Karnataka High Court
Muniswamy Reddy And Ningamma Trust vs State Of Karnataka on 9 November, 1995
Equivalent citations: ILR1995KAR3299, 1995(6)KARLJ553
Author: B. Padmaraj
Bench: B. Padmaraj
JUDGMENT Pendse, C.J.
1. These three Appeals are directed against common Judgment dated March 16, 1990 delivered by learned Single Judge in three Writ Petitions and ban be conveniently disposed of by common Judgment. The facts unfold at the hearing of the Appeals disclose the dishonest manner in which the appellants have secured the prime lands from Bangalore Development Authority and obviously in collusion with some of the officers of the Authority. The facts speak for themselves and are required to be briefly set out to appreciate the grievance of the respondents - original petitioners.
2. The Karnataka Government passed Bangalore Development Authority Act, 1976 and provided for the establishment of a Development Authority for the development of City of Bangalore and areas adjacent thereto. The Bangalore Development Authority is constituted under Section 3 of the Act and consists of large number of members. The State Government appoints Commissioner for the authority in accordance with the provisions of Section 12 of the Act and the officer is one not below the rank of Divisional Commissioner. The Authority has the power to undertake works and draw up schemes for the development of Bangalore Metropolitan Area. The predecessor of the Authority was City Improvement Trust Board. In accordance with the powers conferred under City of Bangalore Improvement Act, large areas of land adjoining Bangalore City were acquired for public purpose by the Authority. The public purpose was to develop lands for purposes of housing. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 69 of the Act, the Government of Karnataka had framed Rules known as the Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules, 1982. Rule 6 deals with disposal of sites for public purposes and inter-alia provides that sites can be allotted on lease basis to educational institutions, play grounds, hostels, temples, community centres etc., but only for public purposes and on such rents and subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Authority. Among the lands acquired by the Authority were the area covered by the erstwhile Village of Dhookanahalli and which were adjacent to Indiranagar, a prime locality in the City of Bangalore. The Authority had prepared scheme for forming layout in this land and which is known as the Extension of Indiranagar.
3. Appellant No. 2 - M.B. Reddy - owns vast extent of lands in Bangalore City and also owns large number of constructed premises. Appellant No. 2 is working as a Civil Contractor and is on the recognised list of the Authority. The family members of Appellant No. 2 also owns vast extent of lands and properties in Bangalore. On August 2, 1982, Appellant No. 2 created a private Trust of which the family members including two minor children of Appellant No. 2 were nominated as Trustees. Appellant No. 2 as the author of the Trust, declared a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as Trust property. The name of Trust is Muniswamy Reddy and Ningamma Trust and the office of the Trust is also situated in the premises of Appellant No. 2. Appellant No. 2 was appointed as Managing Trustee of Appellant No. 1 while the other members of the Trust were the family members and who are also beneficiaries. The object of the Trust was to construct a Kalyana Mantapa, religious and charitable institutions, Temples and construction of Choultry. The Trust Deed recites that the income of the Trust after deducting out-goings, expenses shall be divided and credited to the accounts of each of the beneficiaries in equal shares and such income shall belong to the respective beneficiaries absolutely. The clauses of Lease Deed leave no manner of doubt that the Trust was created for the personal benefits of Appellant No. 2 and his family members.
Within a week after creation of the Trust, a letter was addressed on August 9, 1982 to the Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority requesting for allotment of Civic Amenity site in Indiranagar II Stage. The letter recites that the Managing Trustee is willing to construct Choultry, Nursery School and Temple and hence, requests for allotment of civic amenity site. Another letter dated September 21, 1982 was addressed to the Town Planning Member of the Authority setting out that the Trust was registered and members of the Trust are the family members of Appellant No. 2. Reasons for allotment of civic amenity site were reiterated. A third letter dated December 27, 1982 was addressed to the Authority demanding allotment of site admeasuring 60 x 90 Meters, out of Sy.Nos. 19 and 20 of Dhookanahalli Village. Neither of these letters are produced by the Authority on a specious ground that the file is not traceable. The appellants produced copies of the first two letters but not the third letter. On December 1, 1982, the Board members of the Authority passed Resolution No. 413 and it reads as follows:
"It was resolved to allot a CA site measuring 120m x 180m in Sy.No. 19 and 20 of Dookanahalli village, in favour of Sri Muniswamy Reddy and Ningamma Trust for constructing Choultry, Nursery school and temple, subject to usual conditions of allotment of CA sites to Charitable institutions."
The further action was to be taken by Town Planning Authority, but the Town Planning Authority was ignored and so also the Commissioner.
