Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Smt Arpitha on 15 February, 2023
Author: G.Narendar
Bench: G.Narendar
-1-
WP No. 11422 of 2022
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.NARENDAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
WRIT PETITION NO. 11422 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER/ADDL. COMMISSIONER,
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAX,
CENTRAL OFFICE-2,
GANDHINAGAR,
Digitally BENGALURU-560009.
signed by
SUMITHRA
R 3. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER (ENFORCEMENT),
Location: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCIAL TAX,
HIGH
COURT OF WESTERN RANGE,
KARNATAKA
MANGALURU
D K DISTRICT-575001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. R. SUBRAMANYA, AAG
SMT. SHILPA S. GOGI,HCGP ,ADVOCATES.)
-2-
WP No. 11422 of 2022
AND:
SMT ARPITHA
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,
D/O LATE YASHODA,
W/O RAMESH NAIK K,
R/AT HOUSE NO.14-31/10,
"SHREE LAKSHMI", KUCHIKADU,
KALPANE CROSS ROAD,PADAVU KAKKEBETTU,
KULASHEKARA,
MANGALURU-575005.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRASANNA V R.,ADVOCATE)
-------
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED
28/09/2021 (ANNEXURE-B) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN
APPLICATION NO. 4404/2021.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRILIMINARY HEARING
IN B-GROUP THIS DAY, G.NARENDAR J.,MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 11422 of 2022
ORDER
1. Heard learned AGA and the learned counsel for private respondent.
2. Brief facts are that, the mother of the private respondent passed away on 4.9.2019 while in harness in the department of Commercial Tax. That the deceased employee left behind her husband and three daughters, of whom the private respondent is the eldest and in whose favour the other two daughters have given their consent thereby enabling her to seek employment on compassionate grounds.
3. The application for appointment on compassionate ground was made on 21.10.2019 but the same came to be rejected by the Competent Authority by order dated 10.11.2020 on the ground that the Rules do not permit extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to a married daughter.
-4- WP No. 11422 of 20224. Shortly thereafter in about a month, this Court in the case of Smt. Bhuvaneshwari V Puranik vs. State and Others in W.P.No.17788/2018 dated 15.12.2020 was pleased to hold the Rule 2(1) (a)(i), Rule 2(1)(b) and Rule 3(2)(i)(c) of the Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules of 1996 as illegal and unconstitutional and was pleased to strike down the word "unmarried" in the aforesaid Rules.
5. The said declaration was issued on the ground that exclusion of 'married daughter' from the definition of 'family' and not recognizing the daughter as a dependent was discriminatory. The said judgment was pronounced on 15.12.2020 and thereafter on 9.4.2021, the State brought about an amendment and by the amended Rule 3(2)(ii) of the KCSRs, married daughters were also made entitled to seek employment on compassionate grounds. The respondent made one more application on 17.8.2021.
The said application came to be rejected again by proceedings dated 25.8.2021.
-5- WP No. 11422 of 20226. Aggrieved by the said order, the private respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 28.9.2021 was pleased to grant relief and partly allowed the application and further directed the matter for reconsideration. Aggrieved by which, the State is before this Court in the instant writ petition.
7. The Hon'ble Apex Court, while dealing with the case relating to the principle governing the grant of compassionate appointment, in the case of Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and Others Vs. Anusree K.B1 observed as under:
"15. While considering the issue involved in the present appeal, the law laid down by this Court on compassionate ground on the death of the deceased employee are required to be referred to and considered. In the recent decision, this Court in the case of Director of Treasuries in Karnataka v. V. Somyashree, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 704, had occasion to consider the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground. After referring to the decision of this Court in N.C. Santhosh v. State of Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617, this Court has summarised 1 2022 SCC Online SC 1331 -6- WP No. 11422 of 2022 the principle governing the grant of appointment on compassionate ground as under:--
(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;
(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;
(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;
(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State's policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;
(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.
16. As per the law laid down by this Court in catena of decisions on the appointment on compassionate ground, for all the government vacancies equal opportunity should be provided to all aspirants as mandated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, appointment on compassionate ground offered to a dependent of a deceased employee is an exception to the said norms. The compassionate ground is a concession and not a right.
17. In the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this Court had an occasion to consider the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate ground and considered the decision of this Court in the case of Govind Prakash -7- WP No. 11422 of 2022 Verma Vs. LIC, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in paras 21 and 26, it is observed and held as under:-
"21. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been considered subsequently in several decisions. But, before we advert to those decisions, it is necessary to note that the nature of compassionate appointment had been considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138]. The principles which have been laid down in Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v.
