Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
This Writ Petition Is Filed By The vs Constitution Of India For The Following ... on 29 February, 2024
1
HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA
WRIT PETITION No.28235 of 2018
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed by the Petitioner, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:
" to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in Rc.No.05/2013-14, dated 18.7.2018 on the file of the 4th Respondent is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of Articles 14,16 and 21 of the Constitution of India without jurisdiction and violation of principles of natural justice and contrary to the provisions of A.P. Education Act, 1982 and Rules made thereunder and set aside the same..."
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as follows:
a. Petitioner was appointed as Attender in the Respondent No.4-School in the year 1994. He has applied leave from 15.12.2011 for a period of 17 days and thereafter, he applied leave on loss of pay from time to time, till 2016 on domestic grounds. The said leave was accepted by Respondent No. 4-School authorities. Petitioner shifted his residence from Vegayammapeta to Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam District., in February, 2013.
b. He received a notice dated 28.03.2018 from the Respondent No.4 School authorities directing the Petitioner to submit his explanation as to why he should not be removed from service for his unauthorized absence from duties. Petitioner submitted his explanation denying all the allegations 2 made against him and requested the school authorities to conduct an enquiry to disprove his innocence for the allegations made against him and he did not absent from duties without applying any leave.
c. The Petitioner‟s grievance is that the Respondent No.4 school authorities without framing any charges and without conducting any enquiry, caused the show cause notice dated 06.07.2018 for which he submitted a detailed explanation dated 11.07.2018 to the Respondent No.4 requesting to drop further action.
d. The Respondent No.4 without conducting any enquiry, in a single line, passed the order dated 18.07.2018 terminating his service as Attender.
Questioning the same, the present writ petition is filed.
3. A counter affidavit was filed by Respondent No.4-School denying all the allegations made in the writ affidavit filed by the Petitioner, which are not specifically admitted therein.
a. It is stated that the correspondent of the school has sanctioned the leaves, applied by the Petitioners. The Respondent No.4-school by proceedings dated 01.02.2013 has lastly sanctioned the leave only upto 31.01.2013.
b. The Respondent No.4 school has received numerous complaints against the Petitioner and even published in daily news papers and TV scrolling in respect of the criminal activities involved by the Petitioner and the persons who got cheated by the Petitioners started visiting the school premises for want of Petitioner.
3c. Due to such a situation, though the Petitioner was on leave the Respondent No.4 is constrained to issue a show cause notice dated 03.02.2012, which was returned un-served with an endorsement „addressee left‟. The Petitioner‟s leave was sanctioned up to 31.01.2013. Respondent No.4 issued a paper publication in local daily news paper on 30.06.2013.
d. On intimation by the Respondent No.4, vide letter dated 09.07.2013, Respondent No.2 vide letter dated 12.08.2013 instructed the Respondent No.4 to take necessary action against the Petitioner under Rule-19 of G.O.Ms.1 Education (PS-2) Department, dated 01.01.1994. But action could not be taken since the whereabouts of the Petitioner were not known to them.
e. While the things stood thus, the Respondent No.4 has received an attachment Order dated 12.12.2013 from the Court of III Additional Senior Civil Judge, Kakinada directing to attach the salary of the Petitioner. Since the Petitioner is absconding from duties, the same fact was informed to the court. Hence, it is very clear that the Petitioner without any prior intimation or permission from the Respondent Nos.3 and 4, left the permanent address.
f. The Respondent No.3 through letter dated 04.07.2018 informed the Respondent No.4 that the Petitioner is absconding from duty since five years, and to initiate necessary action against the individual under Rule-20 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 duly issuing 4 „deemed to resign from service‟ orders as per Rule 18-A of the Andhra Pradesh Fundamental Rules and Rule 5-B of the Andhra Pradesh Leave Rules, 1933 issued in G.O.Ms.No.128 and 129 Finance (Fr.I) Department, dated 01.06.2007 respectively.
g. The Respondent No.4 issued a notice dated 28.03.2018 for which the Petitioner has submitted explanation. After conducting due enquiry and giving opportunity to the Petitioner and on instructions from Respondent No.3, show cause notice dated 06.07.2018 followed by the paper public publication etc. were issued.
