Delhi High Court
Federation Of Tata Communications ... vs Union Of India And Others on 3 July, 2009
Author: S.N. Aggarwal
Bench: S.N. Aggarwal
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 8934/2008
% Date of Decision: 03 July, 2009
# Federation of Tata Communications Employees Unions
..... Petitioner
! Through: Mr. Uday Lalit, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit
Mahajan and Mr.Manik Dogra, Advocates.
Versus
$ Union of India & Ors.
.....Respondents
^ Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha for respondent No. 1.
Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Chetan Sharma,
Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rishi Aggarwal and
Ms. Shikha Saran for respondents No. 2 & 3.
CORAM:
Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL
1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see
the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?YES
S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL)
The petitioner is a federation of employees who were originally employees of Government of India, working in the Overseas Communication Services (OCS) under the Ministry of Telecommunications, Government of India. On 01.04.1986, when OCS was converted into VSNL as a 100% owned Public Sector Undertaking (PSU), the members of the petitioner federation were transferred to VSNL on deputation and later on were absorbed as employees of VSNL. The disinvestment of VSNL took place and it was privatized w.e.f. 13.02.2002. The management and control of VSNL was taken over by M/s Panatone Finvest Limited (Respondent no. 3 herein), a company owned by Tata W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 1 of 16 Group of Companies. As a consequence of privatization of VSNL w.e.f. 13.02.2002, the Government of India ceased to have control and management over the affairs of respondent No. 2. However, the Government of India, even after privatization, continued to hold 26% shareholding in VSNL. In 2007, the name of VSNL was changed to M/s. Tata Communications Ltd. (Respondent no. 2 herein). Pre-privatization, employees of the petitioner federation were the employees of respondent No. 2, control of which vested with respondent No. 3. 2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to enforce the Office Memorandum dated 18.07.1989 issued by the Government of India and the Office Memorandum dated 11.12.1989 issued by the VSNL with regard to the service conditions insofar as it relates to dismissal/removal of employees (members of the petitioner federation) from respondent No. 2 organization. The prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition is extracted below:
"In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
(a) issue appropriate writs, orders or directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents, their servants and agents to follow the procedure set forth in OCS Office Memorandum No. HQ/01-01/89-PE.1 dated 11.12.1989 and Office Memorandum No. 1/61/89- P & PW (C) dated 18.071989;
(b) direct the Respondent No. 2 not to terminate the services of any members of the Petitioner federation without adhering to the procedure set forth in Office memorandum dated 11.12.1989 and Office Memorandum No. 1/61/89-P & PW (C) dated 18.07.1989."
3 The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that they apprehend termination of the service of their members by respondents No. 2 & 3 without adhering to the procedure set forth in OM dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 referred above. When this writ petition came up for admission hearing, this Court vide its order dated 17.12.2008 directed W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 2 of 16 the petitioner to file list of its members within three days and also directed respondents No. 2 & 3 to maintain status-quo in relation to employment of the members of the petitioner federation till the next date of hearing.
4 On receipt of notice of this writ petition, the respondent No. 2 filed an application being CM No. 120/2009 for vacation of the interim order dated 17.12.2008 and dismissal of the writ petition. The hearing on this application was adjourned from one date to another and in fact, the said application was heard partly on two occasions by Justice V.K. Shali on 03.03.2009 and again on 26.05.2009. However, the respondent No. 2 in the meanwhile approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 13935-36/2009 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 10.06.2009. The order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.06.2009 is extracted below:
"These special leave petitions are directed against the impugned interim order dated 17th December, 2008, whereunder the High Court issued the following directions, "The petitioner is directed to file list of its members within three days from today. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in the meanwhile directed to maintain status quo in relation to employment of the members of the petitioner association."
Order Dasti.
This order has been extended from time to time and now the matter is listed on 3rd July, 2009.
Shri Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the matter underwent several adjournments on account of which the stay application could not be disposed of on its merits causing irreparable damage and loss to the interest of the petitioner. It is submitted, it is under these facts and circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Shri Nayar made an attempt to address us on merits of the case.
In our considered opinion, interest of justice will be met by requesting the High Court to hear the matter on 3rd July, 2009 and without granting any further adjournment of whatsoever to W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 3 of 16 either parties. Both the parties undertake to file and exchange the written submission before 3rd July, 2009. The High Court is requested to complete the oral hearing of the matter on 3rd July, 2009 and thereafter pass appropriate orders.
