14th December, 1987 issued by the Collector to M/s. Hotel Sunraj was passed merely in implementation of the said general Circular, it shall have to be held that the condition prescribed by the said Order dated 14th December 1987 to the effect that there should be no educational or religious institution within 75 metres from the hotel was illegally incorporated in the licence and the said condition was imposed on the petitioner without authority of law. The learned Counsel Mr. Desai submits that if one of the conditions prescribed by the respondents is held to be illegal, it would follow that the grant of licence to the petitioner was itself illegal. It is not possible to accept this submission. Various licences have been issued by the respondents to owners of various restaurants known as F.L. III licences notwithstanding the fact that such restaurants were situate within the distance of 75 metres from the educational or religious institution for many years until 5th January, 1990. It is, therefore, reasonable to hold that the licence Exhibit `A" to the petition was validly issued by the Collector of Bombay in favour of the petitioner and the Condition No. 2 prescribed by letter dated 14th December, 1987 (Exhibit `5' to the affidavit in reply) alone is liable to be ignored or treated as non-est or treated as prescribed without authority of law. The said condition could be prescribed by the authorities provided the relevant rules was amended or executive instructions were published in the Official Gazette and not by issue of unpublished Circulars. The legislative history of Rule 25 of Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 also supports the contention of the petitioner.
11. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the impugned order dated 24th March, 1988 passed by the Collector of Bombay and the impugned order dated 11th April, 1958 passed by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise must be treated as nullity.
12. The next question which arises for consideration of the Court is as to whether the Court must remand the matter to the Collector for consideration of fresh application for regrant or renewal of the licence to be made by the petitioner or whether the Court should straightway issue a writ of mandamus directing the authorities to regrant or renew the licence in favour of the petitioner on the petitioner paying the required fees payable for the licence for the period commencing from 1st April, 1993.
13. The learned Counsel Mr. Desai has submitted that the Court must take subsequent events into consideration while molding the relief to be granted. The learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that in view of amendment to Rule 45 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 by notification dated 5th January, 1990 it is not open to the Court or to the authorities to grant licence in favour of the petitioner as the restaurant of the petitioner is admittedly situate within a distance of 75 metres from the educational and religious institution referred to in the earlier part of this order. Perhaps there would have been some force in the submission if there was no Proviso appended to Rule 45(1C) of the said Rules. The said Proviso clearly indicates that pre-existing valid licences in respect of existing hotels or restaurants are not affected by the said amended Rule. The respondents contend that the petitioner did not hold valid licence in Form FL-III on 5th January, 1990 and the said Proviso is not applicable. This submission of the learned Counsel for the respondents suffers from the flaw of over-simplication. If the impugned cancellation of licence was and is a nullity and if it is the practice of the respondents to grant or renew yearly licence as a matter of course in absence of any breach of the Act, rules or conditions of licence by the licence holder and if no such breach is even alleged, it follows that status quo ante must be restored. For every wrong, there is a remedy. I am, therefore, satisfied that it shall have to be presumed that the petitioner held a valid licence in Form FL-III as on 5th January, 1990. The Court must grant appropriate consequential relief to the petitioner who is wronged by the statutory authority by illegal cancellation of the licence dated 14th December, 1987. The petitioner is entitled to all consequential relief's by way of restitution and rectification of injustice suffered by the petitioner once it is held that the impugned orders of cancellation of the said licence are null and void and the petitioner is entitled to be treated on par with the two cases referred to in the affidavit dated 16th February, 1993 where the respondents ignored the so called distance restriction as a special case. This presumptive finding is directly consequential to the finding that the impugned cancellation of the licence Exhibit `A' to the petition was a nullity and unsupported by any authority of law. If it would have been the case of the Department that the Department desired to verify as to whether the premises of the restaurant was suitable or not or that verify some other relevant aspect concerning grant, regrant or renewal of the licence is still to be scrutinized. I would have considered Mr. Desai's suggestion for remanding of the matter to the Collector of Bombay for re-hearing and passing of fresh orders in the matter. The learned Counsel for the respondents has frankly and fairly conceded that the only dispute between the parties is in respect of the situation of the restaurant premises within 75 metres of the situation of school and Church. If that is so, the Court must consider as to whether remanding of the matter to the Collector of Bombay would subserve and promote justice and as to whether the request of the respondents for remand of the proceeding is reasonable. The licence was granted on 14th December, 1987 in favour of the petitioner after considering the report of the Deputy Superintendent and examining all relevant aspects having bearing on issue of F.L. III licence. It is not alleged in the affidavit in reply filed in this Court that the petitioner has committed breach of any of the conditions of the Act or Rules or the licence. The only allegation made in the affidavit in reply is that the petitioner had represented to the authorities that there was no religious or educational institution within the distance of 75 metres from the place of the petitioner's restaurant and the petitioner is, therefore, stopped from challenging the validity of the condition No. 2 prescribed by letter dated 14th December, 1987 referred to hereinabove. There can be no estoppels against the law. The Court cannot permit discrimination between one citizen and another citizen. It is not open to the Government to grant such licences to some of the applicants even if the restaurant is situated within 75 metres from the place where the educational or religious institution is situate and deny similar facility to others on the same ground.