4. Heard Sri V.V.N. Narayana Rao, learned counsel for the Petitioner; learned Government Pleader for School Education for Respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri Srinivas Basava, learned counsel for the Respondent No.4 and perused the material on record.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in elaboration to what was stated in the Petition would submit as follows;
a. The Petitioner was terminated from service without following the procedure as laid down under Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982 and as such the Respondent No.4-School authorities are not authorized to terminate the service of the Petitioner, without prior approval of the competent authority. It is also submitted that an enquiry must be conducted and due opportunity must have been given to the Petitioner to participate in such enquiry. He would thus submit that without the prior approval of the Respondent No.2-Regional Joint Director, termination of 5 the Petitioner is an utter violation of the principles of natural justice and contrary to law.
b. He also reiterated the contents of the case that the Petitioner joined in the service as an Attender in the school of Respondent No.4 in the year 1994. He received a Notice from the Respondent No.4 on 28.03.2018 and on 06.07.2018 seeking explanation as to why he should not be removed from service. The Petitioner has submitted his explanation to the effect that initially with personal domestic issues he applied leave for a period of 17 days from 15.12.2011 and thereafter, he has applied leave on loss of pay from time to time, which was accepted by the institution. Learned counsel further submits that without framing any charge and enquiry, another show cause notice has been issued and that the Petitioner never absconded from duty without applying leave.
c. It is pointed out that, vide Rule-7 Sub-Rule-1 of the Andhra Pradesh Private Institutions Employees (Disciplinary Control) Rules, 1983, „no employee shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by any authority subordinate to the management of the institution.‟ Stating so, it is submitted that the services of the employees of the private institutions are protected under the Andhra Pradesh Education Act 1982 and that the management of the private institutions are bound to follow the requirements under the Act for imposing any punishment against any employee. Therefore, in the present case, the Respondent No.4 has no authority to pass the impugned order.
6
6. Contrasting the same, learned Government Pleader would submit that the Petitioner was holding an aided post and Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act has no application. It is also submitted that the Respondent No.4 has intimated to the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 about the continuous absence of the Petitioner for a period of five years and as instructed by the competent authority, i.e., the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 only, Respondent No.4 imposed punishment of termination from service. Learned Government Pleader further submits that duly following the procedure as instructed by Respondent No.2 to take suitable disciplinary action against the individual, the Respondent No.4 has terminated the Petitioner from service and the school is now merged with the Government on 01.06.2022. Learned Government Pleader further submits that appeal would lie against the impugned order before the Respondent No.2.
7. In reply, learned counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the correspondent of Respondent No.4 is not the competent authority to take action against the Petitioner, without approval of the competent authority vide Rule 19 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools Under Private managements) Rules, 1993 issued in G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (P.S.2) dated 01.01.1994 as provided under Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act and the Respondent No.4 failed to follow the procedure under the Act.