State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138] have been subsequently followed in a consistent line of precedents in this Court. These principles are encapsulated in the following extract: (Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138], SCC pp. 139-40, para 2) "2. ... As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a -8- WP No. 11422 of 2022 provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non- manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved viz. relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family -9- WP No. 11422 of 2022 engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenlyupturned."
26. The judgment of a Bench of two Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra [(2008) 11 SCC 384] has adopted the principle that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment, but a means to enable the family of the deceased to get over a sudden financial crisis. The financial position of the family would need to be evaluated on the basis of the provisions contained in the scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590] has been duly considered, but the Court observed that it did not appear that the earlier binding precedents of this Court have been taken note of in that case."
18. Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is, thus, to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased.
- 10 -
WP No. 11422 of 202219. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the case on hand and considering the observations made hereinabove and the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her father, who died in the year 1995. After a period of 24 years from the death of the deceased employee, the respondent shall not be entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. If such an appointment is made now and/or after a period of 14/24 years, the same shall be against the object and purpose for which the appointment on compassionate ground is provided."
8. An analysis of the precedents cited above would clearly reveal that the core of the heart of the compassionate appointment policy, is the need to prevent the family of the deceased employee falling into penury and being rendered destitute, in other words it is the financial status that has to be the touch-stone, while considering an application for appointment on compassionate grounds.
9. The short facts stated would demonstrate the amount of time that has gone by and that too without serving
- 11 -
WP No. 11422 of 2022any purpose. The fact remains that the Apex Court and this Court have always primarily considered two factors as entitling a legal heir or representative to seek employment on compassionate grounds. One is, 'demonstration of dependency' and the other is, the 'destitute' or 'economic status'. But off late, we have seen dilution in this approach and the petitioners and its various wings have been resorting to technicalities to reject the application resulting in sheer waster of time and resources including precious judicial time. Being an employee of the State having turned lucrative, the number of litigation initiated by persons claiming appointment on compassionate ground is not miniscule but, on the other hand, has been consuming considerable time of both the Tribunal as well as this Court. Having said that, we are now constrained to remit back this matter to the Tribunal for a short reason.
10. On a close scrutiny of the impugned order, it would reveal that a direction has been issued even without the
- 12 -
WP No. 11422 of 2022applicant probabilising her case of being entitled for an appointment on compassionate ground. It would have been a more meaningful exercise if the Tribunal had called upon the applicant/respondent herein to probabilise her claim. But we find that the Tribunal has deemed it fit to direct reconsideration only on the short ground of the endorsement being contrary to Bhuvaneshwari V Puranik's case. As noted at the very beginning of this order, the objective of compassionate appointment has been and will always be based on two factors i.e. dependency and economic and financial status of the dependents. Had the Tribunal called upon the applicant to place a prima facie material, it would have been justified in issuing the direction. Mandamuses/directions cannot be issued at the mere asking. Unless and until the petitioner/party makes out a prima facie and legally enforceable right, writ in the form of a mandamus or in the nature of a mandamus could be rendered futile otherwise. The Hon'ble Apex Court has dealt with the said issue in the following cases :
- 13 -WP No. 11422 of 2022
1. In the case of Food Corporation of India and Others vs. Ashis Kumar Ganguly and Others2, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph Nos 25 and 26 as under :
"25. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a writ of or in the nature of mandamus can be issued only when existence of a legal right in the writ petitioner and a corresponding legal duty in the respondent are established. Where the administrative authority is conferred with a discretionary jurisdiction, the High Court, it was urged, ordinarily would not issue a writ of mandamus.
26. Our attention in this behalf has been drawn to a judgment of this court in state of M.P. v. G.C. Mandawar wherein this court in the context of exercise of discretionary power in the matter of grant of dearness allowances at a particular rate under Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules, opined: (AIR p. 495, para) "5. ...Under this provision, it is a matter of discretion with the local Government whether it will grant dearness allowances and if so, how much. That being so, the prayer for 'mandamus' is clearly misconceived, as that could be granted only when there is in the applicant a right to compel the performance of some duty cast on the opponent. Rule 44 of the Fundamental Rules confers no right on the government servants to the grant of dearness allowances; it imposes no duty on the state to grant it. It merely confers a power on the state to grant compassionate allowance as its own discretion, and no 'mandamus' can issue to compel the exercise of such a power. Nor, indeed, 2 (2009) 7 SCC 734
- 14 -WP No. 11422 of 2022
could any other writ or direction be issued in respect of it, as there is no, right in the applicant which is capable of being protected or enforced."