With the observations above, the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.
Interim order passed by this Court stand vacated."
5 As Justice V.K. Shali was on leave today, this case was assigned by Hon'ble the Chief Justice to this Bench for hearing as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above. I have heard learned senior counsel for both the parties at length.
6 Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No 2 & 3 has vehemently argued that the petitioner has procured the interim order dated 17.12.2008 from this Court by suppressing material facts. He has relied upon three judgments in S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004 (7) SCC 166; Poorvanchal Caterers & Anr. Vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd. reported in 127 (2006) DLT 41 and M/s Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. reported in AIR 1992 Delhi 197. On the strength of these three judgments, Mr. Sharma has argued that since the petitioner has suppressed material facts from this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.
7 Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents No. 2 & 3 has brought to the notice of the Court that the petitioner federation had earlier filed a writ petition being WP (C) No. 4343/2003 against the same respondents which was dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Single Judge of this Court. It has further been brought to the notice of the Court that the W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 4 of 16 petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2004 in WP(C) No. 4343/2003 had filed a review application seeking review of order dated 27.10.2004 (Review Petition No. 432/2004 in WP(C) No. 4343/2003) which was also dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 03.12.2004. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Review Petition, the petitioner filed a Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 389-96/2005 which was withdrawn by the petitioner with permission to file appropriate proceedings and permission as prayed for was granted by the Division Bench in the LPA filed by the petitioner.
8 Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had filed two more batches of writ petitions, one being WP(C) No. 4349/2003 and other batch of WP(C) No. 2975-2981/2005 which were all withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 17.02.2005 passed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen. These two batches of writ petitions were withdrawn by the petitioner in view of judgment dated 27.10 2004 passed by this Court in earlier writ petition of the petitioner being W.P. (C) No. 4343/2003.
9 The argument of Mr. Chetan Sharma is that the petitioner has suppressed all the above earlier orders from this Court while filing the present writ petition. Mr. Sharma has further contended that the petitioner has also withheld and suppressed from this Court the settlement arrived at between the petitioner federation and the respondent No. 2 organization on 31.01.2008. According to Mr. Sharma, this settlement has finally settled all the disputes relating to terms and conditions of service of the erstwhile employees of VSNL who after privatization became employees of respondent No. 2 organization. The settlement relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 5 of 16 of the respondents No. 2 & 3 is admitted by Mr. Uday Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on instructions from his client. The said settlement is at pages 641-653 in Volume-III of the Paper Book. Mr. Sharma has referred to the various clauses of the said settlement to show that the petitioner federation had entered into a final settlement with regard to the terms and conditions of service of its members with the respondent No. 2 organization on 31.01.2008. It is submitted that had this settlement been brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioner at the time of admission hearing, this Court would not have granted the ex-parte interim relief to the petitioner. It is, therefore, submitted that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts from this Court in procuring the ex-parte order. 10 Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2 & 3 has further argued that since this Court has already held in its order dated 27.10.2004 in WP(C) No. 4343/2003, which is a judgment inter-parties, that the writ petition by the petitioner federation against respondents No. 2 & 3 is not maintainable because these respondents are not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and, therefore, according to him, since this decision has attained finality inter-parties, the petitioner could not have filed the present writ petition for enforcement of right of its members, if any, flowing from Office Memoranda dated 11.12.1989 / 18.07.1989. 11 Per contra, Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of suppression of any material fact because according to him the determination by this Court in the earlier litigation (WP(C) No. 4343/2003) is per se illegal in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 6 of 16 Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2005 (4) SCC 649 and he has placed reliance on paras 27, 30 and 31 of the said judgment to contend that a writ under Article 226 is maintainable even against a private party or even against an individual. Mr. Lalit has also relied upon one more judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support of his said contention, i.e., Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V. Sadasivan & Others reported in 2005 (6) SCC 657. In view of these two judgments of the Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Lalit, he contends that it was not necessary for the petitioner to have disclosed about the earlier decisions of this Court referred above as they were determinations per se illegal. Mr. Lalit has further contended that the petitioner was not required to disclose the earlier decisions of this Court referred above as the scope of the earlier litigation was different from the present writ petition. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also contended that the petitioner was also not required to disclose the settlement arrived at between the petitioner federation and the respondents No. 2 & 3 organization on 31.01.2008 because according to him the said settlement relates only to financial aspects, re-training and deployment of the erstwhile employees of VSNL whose control now vests with respondents No. 2 & 3. The argument of Mr. Lalit is that this writ petition cannot be dismissed as not maintainable for alleged suppression of above-mentioned facts or for the view taken by this Court in the earlier litigation on the point of maintainability of writ petition under Article 226 observing that respondents No. 2 & 3 do not fall within the ambit of 'State' as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. He has further submitted that this writ petition is maintainable against respondents No. 2 & 3 because according to him respondents No. 2 & 3 continue to discharge the same public functions as were hitherto exercised by the W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 7 of 16 erstwhile VSNL. He has submitted that there is an element of public service in the functioning of the respondents No. 2 & 3 organization and, therefore, according to him, this writ petition is maintainable and cannot be dismissed on the grounds taken by the other side.
