Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
S.K. Sood, Ias vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Anr. on 21 August, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(2)SLJ94(CAT)
ORDER Shanker Raju, Member (J)
1. Applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
(a) To quash respondent's impugned order dated 17.1.07,
(b) To direct the respondents not to reduce his rank and status from that of a Secretary to the Govt. of India.
(c) To direct the respondents not to repatriate him to his parent state.
(d) To issue any other order/direction as may be deemed appropriate in the interests of justice in this case.
2. By way of interim relief applicant has sought a direction, restraining respondents from reverting him to the lower post or repatriate him to his parent cadre. An interim order passed on 9.5.2007, directed respondents not to revert applicant to the post of Additional Secretary.
3. By an order passed on 23.5.2007 interim order has been continued, finding prima facie case in favour of applicant.
4. Applicant, a direct recruit in Indian Administrative Service (IAS) was allocated to Himachal Pradesh Cadre in 1971. On 1.5.2003 he was appointed as an Adviser in the rank and pay of Additional Secretary and also as Director General, DGS&D under the Ministry of Commerce in the rank and pay of Additional Secretary in October, 2003.
5. Applicant, who was empanelled as Additional Secretary in the Centre, on compulsory waiting in the Ministry of Commerce was appointed by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC), as Secretary, National Commission for Scheduled Castes (SC). The website of Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T) shown designation of applicant as Additional Secretary, which was represented against by applicant, led to an order passed by the DoP&T on 17.1.2007, wherein, on clarification, it has been asserted that applicant's rank is of Additional Secretary. This was further represented to.
6. As a list shown the post of Secretary, National Commission for SC, likely to fall vacant on 27.5.2007, apprehending his reversion and repatriation, applicant filed the present O.A.
7. Mr. O.P. Gehlaut, learned Counsel appearing for applicant, contended that applicant on being empanelled as Secretary or equivalent, as Secretary, National Commission for SC by the Competent Authority, cannot now be treated as an Additional Secretary by the DoP&T, which has no role in the appointments of Secretary and governance of their service conditions. Mr. Gehlaut states that once there has been no indication in the order, appointing applicant as Secretary to have been appointed in the pay and rank of Additional Secretary cannot be done by an Incompetent Authority, i.e., DoP&T.
8. One of the contentions raised is that if civil consequences ensue upon a Government servant, whereby his rank is reduced, any penal action, causing prejudice, where the rights of applicant are affected, cannot be resorted to without following the due process of law, failing which the entire action would be violative of principles of natural justice. Learned Counsel has promulgated the doctrine of promissory estoppel by relying upon a decision of the Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Nestle India Ltd. and State of Orissa v. Mangalam Timber Products Ltd. to contend that after appointing applicant as Secretary to the Government of India or equivalent, Government is estopped from taking a contrary view, as doctrine of promissory estoppel applies to service jurisprudence as well.
9. Mr. Gehlaut has also invoked the doctrine of legitimate expectation by relying upon a decision of the Tribunal in Kamal Kumar v. UOI 1999 SLJ (CAT) 285, to contend that once applicant has been allowed to continue as Secretary, he has a legitimate expectation to continue as such and any adverse action de hors the rules and law would not be countenanced in law.
10. Learned Counsel states that National Commission for SC is a constitutional body constituted under Article 338 of the Constitution of India. According to him, National Commission has its own procedure and regulations in the light of the rules of procedure of National Commission, framed under Article 338(4) of the Constitution of India. Accordingly it is stated that the applicant was appointed by the competent authority, i.e., President as Secretary and has been designated as such. It is also stated that in the National Commission, the post of Secretary is in the fixed scale of 8,000, which has been raised to 26,000 (fixed) and vide officer order dated 09.08.2005, the applicant has been appointed on a fixed pay of Rs. 26,000, which is admissible to a Secretary to the Government of India and Secretariat service.
11. Mr. Gehlaut has relied upon the lists of Secretaries to the Government of India to contend that in this list, the applicant has been shown to be a Secretary in the National Commission for SC and by drawing attention to office memorandum dated 05.10.2006, i.e., list of dignitaries as Warrant of Precedence, it is stated that National Commission for SC has figured therein and the incumbents being equivalent to the Secretary, to the Government of India. Learned Counsel would also contend that Ministry of Home Affairs, Warrant of Precedence places Secretary SC and ST Commission among the Secretaries to the Government of India.