8. To buttress his arguments, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the then Composite High Court of Andhra 7 Pradesh, in W.A.No.454 of 1986 in Vasavi College of Engineering V. A.Suryanarayana & others1. Paragraphs- 22 and 23 read as under:
"22. We see considerable force in the submission that penal termination of service (dismissal or removal) and reduction in rank as also suspension are covered by Section 79 of the Act which requires that no teacher or member of the non-teaching staff employed in any private institution, shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
23. Like-wise, Sub-section (3) imposes a similar obligation in respect of suspensions with an added obligation to obtain orders from the competent authority to extend the period of suspension beyond two months. The wording of Section 83 seems to us to indicate that it is in the nature of a residuary provision which comprehends termination of service of any employee consequent on any change relating to education or course of instruction or any other matter. In cases of such residuary instances of termination of service otherwise than as disciplinary measure, the employer is required to obtain prior approval of the competent authority or the next higher authority as the case may be. If the provisions of Chapter XIV of the Education Act are meant to provide relief to the teachers in the matter of retention in service, it cannot be as if a grey area between penal termination of service and reduction in rank on the one hand and retrenchment pure and simple relatable only to other incidental contingencies on the other would have been left out. It is far more reasonable to hold that termination of service of employees of private educational institutions are exhausted by the 1 1991(3) ALT 335 (D.B.) 8 provisions contained in Section 79 and 83 of the Act rather than to hold that the management may terminate the service of the teachers except by dismissal or removal or retrenchment and that such termination of service will not be within the comprehension of the regulatory provisions of the Act. We hold that if the service of a teacher or other employee of a private educational institution is sought to be terminated by dismissal or removal, it shall be preceded by any inquiry as provided in Section 79 and such removal shall be effected only with the prior approval of the competent authority. Like-wise, in the case of any termination of service other than those covered by Section 79 of the Act, prior approval of such competent authority or the next higher authority is made a condition precedent for any other termination of service under Section 83 of the Act."
(emphasis supplied)
9. Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision in Deepak Babaria and Another v. State of Gujarat and Others2 to emphasize on the point that the legislative intent and procedure contemplated by a statute must not be compromised and when law requires a particular thing to be done in a particular manner, it must be done in such way and no other.
Point for Determination
10. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel on both sides, the point that would emerge for determination is: 2
(2014) 3 Supreme Court Cases 502 9 Whether the impugned Order dated 18.07.2018 is in contravention of the provisions of law, warranting the interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India?
Determination by the Court
11. As seen from the material placed on record, there is no dispute about the fact that the Petitioner had joined in the service as an Attender in the aided School of Respondent No.4 in the year 1994. The Petitioner contends that he has submitted application of leave from time to time in different spells which have been accepted by the management. Learned Government Pleader contends that without application of any leave, the individual was continuously absent from duty which is unauthorized absence.
12. A letter dated 24.03.2018 was issued by Respondent No.4 to the Respondent No.3, citing a reference to the letter dated 09.07.2013 issued by the Respondent No.4 wherein, instructions were sought on the action to be taken on the Petitioner. It is interesting to state that the Respondent No.2/ Regional Joint Director of School Education, in proceedings dated 12.08.2013, vide Rc.No.3442/B1/2013 requested the Respondent No.4 to initiate suitable disciplinary action against the Petitioner, duly following the procedure laid down in Section 79 & 80 of Act 1982 and Rule 19 of G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (PS-2) Department, Date 01.01.1994.
13. In the letter dated 24.03.2018 was issued by Respondent No.4 to the Respondent No.3, the unauthorised absence of the Petitioner without 10 leave sanction, the publishing of public notice, waiting for reply, was informed, seeking to direct a course of action to be taken.
14. Thereafter, a show cause notice has been issued on 28.03.2018 and it reads as under:
NOTICE From To Sri N.V.R.Subrahmanyam, Sri Meka Rama Murthy Correspondent , S/o.Suryanarayana, Sri Mahalakshmamma Sivalayam Street, Hindu High School, Lingala Colony, Vegayammapeta. Vegayammapeta, Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam Dt.
This Office No.66/2017-18, Dt.28.03.2018 Sub:- Absent from your duties - Explanation Called for - Reg.
**** You, working as Attender in Sri Mahalakshmamma Hindu High School, had absented from the school duties for the last 5 Years 1 Month and 28 Days, without any prior intimation and prior application. Earlier, show cause notices were issued to you several times, but you have not responded till date. Hence, it is treated that your absent from the duties is a misconduct and explanation is called for from you that you should submit your explanation, within one week from the date of receipt of this notice, as to why action should not be taken against you and as to why you should not be removed from the service, otherwise, you should be removed from service, without any intimation.