12 On merits, Mr. Lalit has submitted that the members of the petitioner federation were not parties to the agreement of privatization entered into between the Government of India through VSNL, on the one hand, and respondents No. 2 & 3 on the other hand, and for that reason, according to him, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in BCPP Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. Vs. NTPC & Ors. reported in AIR 2008 SC 336, the terms and conditions of service of the members of the petitioner federation cannot be altered to their disadvantage. Mr. Lalit has also submitted that the respondents No. 2 & 3 organization are bound by the terms and conditions contained in the Office Memoranda dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 particularly relating to termination of the employees of erstwhile VSNL, the control of which has been taken over by respondents No. 2 & 3 w.e.f. 13.02.2002.
13 According to the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, the Office Memoranda dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 are completely independent of the settlement dated 31.01.2008 on which reliance is placed by the other side. He, therefore, submits that the respondents No. 2 & 3 be directed to follow the procedure set forth in OCS Office Memoranda dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 and not to terminate the services of any of its members without adhering to the procedure set forth in these Memoranda.
14 I have given my anxious consideration to the above rival arguments advanced by the learned senior counsel for both the parties and on W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 8 of 16 giving my anxious consideration to the same, I could not persuade myself to agree with any of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner for the reasons to follow hereinafter.
15 The settlement dated 31.01.2008 relied upon by the respondents No. 2 & 3 which is at pages 641-653 in Volume-III of the Paper Book is an important document and would clinch the entire dispute raised by the petitioner in this writ petition. Before I discuss the import and purport of this settlement document, I would like to mention the relief that the petitioner has asked for in the present writ petition. The petitioner says that the respondents No 2 & 3 are bound to adhere to the procedure for dismissal/removal laid down in Office Memoranda dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 relevant portion whereof relied upon by the petitioner's senior counsel is extracted below:
"Dismissal/Removal Dismissal/removal from the service of VSNL after absorption for any subsequent mis-conduct, shall not amount to forfeiture of his retirement benefits for the service rendered in the Central Govt. Also in the event of dismissal/removal of a transferred employee from VSNL, the employee concerned will be allowed protection to the extent that the administrative ministry/department will review such order before taking a final decision."
16 What Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has argued is that the respondents No. 2 & 3 before they terminate the services of any member of the petitioner's Federation, they are bound to take approval for such termination/dismissal from the Administrative Ministry/Department of the Government of India or at least from the highest functionary of respondents No. 2 & 3 organizations.
17 It is not disputed that the members of the petitioner federation W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 9 of 16 were originally employees of Government of India and they were later on absorbed in the service of VSNL which was a 100% PSU at the time of their absorption. It is also not disputed that the members of the petitioner federation were taken on the rolls of VSNL on option for absorption in VSNL exercised by them. The VSNL was privatized w.e.f. 13.02.2002. Even after privatization, the Government of India continued to hold 26% share holding in VSNL and continues to hold the said share holding even today. The fact that upon privatization of VSNL, the VSNL ceased to be a PSU was in the knowledge of the petitioner federation and this fact is adequately borne out from the document of settlement dated 31.01.2008 (an admitted document). The second recital of this document at page 643 Volume III reads as under:
"And whereas, the terms and conditions relating to salary, allowances and other benefits are implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of Settlements dated 02.12.2000 and 24.07.2001 which was concluded at the time when VSNL was a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU). Though the company ceased to be a PSU with effect from 13th Feb 2002, the benefits under these settlements continued to be implemented since the said Memoranda of Settlement(s) were valid till 31.12.2006.