12. Mr. Gehlaut states that appointment of the applicant as Secretary to the Commission is without any tenure or time limit. Accordingly, it is stated that unlike the post in Ministry, the post of Secretary in the National Commission for SC being a statutory post, selection for post of Secretaries under the Staffing Scheme in the Central Secretariat is different from the selection for post equivalent in other departments, not forming part of the Secretariat, namely, technical post or post in Income Tax, Excise etc. Though the person may belong to different service, yet is appointed as Secretary to the Government of India.
13. As an alternate submission, it is stated that the applicant was already in the pay scale of Additional Secretary to the Government of India, when appointed in the centre in May, 2003 with no fixed tenure of the post held by him. Now Paragraph 17.06 of the Central Service Staffing Scheme mandates that officers at the level of Additional Secretary, having one year or less for superannuation, need not be reverted to the parent cadres, but they may be given extension of the tenure. As the applicant is superannuating on 29.02.2008, he may be retained. Learned Counsel has also relied upon Transaction of Business Rules, 1961 and 3rd Schedule under Rule 8 to contend that for appointment, resignation and removal of the special office in ST Commission, Article 338 empowers only the Prime Minister and President and, as applicant has been appointed by the President, the order passed by the DoP&T, correcting the website, is without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel would contend that what is applicable on the applicant in the matter of pay scale in Commission are not the pay scales of Indian Administrative Service. Learned Counsel would also contend that vires of the Central Staffing Scheme has been upheld by the Apex Court in S.L. Shukla v. Union of India 2006(3) SLJ SC 301 is no more in dispute but the case is distinguishable and would not apply to the present situation, as therein promotion was in issue but the present is a case of appointment, wherein DoP&T has no role and as the appointment of applicant as equivalent to the Secretary to the Government of India was of regular nature, he cannot be reverted.
14. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the official respondents, Mr. K.R. Sachdeva, produced the relevant record from Cabinet Secretariat and stated that the applicant has never been reduced to the rank of Additional Secretary. Letter dated 17.01.2007 of the DoP&T has already rectified the inadvertent mistake, where name of the applicant was erroneously shown at the level of Secretary. Learned Counsel would contend that the applicant has never been empanelled as Secretary but is an Additional Secretary and his appointment as Secretary to the National Commission is in the rank and pay of the Additional Secretary, as without following due process of law, Additional Secretary cannot be empanelled under the Central Staffing Scheme. It is further stated that pay of the applicant has been fixed as Rs. 26,000 was without any authority. Mr. Sachdeva stated that rank and pay of the officers appointed on various posts in the centre under the Staffing Scheme is based upon the status of their empanelment. If Secretary is appointed as Secretary to the National Commission, he gets rank and pay of the Secretary but when an Additional Secretary gets appointed as Secretary of a Commission, he would be entitled to only rank and pay of the Additional Secretary. Learned Counsel would contend that a bona fide typographical error can always be rectified for which no order from the Competent Authority is required. Learned Counsel would contend that under the Central Staffing Scheme, applicant joined as Additional Secretary at the Centre w.e.f. 28.05.2003, his normal tenure is of four years, which had ended on 27.05.2007. As the appointment of the applicant was never notified with the pay of the Secretary, there is no reversion of the applicant. It was also submitted that pay of an IAS officer is invariably governed under the IAS (Pay) Rules, 1954. Cadre posts are specified in the Schedule and pay attached thereto for en-cadre posts - an equivalence to cadre posts is required to be made. Since applicant was not appointed as Secretary to Government of India, he cannot claim the pay of that post. Mr. Sachdeva fairly admitted that it was an omission in the order dated 27.5.2007 to not specify that, as posting as Secretary, National Commission for SC is in the rank and pay of Additional Secretary.