2. In the case of Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra3, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph Nos 100 to 103 as under :
100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are duty-bound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration.
101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.
102. In appropriate cases, in order to prevent injustice to the parties, the Court may itself pass an order or give directions which the Government or the public authorities should have passed, had it properly and lawfully exercised its discretion. In Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao [Director of Settlements, A.P. v. M.R. Apparao, (2002) 4 SCC 638]. Pattanaik, J. observed: (SCC p. 659, para 17) 3 (2020) 9 SCC 356
- 15 -WP No. 11422 of 2022
"17. ... One of the conditions for exercising power under Article 226 for issuance of a mandamus is that the court must come to the conclusion that the aggrieved person has a legal right, which entitles him to any of the rights and that such right has been infringed. In other words, existence of a legal right of a citizen and performance of any corresponding legal duty by the State or any public authority, could be enforced by issuance of a writ of mandamus, "mandamus" means a command. It differs from the writs of prohibition or certiorari in its demand for some activity on the part of the body or person to whom it is addressed. Mandamus is a command issued to direct any person, corporation, inferior courts or Government, requiring him or them to do some particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. A mandamus is available against any public authority including administrative and local bodies, and it would lie to any person who is under a duty imposed by a statute or by the common law to do a particular act. In order to obtain a writ or order in the nature of mandamus, the applicant has to satisfy that he has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition (seeKalyan Singh v. State of U.P. [Kalyan Singh v. State of U.P., AIR 1962 SC 1183] ). The duty that may be enjoined by mandamus may be one imposed by the Constitution, a statute, common law or by rules or orders having the force of law."
(emphasis in original)
103. The Court is duty-bound to issue a writ of mandamus for enforcement of a public duty. There can be no doubt that an important requisite for issue of mandamus is that mandamus lies to enforce a legal duty.
- 16 -
WP No. 11422 of 2022This duty must be shown to exist towards the applicant. A statutory duty must exist before it can be enforced through mandamus. Unless a statutory duty or right can be read in the provision, mandamus cannot be issued to enforce the same.
3. In the case of Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh4, the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph No.15 as under:
15. Re: Contention 3: This contention is also well founded and must prevail. There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation.
The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. (See Lekhraj Satramdas Lalvani v. Deputy Custodian-cum-Managing Officer [AIR 1966 SC 334, Rai Shivendra Bahadur Dr v. Governing Body of the Nalanda College [AIR 1962 SC 1210 and Umakant Saran Dr v. State of Bihar [(1973) 1 SCC 485. In the instant 4 (1977) 4 SCC 145
- 17 -
WP No. 11422 of 2022case, it has not been shown by Respondent 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same.
4. In the Case of State of Kerala v. Kandath Distilleries5, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held in paragraph Nos 30 and 37 as under:
Re- Mandamus-To issue licence
30. The legislature when confers a discretionary power on an authority, it has to be exercised by it in its discretion, the decision ought to be that of the authority concerned and not that of the court. The court would not interfere with or probe into the merits of the decision made by an authority in exercise of its discretion. The court cannot impede the exercise of discretion of an authority acting under the statute by issuance of a writ of mandamus. A writ of mandamus can be issued in favour of an applicant who establishes a legal right in himself and is issued against an authority which has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so, but such a legal duty should emanate either in discharge of the public duty or operation of law. We have 5 (2013) 6 SCC 573
- 18 -WP No. 11422 of 2022
found that there is no legal duty cast on the Commissioner or the State Government exercising powers under Section 14 of the Act read with Rule 4 of the 1975 Rules to grant the licence applied for. The High Court, in our view, cannot direct the State Government to part with its exclusive privilege. At best, it can direct consideration of an application for licence. If the High Court feels, in spite of its direction, the application has not been properly considered or arbitrarily rejected, the High Court is not powerless to deal with such a situation that does not mean that the High Court can bend or break the law. Granting liquor licence is not like granting licence to drive a cab or parking a vehicle or issuing a municipal licence to set up a grocery or a fruit shop. Before issuing a writ of mandamus, the High Court should have, at the back of its mind, the legislative scheme, its object and purpose, the subject-matter, the evil sought to be remedied, the State's exclusive privilege, etc. and not to be carried away by the idiosyncrasies or the ipse dixit of an officer who authored the order challenged. Majesty of law is to be upheld not by bending or breaking the law but by strengthening the law.