18 Another recital contained in the settlement document dated 31.01.2008 is equally important and the same reads as under:
"And whereas, during the course of preliminary discussions, the Management informed and the Federation agreed that any discussions on the charter of demands could not be done or the basis followed earlier since the practices which were then followed are not relevant any more with the company ceasing to be a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) and in the context of loss of monopoly status, it was imperative to restructure the entire operations and adopt practices that are typically followed in the private sector in competitive environment. The Management and the Federation also discussed issues relating to need of the business and of mutual interest for retraining and redeployment of the workforce, identify the redundancies and enhancement in manpower productivity as may be required to remain competitive in the market."W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 10 of 16
19 Paras 16.5, 18.4 and 18.5 of this settlement document dated 31.01.2008 are relevant and the same are extracted hereinbelow:
"16.5 ISSUES ARISING OUT OF CONVERSION FROM A PSU: It is agreed by the Federation that with the company ceasing to be a PSU with effect from 13.02.2002, the company is no longer governed by the policies, guidelines and directions that may be issued by the government from time to time in respect of wages, allowances and related benefits as applicable to other PSU's or departments / bodies under the government. The management reaffirms its commitment to abide by all statutory provisions as applicable to establishments in the private sector as existing or as may be amended / introduced from time to time. The Federation also agrees that in the context of the changed circumstances of the company, the general rules and regulations that were drafted when the company was a PSU are no longer applicable after the company has ceased to be a PSU. Pending the introduction of the revised rules all workmen will be governed by the provisions of the Model Standing Orders as applicable to private establishments.
X X X X X X X X X X 18.4 It is agreed by the Federation that this settlement fully settles all issues and grievances against VSNL that may have been taken up by them before any other forum, agency or authority in the past.
18.5 It is agreed that this Settlement fully finally settles all the demands raised in the Charter of Demands submitted by the Federation of VSNL Employees' Unions vide their letter dated 23.02.2007 and all subsequent correspondences and discussions thereon. It is agreed that all the demands raised in the charter of demands dated 23.02.2007 or otherwise and all subsequent correspondences and discussions thereon, which have not been specifically dealt with herein in this Settlement will be deemed to have been raised, discussed, not pressed and therefore dropped by the parties, in terms of this Settlement."
20 A reference to the above referred contents of the settlement document would clearly show that the management (respondents No. 2 & 3 herein) and the petitioner federation while entering into the settlement dated 31.01.2008 had discussed issues relating to the need of the business and of mutual interest including matters relating to redundancies and enhancement in manpower productivity as may be required by the management to remain competitive in the market. W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 11 of 16 21 A reference to para 16.5 of the settlement document referred above would clearly show that the petitioner federation had expressly agreed to give a complete go-bye to all the policies, guidelines and directions that may be issued by the Government from time to time in respect of wages, allowances and related benefits as applicable to other PSUs/Departments/Bodies under the Government. The petitioner federation had further agreed to give a go-bye to the rules and regulations that were drafted when the respondent No. 2 company was a PSU and it was mentioned in para 16.5 that pending the introduction of the revised rules all workmen of respondents No. 2 & 3 organization would be governed by the provisions of the Model Standing Orders as applicable to private establishments. Para 18.4 of the settlement dated 31.01.2008 mentions that the petitioner federation had finally settled all issues and grievances against VSNL that may have been taken up by them before any other forum, agency or authority in the past. In fact the petitioner federation by entering into a settlement dated 31.01.2008 with respondents No. 2 & 3 had agreed that the settlement arrived at between them will cover all disputes relating to the terms and conditions of service of their members while they were in the employment of VSNL prior to its privatization and any dispute, if left over in the settlement, is deemed to have been dropped and would not be raised in future. For this reference can be made to para 18.5 of the settlement. I do not find any merit at all in the argument of Mr. Lalit that the said settlement did not relate to termination/removal of employees of respondents No. 2 & 3 organization. Since the petitioner federation had settled all its disputes relating to terms and conditions of service of its members with respondents No. 2 & 3 by entering into settlement dated 31.01.2008, by no stretch of imagination it can be said that the said settlement deals W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 12 of 16 only with the financial aspects relating to service conditions of the members of the petitioner federation as sought to be alleged by learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the said federation. The petitioner federation was essentially required to disclose the settlement dated 31.01.2008 while filing the present