15. Mr. R.N. Singh for Mr. R.V. Sinha, appeared for National Commission and contended that it does not lie within the jurisdiction of the Director, DOP & T to pass orders, which are within the competence of only ACC. It is stated that post of Secretary in National Commission is equivalent to Secretary to the Government of India and it is very surprising that how an Additional Secretary was posted despite knowing the facts. The Warrant of Precedence has been relied upon to establish that the status of post of Secretary, National Commission is in the rank and pay of Secretary to the Government of India. Mr. R.N. Singh states that the appointment order neither specified any tenure period of posting of the applicant nor explicitly mentioned about the rank of the Additional Secretary. Learned Counsel has cited an example of one Shri K.K. Gupta, who has been earlier appointed as Secretary, National Commission, wherein it was specifically mentioned in the order that he would hold the rank and pay of the Additional Secretary.
16. Mr. R.N. Singh states that as the post of Secretary, National Commission, is equivalent to the post of Secretary, carries a pay scale of Rs. 26,000 (fixed). Accordingly, a gazetted notification dated 09.08.2005 has been issued by the Ministry for Social Justice and Empowerment and the ACC being the Appointing Authority, is signed by the President under Article 72 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, there has been a disagreement between the respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 regarding fixation of pay without any authority, as contended by respondent No. 1. Learned Counsel would contend that the pay of the Secretary to the Commission was Rs. 8,000 (fixed) but after 5th CPC's recommendation Rs. 8,000 pay was fixed as Rs. 26,000 (fixed). In a manner the respondent (SC Commission) have espoused the case of the applicant with a further submission that as per the Right to Information Act, 2005 under Section 4( 1 )(b)(v) every public authority, including the respondent No. 1 should have displayed on their website information meant for the public, including the officers at the level of the applicant why not mentioning the entire particulars, there has been a violation of the above provision.
17. Learned Counsel lastly states that there is no post of Additional Secretary, National Commission for SC/ST and as the applicant took over as the Secretary, he would have to be deemed as Secretary with all attendant benefits.
18. Rejoinder reiterates the plea taken by applicant in O.A. i
19. We have carefully considered the rival contention of the parties and perused the records produced by the respondents' Counsel.
20. At the outset, though pragmatism has been brought in our judicial system and equity may not be a positive right but a rightful consideration in dispensation of justice, the doctrines of promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation have been recognized as valid doctrines and with their enforceability in rule of law. However, one thing is trite that both these principles of equity would not apply when these doctrines have been invoked against the statute or law.
21. Article 14 of the Constitution of India does not recognize within its ambit a concept of negative equality.
22. It is also trite that a wrong order cannot bestow the genesis for an indefeasible right to be claimed, as ruled by the Apex Court in Registrar, High Court of Gujarat v. C.G. Sharma . The Apex Court in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Kamini and Ors. ruled as follows:
In our opinion, the submission of the learned Counsel for the Commission is well founded and must be accepted. Therefore, even if in 1993, some ineligible candidates were wrongly treated as eligible, the first respondent cannot insist that she also must be treated eligible though she is ineligible. In our considered opinion, such an action cannot give rise to equality clause enshrined by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is well settled and needs no authority that misconstruction of a provision of law in one case does not give rise to a similar misconstruction in other cases on the basis of doctrine of equality. An illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated under the so-called 'equality doctrine'. That is not the sweep of Article 14. Even that contention, therefore, has not impressed us.
23. Having regard to the above, promissory estoppel would not apply against the statute or law. If a promise extended by the Government is founded on a wrong order, it would not provide an indefeasible right to the concerned to perpetuate the illegality which is contrary to law.
24. In Southern Petrochemical Industries v. Electricity Inspector & ETIO , legitimate expectation has been well defined with the following observations:
136. Unlike an ordinary estoppel, promissory estoppel gives rise to a cause of action. It indisputably creates aright. It also acts on equity. However, its application against constitutional or statutory provisions is impermissible in law. This aspect of the matter has been considered in State of Bihar and Ors. v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh and Ors. stating:
77. We do not find any merit in the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the principle of equitable estoppel would apply against the State of Bihar. It is now well known, the rule of estoppel has no application where contention as regards a constitutional provision or a statute is raised. The right of the State to raise a question as regards its actions being invalid under the constitutional scheme of India is now well recognised. If by reason of a constitutional provision, its action cannot be supported or the State intends to withdraw or modify a policy decision, no exception thereto can be taken. It is, however, one thing to say that such an action is required to be judged having regard to the fundamental rights of a citizen but it is another thing to say that by applying the rule of estoppel, the State would not be permitted to raise the said question at all. So far as the impugned circular dated 18.2.1989 is concerned, the State has, in our opinion, a right to support the validity thereof in terms of the constitutional framework.