4. Rule 6 of Bangalore Development Authority (Allotment of Sites) Rules 1982 enables the Authority to allot sites for public purposes but such sites are to be allotted only after inviting applications and for a specific period and under Agreement of Lease. Rule 7 specically provides that the sites allotted under the Rules shall be deemed to have been leased to the allottees. Rule 14 inter-alia provides that not withstanding anything contained in the Rules, the Commissioner may at the request of the allottee execute a Deed of Conveyance subject to conditions and limitations specified in Sub-rule (2). The Commissioner was kept out of the picture and on December 13, 1982 letter of allotment was issued in the name of the Trust by Public Relations Officer. The letter of allotment recites that the Authority has approved the request for allotment of a site admeasuring 120m X 180 meters in Sy.Nos. 19 and 20. It is obvious that though the appellant had sought for allotment of area of 60m X 90 meters, the Authority was extremely charitable in allotting double the area. The record does not indicate that before passing the Resolution and issuance of letter of allotment, the Authority felt any necessity to enquire as to whether the reason given for seeking allotment was genuine one. The Authority did not care to ascertain the object of the Trust or the ability of the Trust to secure the land on lease and then to raise construction. Even though Rule 6 specifically provides that allotment is under an Agreement of Lease, curiously, on January 24, 1983 Lease-Cum-Sale Agreement was executed by the Deputy Secretary of the Authority in favour of the Trust. The appellants paid a sum of Rs. 2,75,200/- to the Authority towards consideration for the allotted lands. The annual lease amount was fixed at Rs. 12/- and Clause (7) of the document sets out that the Authority at the end of ten years shall sell the schedule property to the Trustees and all expenses in connection with such sale, such as stamp duty, registration charges etc., shall be borne by the Trustees. The appellants claim that the consideration of Rs. 2,75,200/- was paid as purchase price. There is something more which is fraudulent in respect of the document. The Deputy Secretary had no authority whatsoever to execute the document and sell the property; the letter of allotment sets out that an area of 120m X 180 meters and whfch admeaures about 2 acres 37 guntas equivalent to 1,23,842 sq.feet, was allotted to the Trustees, but what the schedule to the document of Lease-Cum-Sale Agreement sets out is that a plot of land formed in Sy.Nos. 19 and 20 was allotted and the boundaries given show that the lands allotted are not only Sy.Nos, 19 and 20, but even lands bearing Sy.Nos. 17, 18 and 21; and if the boundaries are noted, then that confers upon the appellants an area admeasuring 5 1/2 acres equivalent to 2,32,640 sq. ft. In other words by dishonest recitals in the schedule, the Deputy Secretary of the Authority allotted double the area of land than was provided by the allotment letter. It is, therefore, obvious that the appellants asked for an area of 60m X 90 meters, the Authority allotted area of 120m X 180 meters and the Deputy Secretary while executing the document allotted 5 1/2 acres of land to the appellants. The appellants were put in possession of huge area of 5 1/2 acres on January 24, 1983 itself.
There is one more aspect which also should not be overlooked. The appellants have sought for allotment of land which was reserved for civic amenities, but what was allotted to the appellants was land which was reserved for building sites. In accordance with Zonal Regulations which were in existence in the year 1982, the allotment of sites for construction or buildings was permitted to the extent of 55 to 60 percent and the remaining area was reserved for civic amenities like hostels, markets, shops, recreation grounds and public roads etc. The Counsel for the appellant very fairly stated that the land allotted was not out of that which was reserved for civic amenities though the appellants had specifically sought allotment out of that area. This is one more instance of illegalities committed for the benefit of the appellants.
5. Just prior to the date of allotment, the Authority was issuing allotment letters very liberally and a grievance was made that such allotments were made to suit the elections which were due within a few days. A complaint on that count was made to the Chief Minister and on January 10, 1983, the Chief Minister issued an order and an official communication dated January 12, 1983 was addressed to the Commissioner of the Authority. The communication reads as under:
"Government desires to review the orders issued by the Bangalore Development Authority in regard to distribution of sites and allotments as also any major decisions involving substantial financial implications after 4-12-1982, before they are implemented. Till the review is completed, you are requested not to give effect to any orders issued after 4-12-1982. A list of all such orders may be sent within two days as the same is to be made available to the Chief Secretary."
In the face of this communication, the Commissioner, who was an IAS officer, could not have issued any order in favour of the appellants, but bypassing the Commissioner, the Public Relation Officer issued allotment letter on December 13, 1982. Not only allotment letter was issued but even Lease-Cum-Sale, agreement was executed on January 24, 1983 by the Deputy Secretary and possession was also handed over to the appellants on January 24, 1983. This conduct on the part of the subordinate officers of the Authority indicates that somebody at the top working in the Board must have colluded with the appellants to hand over prime land for a throw away price and that too by violating every norm and Rule in respect of allotment of lands.