writ petition and withholding of the said settlement from the Court amounts to suppression of a material fact. 22 Para 16.5 of the settlement dated 31.01.2008 clearly mentions that pending introduction of the revised rules, all the workmen of respondents No. 2 & 3 organization will be governed by the provisions of the Model Standing Orders as applicable to private establishments. The Model Standing Orders described as the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Central Rules, 1946 is at running page 634 in volume III and the relevant paras 13 & 14 of the Standing Orders relating to termination and other penalties are at page 637 in volume III. The Model Standing Orders applicable to private organizations deals with the procedure to be followed by a private establishment for terminating or removing its employees. In this view of the matter, the situation relating to procedure to be followed by respondents No. 2 & 3 for terminating any of its employees is not in vacuum. I fail to understand how the petitioner federation after finally settling their all disputes relating to terms and conditions of service of their members, could file the present writ petition. For a moment, even if it is assumed that the Office Memoranda dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 continue to govern the matter relating to termination/dismissal of the employees of respondents No. 2 & 3 organization who were earlier employees of VSNL prior to privatization, still the requirement of obtaining prior approval from the administrative Ministry/Department of the Government appears to be highly infeasible. The Government has only 26% shareholding and has no say in the W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 13 of 16 management of the affairs of respondents No. 2 & 3 organization. Only because respondents No. 2 & 3 are discharging the same functions as were earlier exercised by the VSNL, it cannot be said that these organizations retain the character of public sector undertakings particularly when the petitioner federation itself has admitted in settlement dated 31.01.2008 that respondents No. 2 & 3 ceased to be PSU on privatization of VSNL w.e.f. 13.02.2002. In that view of the matter, the judgment of BCPP Mazdoor Sangh's case (Supra) has no applicability to the facts of this case. The settlement dated 31.01.2008 referred above was arrived at between the petitioner federation and respondents No. 2 & 3 organizations under Section 2 (p) read with Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of provisions contained in Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the said settlement arrived at between the parties was binding on the petitioner federation and also its members. In case, the petitioner federation had any grievance emanating from the settlement dated 31.01.2008 or even otherwise, the appropriate course available to them was to have approached the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 instead of invoking the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
23 It shall be significant to mention that Mr. V. Joseph Manoharan, Secretary General of the petitioner federation was a signatory to the settlement dated 31.01.2008 and he has filed his own affidavit in support of the present writ petition suppressing the fact of settlement referred above. The argument of Mr. Lalit appearing on behalf of the petitioner that there is no suppression on the part of the petitioner is misconceived and cannot be accepted. Had the orders passed by this Court in the earlier litigation referred above and also the fact about the settlement W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 14 of 16 dated 31.01.2008 were brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioner at the time of admission hearing of this writ petition, I would not have passed the interim order dated 17.12.2008. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of vital information comprising of orders passed by this Court in the earlier litigation and also the factum of settlement arrived at between the parties on 31.01.2008 while procuring the interim order.
24 In S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar' case (supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that as a general rule, suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies him from obtaining any relief particularly the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Similar view was taken by this Court in two other judgments in Poorvanchal Caterers & Anr. Vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism (Supra) and M/s Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. (Supra).
25 Since the petitioner has suppressed material information from this Court while filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The petitioner, even otherwise, is not entitled to the relief prayed for in the present writ petition for the reason that the Office Memoranda dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 were subsumed in the subsequent memoranda of 2000, 2001 and lastly, of 2008. 26 As the petitioner federation is held not entitled to the relief prayed for by it in the present writ petition for the reasons delineated hereinabove, I need not go into the argument advanced by the learned senior counsel for the parties on the point of maintainability of this writ petition on the ground that the respondents No. 2 & 3 are not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. 27 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 15 of 16 petition which fails and is hereby dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1 lac.
28 The interim order dated 17.12.2008 is vacated.
29 In view of the above, all pending miscellaneous applications stand disposed of in terms referred above.
July 03, 2009 S.N.AGGARWAL
bsr/a [JUDGE]
W.P.(C) No.8934/2008 Page 16 of 16