Vegayammapeta Sd/-xxxxx
Dt: 28.03.2018 CORRESONDENT
S.M.H.(AIDED) HIGH SCHOOL
VEGAYAMMΑΡΕΤΑ
15. Record further shows that another show cause notice dated 06.07.2018 was issued to the Petitioner and it reads as under:
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE From To Sri N.V.R.Subrahmanyam, Sri Meka Rama Murthy correspondent , S/o.Suryanarayana, 11 Sri Mahalakshmamma Sivalayam Street, Hindu High School, Lingala Colony, Vegayammapeta. Vegayammapeta, Payakaraopeta, Visakhapatnam Dt.
This Office No.57/20187-18, Dt.06.07.2018 Sub:- You have absent from duties for more than 5 years, Explanation Called for - Reg.
Ref:- Rc.No. 1677-A2/2018, Dt.04.07.2018 of the DEO, East Godavari, Kakinada.
You, working as Attender in Sri Mahalakshmamma Hindu High School, had absented from the school duties for the last 5 Years and 5 Months, without any intimation and application. You have not responded to all the show cause notices issued to you earlier. You have submitted your explanation for the Notice (Dt.28.03.2018) given by us. But, already more than five years have elapsed prior to submitting of explanation by you. Earlier, we have sought for details from the District Educational Officer and we received information from their office (R.C.1677-A2/2-18, dt.04.07.2018) that from more than 5 years you have absented from the duties, hence, as per the Notice given in the Saakshi Daily, dt:30.06.2013, as per Educational Rules 20 of Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1991 duly issuing deemed to resign from service" orders as for rule 18-A of A.P. Fundamental Rules and Rule-5B of A.P. Leave Rules, 1933 issued in G.O.Ms.No.128 & 129 Finance (FR.1) Dept., D1.01.06.2017 Respectively. You will be removed from service, Vegayammapeta Sd/-xxxxx Dt: 28.03.2018 CORRESONDENT S.M.H.(AIDED) HIGH SCHOOL VEGAYAMMΑΡΕΤΑ
16. These Notices and the correspondence between the official respondents would clearly indicate that the procedure for taking the disciplinary action was governed by the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools Under Private Managements) Rules, 1993, the Education Act and 12 the Rules thereunder. In the light of the same, the argument of the learned Government Pleader that the Education Act and rules thereon, are not applicable to the present case holds no water.
17. Further, in the show notice referred to supra, there is a mention about the correspondence made to Respondent No.3 dated 04.07.2018 with reference to the present Petitioner. The impugned order dated 18.07.2018 also refers to instructions received from the Respondent No.3/District Educational Officer dated 04.07.2018.
18. In this letter dated 04.07.2018 from the Respondent No.3 to the Respondent No.4, it is clearly stated that vide the report of Correspondent, it has come to the notice of the Respondent No.3 that the Petitioner absconded from his duties without applying leave from 01.02.2013 for about 5 years, and in this regard a press note was issued in a newspaper seeking his explanation, to which there was no response. In that view of the matter, vide the letter, the Respondent No.3 requested to initiate appropriate disciplinary action against the Petitioner, vide Rule 20 of AP Civil Services (CCA) Rules 1991 duly issuing "Deemed to resign from service" orders as per Rule 18-A of A.P. Fundamental Rules and Rule S-B of AP Leave Rules, 1933 issued in G.O.Ms.No.128 & 129, Finance (FRI) Dept, dt.01.06.2007 respectively, as Petitioner absconded from duties without leave. It is also clearly stated that the Respondent No.4 has to submit the proposals to the office of Respondent No.3 for taking necessary action. By this bare wording, in this scenario, it cannot be said that the 13 Respondent No.4 has got every jurisdiction to pass the impugned order without the approval of the competent authority.
19. At this juncture, it is essential to refer to the Section 79 of the Andhra Pradesh Education Act, 1982, which reads as under:
Section 79. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank or suspension, etc. of employees of private institutions -
(1) No teacher or member of the nonteaching staff employed in any private institution (hereinafter in this Chapter referred to as „the employee') shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges:
[Provided that no order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank shall be passed under this sub-section against an employee other than an employee of a minority educational institution without the prior approval of such authority or Officer as may be prescribed for different classes of private institutions:
Provided further that the management may prefer an appeal against any order of the Officer or authority refusing approval under this sub-section to such authority or officer and within such period as may be prescribed.] (2) An inquiry under sub-section (1) shall be completed within a period of two months from the date of communication of charges against the employee.