14. As regards moulding of the relief in this writ petition, it is of some importance to refer to the Judgment of Pendse, J., dated 5th January, 1990 in Writ Petition No. 87 of 1990. In this case, the Court was concerned with the refusal of grant of wine licence and Rule 25 of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953. The said Rule was amended for the first time in the year 1981. The said rule as amended prescribed that the wine shop should not be situate within the distance of 20 metres from the religious or educational institution. Rule 45 was not amended. Rule, 25 deals with subject matter of wine shop licence. Rule 45 deals with subject matter of permit room licence. The establishment of the writ petitioner in the Writ Petition No. 87 of 1990 was beyond the prescribed distance of 50 metres but within the distance of 75 metres from religious or educational institution. The Government of Maharashtra had issued Circular dated 6th July 1989 inter alia prescribing by Clause 7 thereof that in order to be eligible to the licence, the shop concerned must be at a distance of 75 metres from any religious or educational institution. It was held by Pendse, J., that Rule 25(2)(b) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953 was framed in accordance with powers conferred on the Government under section 143 of the Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. It was held by the learned Judge that the Circular issued by the State Government could not have been issued in contravention of the statutory rules and the prescribed distance of 50 metres could not be amended merely by issuing of the said Circular. In this view of the matter, Pendse, J., made the Rule absolute at the stage of admission of the petition itself and directed the respondents to issue foreign liquor vendor's licence to the petitioner within a period of three weeks from the date of his order. It is clear from narration of the above-referred facts that in appropriate cases the Court would be justified in directing the Collector to issue the licence straightway within the prescribed time rather than remanding the proceeding to the respondents. If the matters are unnecessarily remanded to the authorities, the citizens concerned suffer. The Court has, therefore, to consider as to whether an order of remand would be justified in the circumstances of the case and would promote the cause of justice.
15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed. The Rule is made absolute in terms set out hereinafter. Having regard to the facts, I pass the following order :---
ORDER
1. The impugned Orders dated 24th March, 1988 and 11th April, 1988 (copies whereof are Exhibits "F" and "G" to the petition) canceling F.L. III Licence granted to the petitioner (copy whereof is Exhibit "A" to the petition) are null and void and of no legal effect whatsoever. The said orders are, therefore, quashed and set aside.
2. It is hereby declared that the Circular dated 4th September, 1987 relied on in the impugned Appellate order had no legal efficacy as the same was not published in the Official Gazette as required by section 139(2) of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
3. It is hereby declared that the prescribed condition of not granting F.L. III licence in cases where the restaurant was situate within distance of 75 metres from the compound of educational and religious institutions came into force only on 5th January, 1990 on the amended rule coming into force along with the proviso appended thereto. None of the Circulars issued by the Government of Maharashtra earlier on the same subject could have any legal efficacy in absence of publication thereof in the Official Gazette as required under section 139(2) of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949.
4. It is hereby declared that the condition incorporated in the F.L. III licence in terms of such illegal Circulars pertaining to the distance between the concerned restaurant on the one hand and the concerned religious or educational institution on the other hand could have no legal efficacy until a rule was framed amending Rule 45 of Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules or the administrative instruction issued under section 139 of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949 was published in the Official Gazette. Thus the particular condition incorporated in the licence Exhibit `A' to this petition shall have to be ignored on the ground that the said condition was incorporated in the licence without authority of law.
5. It is hereby declared that the respondents were not entitled to discriminate between citizen and citizen while implementing its policy and ignore the distance restriction in the so called special cases referred to in the recent affidavit filed on behalf of the Government. In the instant case, the plea of discrimination alleged on behalf of the petitioner is clearly proved.
6(a). In the circumstances of the case, it is necessary to grant appropriate consequential relief's to the petitioner so as to do complete and effectual justice to the petitioner. Keeping this principle in mind, it is hereby declared that at all times including as on 5th January 1990, the petitioner is deemed to have possessed a valid F.L. III licence so as to be entitled to avail of the proviso to amended Rule 45(1C) of Bombay Prohibition Act, 1949. Since the petitioner has not been able to utilize the said deemed licence for all these years because of laws' delays and wrongful resistance of the respondents in that behalf, the petitioner need not pay any fees for such deemed licence to the respondents for all these years when the petitioner is kept out of her right to conduct the `Permit Room' in accordance with law.
6(b). The petitioner do make application for regrant/renewal of F.L. III licence for the period commencing from 1-4-1993 and pay necessary fees and charges. The respondents are directed and ordered to regrant/renew the F.L. III licence to the petitioner for the period commencing from 1-4-1993 on usual terms on the footing that the petitioner is covered by the proviso to amended Rule 45(1C) of the Bombay Foreign Liquor Rules, 1953.
7. It is hereby recorded that according to the respondents the premises of the Permit Room are suitable and the petitioner fulfils all the conditions of eligibility for grant of licence except in respect of distance between the situation of the restaurant and the situation of Church/School which alone has been subject matter of litigation. On this aspect, the Court has accepted the contention of the petitioner and not of the respondents. No other dispute survives.
8. The Associate of this Court is authorized to issue authenticated copy of operative part of this order as well as judgment expeditiously. The respondents are directed to act further in the matter forthwith on basis of authenticated copy of operative part of this order.