XXX XXX XXX
147. Legitimate expectation is now considered to be a part of principles of natural justice. If by reason of the existing state of affairs, a party is given to understand that the other party shall not take away the benefit without complying with the principles of natural justice, the said doctrine would be applicable. The legislature, indisputably, has the power to legislate but where the law itself recognizes existing right and did not take away the same expressly or by necessary implication, the principles of legitimate expectation of a substantive benefit may be held to be applicable.
25. Having regard to the above, applying the aforesaid to the facts of the present case, let us examine as to the validity of Central Staffing Scheme. Central Staffing Scheme promulgated by the DoP&T concerns with procedure for selection and appointment of officers to the Secretarial post above the rank of Under Secretary and also non-Secretarial posts. Clause 14 of the Staffing Scheme lays down methodology to adjudge the suitability of officers concerning appointment to the post of Additional Secretary/Secretary or the posts equivalent has to be approved by the ACC on the proposal extended by the Cabinet Secretary who is assisted by a Special Committee of Secretaries drawing up proposals for consideration of ACC. This is to be done on annual basis. It is to be made clear that placement of Additional Secretary is an appointment but not a promotion. Accordingly Paragraph 15 of the Staffing Scheme mandates panels for the posts of these levels would be kept with the Cabinet Secretary. Para 17.02 provides that when a Joint Secretary or equivalent is posted to a post under the Government of India at the level of Additional Secretary would have four years maximum tenure and Secretary has no fixed tenure. Accordingly Para 17.03 provides on completion of the tenure of Additional Secretary to revert back to his original cadre. However, an exception is under Paragraph 17.06 where officer at the level of Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary, who had been on Central deputation having one year or less for superannuation at the end of their central tenure need not be reverted to the parent cadre and will be given extension till they superannuate. The only condition precedent is that such an Additional Secretary level officer is not empanelled for the post of Secretary.
26. Having regard to the above, Apex Court in Satya Narain Shukla v. Union of India and Ors. upheld the constitutional validity of Staffing Scheme by holding that Paragraph 14 of the Central Staffing Scheme is intra vires and also ruled that post of Additional Secretary is not a promotional post for IAS Officer. Non-empanelment as Secretary to the Government of India is neither arbitrary nor contrary to the rules and if not vitiated by mala fide cannot be interfered in a judicial review.
27. Applying the aforesaid, applicant admittedly belongs to Himachal Pradesh cadre and had been empanelled as Additional Secretary to the Government of India. For being empanelled under the Central Staffing Scheme, the methodology under Paragraph 14 of the Staffing Scheme has to be undertaken. On perusal of the official records produced before us that we find is that a Special Committee of the Secretaries held on 21/28-12-2004 in the Cabinet Secretariat when considered empanelment of IAS Officers of 1971 batch for Secretary level appointment, insofar as the case of the applicant is concerned recommended him for appointment as Secretary or equivalent on a non-Secretariat post. However, this proposal was not accepted by the Competent Authority and subsequently, on constitution of the Special Committee of the Secretaries on 24.01.2005 in the Cabinet Secretariat on account of certain serious irregularities brought to the limelight against the applicant, it was recommended that the empanelment of the applicant as Secretary or Secretary equivalent at the Centre be stalled and was decided to be reviewed once the charges are clear. Though on perusal of the records, applicant who has been recommended for empanelment as Secretary or equivalent earlier the proposal was not approved and kept in abeyance to be reviewed when the charges are cleared. Subsequent proceedings attending to the presidential order dated 26.07.2005 clearly established that earlier decision to keep the appointment as Secretary in abeyance has not been revoked and rather applicant who was yet to be absolved in the disciplinary proceedings to be instituted against him and as the aforesaid process was taking time he was appointed as Secretary, National Commission for SC not in the capacity and as a result of the earlier decision but as a posting to the applicant on his compulsory wait in the rank of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India. However, as the applicant was appointed as Secretary in National Commission for Scheduled Castes by an order passed on 26.07.2005 by the ACC, we have called for the record leading to these orders. On perusal of the concerned file, what we find that ACC had undertaken an exercise where vacancies at the level of Additional Secretaries are to be filled up. In such an event, insofar as case of the applicant is concerned, it is decided that as the applicant, an Additional Secretary to the Government of India in whose respect a decision to repatriate him to his parent cadre was taken in Feb. 2005 but on keeping this decision in abeyance, applicant was put on compulsory wait as the disciplinary proceedings contemplated against him were taking time, meanwhile it was decided to appoint applicant as Secretary to the National Commission for Scheduled Castes. Accordingly order appointing the applicant as Secretary was issued on 26.07.2005.