37. We are, therefore, of the view that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court have overlooked those vital factors while issuing a writ of mandamus directing the State Government/Commissioner to grant distillery licence to the respondent for setting up of a new distillery in Palakkad District, thinking that the impugned order is
- 19 -
WP No. 11422 of 2022nothing but old wine in new bottle. We are informed, after 1998, not even a single licence has been granted by the State Government/Commissioner for establishing distillery units anywhere in the State. That being the factual and legal position, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the High Court were not justified in issuing a writ of mandamus directing the issuance of a distillery licence to the respondent.
5. In the case of Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams v. K. Jotheeswara Pillai6, the hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paragraph Nos 9 and 10 as under:
9. The learned Single Judge has also issued a writ of mandamus directing the appellant to consider the case of Writ Petitioner 5 as to whether he was entitled for exemption from age qualification. As already mentioned the Rules do not make any provision for granting exemption except to the limited extent as provided in the second para of Rule 11. The principles, on which a writ of mandamus can be issued, are well settled and we will refer to only one decision rendered in Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [(1977) 4 SCC 145 where this Court observed as under:
"[A] writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel 6 (2007) 9 SCC 461
- 20 -WP No. 11422 of 2022
performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance."
10. There being no statutory provision or rule providing for exemption from eligibility criterion, the learned Single Judge clearly erred in issuing a writ of mandamus against the appellant directing it to consider the case of Writ Petitioner 5 for granting him exemption from the rule providing for upper age-limit for fresh appointment.
11. We have pointedly queried the learned counsel for the private respondent and he has fairly admitted that no material, in the nature pointed out above, has been placed before the Tribunal.
We have also queried the learned AAG as to why such hypertechnical approach has been adopted by his clients in the matter of granting appointments under a Scheme which calls itself compassionate appointment. The very usage of the word 'compassionate' is an indicator as to how such appointments are
- 21 -
WP No. 11422 of 2022to be viewed and adjudicated. The word 'compassionate' is not defined under the Rules whereas the Oxford Dictionary assigns the following meaning to the word 'compassion' as follows:
"Sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others'
12. The spirit and objective of this form of appointment is being defeated by the approach of the stake holders. Sometimes, prudence is a better part of valour and it would be in the interest of administration if the administrators and the concerned authorities understand the true spirit of the concept of compassionate appointment. We are also constrained to be critical of the approach of the parties and it is obvious that litigation appears to be foremost to the mind of such applicants without realising the futility of it.
13. A perusal of the entire order impugned would reveal that, no satisfaction has been recorded by the Tribunal that the applicant has probabalised her case of being
- 22 -
WP No. 11422 of 2022entitled to appointment under the Scheme of compassionate appointment. Yet, the Tribunal has proceeded to grant relief in the nature it deemed fit.
14. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that issue of direction in the circumstances detailed supra is unjustified and hence, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order impugned and remit the case back to the Tribunal to consider the application of the respondent afresh in the light of the observations we have made herein above.
15. Accordingly, the order impugned is set-aside and the case is remitted back to the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal for re-consideration in accordance with law. While re-considering, the Tribunal shall bear in mind the observations of this court and the precedents relied upon.
16. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 6.3.2023 without waiting for any notice and we request
- 23 -
WP No. 11422 of 2022the Tribunal to endeavour and dispose of hearing of the application within three months thereafter.
We are constrained to request the Tribunal to dispose of the hearing within a fixed time frame in view of the fact that it is really more than three years since the request for compassionate appointment has been made. If the parties are really in distress then, nothing can be more ignominious and it virtually amount to rubbing salt into the wound as any further procrastination as observed above, would defeat the very spirit of the Scheme.
17. It is made clear that it is open for the applicant, the respondent herein, to place such further material as she deems fit, proper and necessary to demonstrate her case.
If such additional documents and materials are sought to be placed, the same shall be taken on record by the Tribunal. But it is made clear that whatever material the applicant or the respondent desire to place before the Tribunal, the same shall be placed on or before
- 24 -
WP No. 11422 of 20226.3.2023. In the circumstance above, there shall be no order as to costs.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE rs