(3)(a) No employee shall be placed under suspension except when an inquiry into the gross misconduct of such employee is contemplated.
(b) No such suspension shall remain in force for more than a period of two months from the date of suspension and if such inquiry is not started and completed within that period, such employee shall without prejudice to the inquiry, be deemed to have been restored as employee:
Provided that the competent authority may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend the said period of two months for a further period not exceeding two months, if in the opinion of such competent authority the inquiry could not be completed within the said period of two months for reasons directly attributable to such employee.
(4) Every such employee as is placed under suspension under subsection (3) shall be paid subsistence allowance at such rates as may be prescribed during the period of his suspension. (5) Before imposing any penalty, other than the penalties 14 specified in sub-section (1), an employee shall be informed in writing of the allegations on which action is proposed to be taken and be given an opportunity of making a representation, but it shall not be necessary to hold an oral inquiry into such allegations.
20. Further, Rule-19 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Establishment, Recognition, Administration and Control of Schools under Private Managements) Rules, 1993 as enumerated in G.O.Ms.No.1 Education (P.S.2) dated 01.01.1994 reads as under:
Rule 19. Disciplinary Control:-
(1) The disciplinary powers are vested with the management in general. The appellate authority against the actions of the management is the competent authority as defined in rule 3. Subject to the provisions of the Act:
(a) No employee should be kept under suspension by the management except as provided in Section 79 of the Act.
(b) An employee who is kept under suspension shall be paid subsistence allowance at one half of the salary drawn by him immediately before suspension plus allowances admissible on such salary;
(c) An order of suspension may at any time be revoked by the next higher authority to the competent authority:
(d) In addition to the penalties specified in sub section (1) of Section 79 of the Act the following penalties may also be imposed against any employee for negligence of duty, disobedience of orders, misconduct, violation of code of conduct or for other sufficient cause:
(i) Fine,
(ii) Censure,
(iii) Withholding of increments or promotion,
(iv) Reduction to a lower rank in seniority or reduction in the time scale of pay,
(v) Recovery from pay the whole or part of the pecuniary losses caused to the Government or to the institutions by negligence or breach of orders,
(e) No employee shall be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank by an authority subordinate to the management.
(f) In every case where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified, the ground on which the action is proposed shall be reduced to the form of a definite or charges. The charges shall be communicated to the person charged together statement of allegations and their basis and of any other circumstances leading to the charges.15
The person charged shall be required within a reasonable time to put a written statement of defence and to state whether he desires an oral enquiry or only to be heard in person for the charges. The charged person shall be permitted to peruse the records and take extracts from such records as he may specify, provided that the management may for reasons to be recorded in writing refuse such permission, if in its opinion such records are not relevant for the purpose or it is against the interest of the institution to allow access thereto. If an oral enquiry is desired by the person charged the management shall appoint an Enquiry Officer who shall be superior in rank to the charged person to conduct enquiry. At that enquiry oral evidence may be heard as to such of the allegations as are not admitted and the person charged shall be entitled to cross examine the witness, to give evidence in person and to have such witness called as he may wish, provided that the authority conducting the enquiry may for special and valid reasons to be recorded in writing refuse to call a witness;
After the enquiry has been completed the person charged shall be entitled to put in, if he so desires, any further written statement, of his defence. If no oral enquiry is held and a person charged desires to be heard in person, a personal hearing shall be given to him by the authority directed by the management.
The proceedings shall contain a sufficient record of the evidence and the statement of the findings and the grounds thereof.
(g) After examination of the report of the Enquiry Officer or where no enquiry has been held on consideration of the statement of defence of the person charged and other circumstances of the case, the management shall issue a show cause notice of not less than two weeks to the charged officer enclosing the report of the Enquiry Officer. After considering the explanation the management may impose any of the penalties.