28. Having regard to the above, we do not find the process and methodology as envisaged in Clause 14 of the Staffing Scheme was adopted before the applicant was posted as Secretary of the National Commission for SC. Accordingly, we have no hesitation to conclude that the appointment of the applicant as Secretary to the Commission was not in the capacity of a Secretary to the Government of India. Though applicant had earlier been recommended for empanelment as Secretary or equivalent, was not approved by the Competent Authority and later on, instead of empanelling the applicant as Secretary to the Government of India, as he had been investigated into for certain irregularities, for want of vacancies in the level of Additional Secretary, applicant was placed as Secretary to the Commission, however, in the capacity of Additional Secretary to the Government of India and definitely not as a Secretary to the Government of India. Without being empanelled and formally appointed in the rank and pay of Secretary, Government of India, applicant is not legally entitled to claim the pay and status of Secretary to the Government of India for which the due process when not completed with the approval of the Competent Authority. Applicant has no legal indefeasible and vested right to be accorded that status. We do not find any allegation of mala fide or arbitrariness or violation of the rules though appointment to the level of the Secretary to the Government of India and empanelment cannot be claimed as a fundamental right but right of consideration is paramount. As the applicant has been considered and was not empanelled on finality of approval by the Competent Authority, he cannot claim the status of being appointed as a Secretary to the Government of India. He remains as an Additional Secretary and the records concerning the order passed on 26.07.2005 leave no doubt in our mind that the applicant being Additional Secretary to the Government of India has been given a posting as Secretary, National Commission for Scheduled Castes. However, the aforesaid pay and status of the applicant has not been reflected in the order would not ipso facto amounts to empanelment of the applicant under the Staffing Scheme as Secretary to the Government of India.
29. It is trite that when a thing is to be done in a particular manner, no other manner can be subscribed in law. If applicant has not been appointed on empanelment as Secretary to the Government of India without following due process as envisaged under Clause 14 of the Staffing Scheme, his claim to treat him as Secretary to the Government of India cannot be countenanced in law.
30. We have seen the reply of the Commission, which it at variance with the reply filed by the respondent No. 1. The distinction made to treat the applicant as Secretary to the Government of India by the Counsel of the Commission is that being a constitutional body under Article 338 of the Constitution of India once the pay scale has been fixed as 26,000 (fixed), appointment of the applicant in that scale would deem to be an appointment as Secretary to the Government of India on a non-Secretariat posts is misconceived. Nobody can be empanelled as a Secretary to the Government of India whether on a Secretariat or Non-Secretariat post without being considered as per the procedure under the Central Staffing Scheme and with the approval of the Competent Authority. The contention put forth by the applicant highlighting Rule 8 under Schedule of the Transaction of Business Rules that special officer under Article 338 are to be appointed by the Prime Minister and the President, we do not find that the Secretary to the Commission has been designated as a special officer. No doubt, the President is the Appointing Authority of the executives including the post of Secretary, yet an appointment de hors the Rules without following due process cannot be treated as an appointment in accordance with the law. Applicant who was on compulsory wait, merely his posting being an Additional Secretary to the Government of India as Secretary to the Commission for SC would not alter his status and shall not amount to an appointment on empanelment as a Secretary to the Government of India. We find from the record that one Shri K.K. Gupta was earlier appointed as a Secretary, National Commission for Scheduled Tribes in the rank and pay of the Additional Secretary. Accordingly, the contention put forth that when the status of the Secretary of Commission is equivalent to the Secretary, Additional Secretary cannot be posted is unfounded.