6. A large number of residents occupying premises in the lay-out area represented to the Commissioner on June 1, 1985 that the allotment of land to the appellants was in violation of the Rules and ' represented that the grant of large area of land has blocked the passage and entry to Sri Muneswaraswamy Temple. A Member of the Legislative Assembly of the locality also complained to the Chief Minister supporting the grievance made by the residents of the locality. The complaints ultimately reached the Board and the processing section processed the file and noticed that the allotment was in breach .of all existing Rules. A note was thereupon prepared setting out the breaches committed and the note clearly recites that several allegations made by the residents and the Member of the Legislative Assembly were found to be true. The note was "placed before the Authority for review of the resolution and for taking appropriate action. The note was placed before the Board on July 15, 1985 and it was resolved that in view of the reasons stated in the note, the allotment in favour of the appellants shall be withdrawn. It was further resolved to take necessary action against the concerned officers. In pursuance of the Resolution, order of withdrawal of allotment was served upon the appellants on July 15, 1985.
The appellants thereupon approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No. 11687/85 to challenge the action of the Board in with drawing the allotment. The Petition succeeded on narrow ground that before issuing order of withdrawal, the appellants were not given hearing and thereby principles of Natural Justice were violated. The learned Judge by Judgment dated August 2, 1985 permitted the Board to hold fresh enquiry and pass appropriate orders.
7. The appellants were then served with show cause notice dated September 5, 1985 calling upon to explain why the order of allotment should not be cancelled. The Commissioner gave hearing to the appellants after reply was filed. The Commissioner visited the site along with the appellants and the officers of the Board and then prepared a Report for placing before the Authority. The Report makes a sad reading. The Commissioner noticed that the appellants had fraudulently and in collusion with the officials of the Authority had obtained allotment of the land. The Commissioner felt that the same is liable to be cancelled for various reasons. The reasons were:
i) That the Trust had requested for allotment of Civic Amenity site, but the land allotted was building site.
ii) The allotment papers were processed in spite of the order issued by the Government not to give effect to the orders issued by the Authority in regard to the distribution of sites made after December 4, 1982;
iii) The Lease-cum-Sale agreement was executed and possession handed over without reference to Town Planning Section:
iv) Authorisation and permission of the Commissioner to process the file as required under Section 13(2)(h) of the Bangalore Development Act, was not secured;
v) The Deputy Secretary had signed the agreement without any authority.
vi) The Lease-cum-Sale agreement was in violation of Rule 6 of the Rules permitting allotment of sites.
The Commissioner also noticed that the Trust was created with a small sum of Rs. 1,000/- as the property of the Trust and that income was quite inadequate to have the constructions like Kalyana Mantapa, school or temple. The Commissioner concluded that the circumstances clearly reveal that the Trust had been created to knock off Bangalore Development Authority's property in collusion with the officers and consequently, the Resolutions and the implementation having been made hastily and fraudulently and the file was processed completely ignoring the directions of the Government and without following the B.D.A. Rules.
The members of the Board obviously found the report not to their liking and curiously directed the Inspector of Vigilance, who is a petty officer, to submit a report. As desired, the Vigilance Inspector submitted report on April 1, 1986 recommending that the grant in favour of the appellants should be restored. Relying upon the report of the Vigilance Inspector and without even caring to look into the report made by the Commissioner, an I.A.S. officer, the Board resolved on June 11, 1986 by passing the following resolution:
"..... The Authority reviewed in detail the whole case as per orders of the Govt. In G.O. dated January 12, 1983 and also noted that the site allotted to Shri Muniswamy and Ningamma Trust was not a C.A. site and therefore confirmed the allotment in Sy.No.19 and 20 of Dhookanahalli village in favour of the Trust."
8. When the Appeal reached hearing on the first occasion, we called upon the Counsel for the Board to produce for our perusal the file containing the Applications made by the appellants and the grant of land. We also called upon the learned Counsel to produce the minutes of the meeting confirming the allotment on June 11, 1986. Learned Counsel sought time to produce the relevant files. On the next date of hearing the Counsel stated that the files were misplaced and are being traced and sought some further time. We. readily acceded to the request though we had suspicion as to whether the files will see the light of the day. Our suspicion found to be correct, as the Counsel subsequently informed that the files were not yet traced and it must be said to the credit of the learned Counsel that the copies of Resolutions dated December 1, 1982, and June 11, 1986 and copies of notes prepared at the time of cancellation of the grant and the Report made by the Commissioner were made available. A perusal of these documents leaves no manner of doubt that the Report of the Commissioner was absolutely correct and it surpasses our imagination as to how the members of the Board could have ever confirmed allotment in face of such report. We were desirous of ascertaining whether the confirmation of allotment was passed in the meeting after holding discussion and whether the requisite members were present, but the relevant files are not available. Mr. Datar, learned Counsel for the Authority, stated that the minutes do not indicate that any discussion took place before confirming the allotment. This state of affairs is a sad reflection upon the manner in which properties which were acquired for public purpose are merrily distributed to enable individual to make profits.