Provided that in the case of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank the management should get prior approval of the authority or officer under sub-section (1) of Section 79 of the Act;
(h) The above provisions shall not apply where the authority to impose the penalty is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that it is not reasonably/practicable to hold an enquiry or to inform the employee in writing of the allegations or charges on which action is proposed to be taken or where it is proposed to impose the penalty on the ground of conduct which lead to his conviction on a criminal charge which involved moral turpitude. In such cases, the management shall obtain prior permission from the competent authority."
16
21. A conjoint reading of Rule 19(g) and Section 79 (1), referred to above, would indicate that the enquiry has to be conducted and the prior approval of the competent authority is essential in the case of dismissal, removal or reduction of rank, before taking such actions. In Tagore Home Junior College, Secunderabad v. P.P.A. Christian and others 3, a Division Bench of the then Composite High Court of Andhra Pradesh, emphasized on the pertinence of the proviso contained in Section 79 (1), as follows;
"27. The proviso appended to sub-section (1) of Section 79 of the Act has been enacted for a purpose of allowing the competent authority to consider the materials on record independent of the opinion formed by the enquiry officer and/or by the disciplinary authority so as to enable him to come to a conclusion that the matter is such where a major penalty is required to be imposed. The competent authority before grant of such approval would, therefore, be required to apply its own mind and satisfy itself, prima facie, that rules of fair play and natural justice have been complied with. The requirement to take prior approval before a punishment can be imposed cannot be said to be an empty formality, which can be dispensed with only in a case where the proviso is attracted. With regard to the importance of complying with the principles of natural justice, reference may be made to a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Sri Hanuman Steel Rolling Mills v. CESC Ltd., AIR 1996 Cal. 449, wherein one among us (S.B. Sinha, J.) observed:3
. 2001(3) ALD 742 (DB): 2001 SCC OnLine AP 354 17 "39. In my opinion, the principles of natural justice are required to be complied with, be it pre-decisional hearing or a post decisional one depending on the facts and circumstances of each case".
(emphasis supplied)
22. In the present case, no such exercise has been undertaken by Respondent No.4. The record is vivid on the point that immediately after receiving the reply from the Respondent Nos.,2 and 3, the management has straight away imposed the punishment of termination of the individual from service without complying the relevant provisions. At the cost of repetition, it is clear from the letter addressed by the Respondent No.3 that Respondent No.4 has to submit the proposals to the office of Respondent No.3 for taking necessary action. By this bare wording also, it cannot be said that the Respondent No.4 has got every jurisdiction to pass the impugned order without the approval of the competent authority.
23. It is a settled principle of law that judicial review does not tend to operate as an appeal from a decision, but it investigates the manner in which a certain decision is taken. This power is enshrined to this Court, vide Article 226 of the Constitution of India to ensure fair treatment of the individual in light of the statutory cushions. In this context, the Hon‟ble Apex Court while reiterating the position of law laid down by a three-Judge 18 Bench in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India & Ors 4 in Ex-Const/DVR Mukesh Kumar Raigar v. Union of India & Ors.5 observed as follows;
"10........When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with"
(emphasis supplied)
24. For the afore-mentioned reasons and in the light of the legal position and law laid down on the issue involved, the impugned Proceedings dated 18.07.2018 issued by the Respondent No.4 is null and void, for being contrary to the provisions of law, and as such, it deserves to be set aside.
25. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed setting aside the Proceedings dated 18.07.2018 issued by the Respondent No.4. However, it is left open to the Respondent authorities to take disciplinary action by following due process of law as per the Governing rules and law. No order as to costs.
As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
________________________________ JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA 29.02.2024 Mjl/* 4 (1995) 6 SCC 749 5 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 44 19 HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE VENKATA JYOTHIRMAI PRATAPA Writ Petition No. 28235 of 2018 29.02.2024 Mjl/*