31. Several documents shown including the Warrant of Precedence showing Secretary to the Commission in the lists of Secretaries and appointment letter of the applicant where his salary has been fixed as Rs. 26,000 (fixed) and also lists of Secretaries to the Government of India whereby name of the applicant has been shown at Serial No. 158 is shown Secretary by virtue of his posting as Secretary to the Commission but not by virtue of his appointment as Secretary on empanelment under the Central Staffing Scheme. The applicant may have been a Secretary to the Commission but substantively he holds the level of Additional Secretary in the Government of India and was on Central deputation of which the term has come to an end. Applicant has to be dealt with for his further posting in accordance with the Staffing Scheme. Moreover, what we find that the Warrant of Precedence etc., are not relevant in issue to determine the status of the applicant, which has to be decided on the basis of the statutory rules and law.
31A. In the matter of pay scale of an officer belonging to Indian Administrative Service, it is not the Commission's pay scales as reflected in the schedule are to apply but the IAS (Pay) Rules for pay fixation where Additional Secretary has to be appointed in fixed scale of Rs. 22,400. In such view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the applicant by implication cannot become a Secretary to the Government of India for which a due process as envisaged under Central Staffing Scheme is to precede on approval of the Competent Authority, failing which there is no valid legal empanelment of the applicant to the level of Secretary to the Government of India.
32. The record preceding the order passed by the respondents appointing the applicant as Secretary to the Commission indicate that the applicant was treated and operated in the matter of posting as an Additional Secretary to Government of India. He was posted as D.G. (S&D), Ministry of Commerce in October, 2003-where he continued upto February, 2005 and then put on compulsory wait. While on compulsory wait, he was posted as Secretary of National Commission for SC but, not on promotion as Secretary to Government of India or equivalent.
33. Insofar as the jurisdiction of the DoP&T to correct its website and delete the name of the applicant from the list of Secretaries to the Government of India is concerned, a mistake, which is typographical and against law, as a trite law, need to be rectified, for which no reasonable opportunity is required. Such rectification of mistake would not entail following of principles of natural justice, as ruled in Union of India and Ors. v. O. Chakradhar that in the matter of illegality, the principles of natural justice would have no application. Moreover, as held by the Apex Court in Canara Bank v. V.K. Awasthy when no prejudice is caused following principles of natural justice is a useless formality.
34. As the applicant was an Additional Secretary to the Government of India, his appointment as Secretary inadvertently omits his status and pay in the scale of post of Additional Secretary is to be governed by the IAS Pay Rules. Applicant has no right to be appointed to a pay scale to which he is not entitled except on empanelment as Secretary to the Government of India. Nevertheless, applicant has drawn this fixed scale not on account of any fraud or misrepresentation attributed to him, he should not be made to suffer and any recovery thereof would not be justifiable as ruled in Babulal Jain v. State of M.P. and Ors. .
35. We also do not find any application of principles of promissory estoppel or doctrine of legitimate expectation, which cannot be invoked against law. Though the applicant has no right to be treated as Secretary to the Government of India, yet he is retiring on superannuation on 29.02.2008, as per Clause 17.06 of the Staffing Scheme, where following has been provided:
17.06 Officers at the level of Additional Secretary and Joint Secretary having one year or less for superannuation at the end of their Central tenure need not be reverted to their parent cadres and they can be given extension of tenure till they superannuate; provided that an Additional Secretary level officer is not empanelled for the post of Secretary.
as, he has less than one year to go for superannuation, his case requires consideration by the respondents strictly in accordance with the aforesaid provisions.
36. We do not find that the applicant has been reduced in any manner either in his rank or status.
37. Resultantly, the request of the applicant not to reduce him to the rank and status of an Additional Secretary to the Government of India and a declaration to treat him as Secretary to the Government of India is turned down. However, the respondents are directed to consider retaining the applicant on extension in the central tenure till his superannuation as per Paragraph 17.06 of the Central Staffing Scheme. This shall be done by a speaking order to be passed within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order till then status quo as of date shall be maintained. O.A. stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.