9. In pursuance of confirmation of allotment, license was granted to the appellants on August 5, 1986 to commence construction. To challenge the order of allotment, three Writ Petitions being Writ Petition Nos. 19918, 21707 and 21788 of 1986 were filed on November 10, 1986, December 15, 1986 and sometime in December 1986 respectively. The grievance of the petitioners was that the entire process of allotment of land to the appellants was not only fraudulent, but dishonest in every respect and such allotment could not have been made but for active collusion between the officers of the Authority and the appellant No. 2 who was very closely connected with the authority, being powerful and rich contractor and whose services were engaged by the Authority. The Petitions were filed as Public Interest Litigation. The Petitioners sought the relief of quashing of the allotment order and any other appropriate order in consequence thereof. The Bangalore Development Authority filed return and had no courage to deny what was claimed in the petitions except raising vague and frivolous contentions. The appellants also filed reply and inter-alia claimed that the allotment should not be disturbed. The learned Single Judge disposed of all the three Petitions by Common Judgment delivered on Marcn 16, 1990. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that7 the grievance made by the petitioners is perfectly correct and the allotment in favour of the appellants was totally fraudulent and collusive. On the strength of this finding, the learned Judge passed the following operative order:
"(i) All these Writ Petitions are allowed.
(ii) The resolution of the Authority in subject No. 413 of the meeting dated 1 st December 1982 granting land measuring 120m x 180m to Muniswamy Reddy and Ningamma Trust in Sy.No.18 and 20 of Dookanahally Village is hereby quashed.
(iii) The lease-cum-sale agreement executed by the Authority in favour of the trust shall stand annulled protonto.
(iv) The Authority will take possession of the entire land in Sy.Nos.19 and 20 allotted to the Trust as also the land otherwise occupied by the Trust pursuant to the grant made as aforesaid.
(v) It shall take over and complete the construction of the choultry commenced by the Trust and thereafter the Authority will run it on a no profit no loss basis.
(vi) The Authority is hereby ordered to refund Rs. 2,75,000/-paid by the Trust towards the land value and it will also pay to the Trust the value of the super structure standing on the land in question which is now directed to be acquired by the Authority.
(vii) The value of the superstructure will be decided upon by the Engineering Department of the Authority in consultation with and after giving a due hearing to the Trust in that behalf.
(viii) Since the Authority is responsible for the start of this litigation by making a legally untenable grant to the Trust it will bear and pay the costs of each of the writ petitioners herein. Advocate's fee fixed at Rs. 1000/- in each case.
(ix) The vacant land in Sy.Nos. 18 and 20 that will now revert to the Authority following this order, shall be disposed of henceforward in accordance with the rules of the Authority.
(x) The Authority is directed to complete the construction of the choultry within 6 months from the date of taking possession of the existing superstructure and thereafter to commission the same."
The Decision of the learned Single Judge is under challenge,
10. Mr. Sundaraswamy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, opened the submission by urging that the learned Single Judge was not right in entertaining the Petitions filed under the guise of Public Interest Litigation. It was claimed with reference to the return filed by the appellants that Muninanjappa had engineered the litigation to subserve his own cause. It was urged that this Muninanjappa was seeking a road from the Authority on a site adjacent to the property which had been allotted to the appellants, but was unsuccessful and thereupon instituted suits in the City Civil Court. Muninanjappa was unable to secure interim relief and thereupon to take vengeance against the appellants, who were allottees, had instituted more than one Petition through his friends and relations. Learned Counsel submitted that the Petitions instituted at the behest of Muninanjappa should not have been entertained. We are unable to find any merit in the contention. It is wholly unnecessary to examine whether Muninanjappa had any interest to challenge the litigation in favour of the appellants when the record clearly establishes that fraud had been practiced and valuable property held by the Public Authority is handed over to an individual for a consideration, which we are afraid, was far less than the prices prevalent in the locality. The allotment as noticed hereinabove was not only for inadequate consideration, but in violation of each and every Rule made by the Authority. The Court exercising Writ Jurisdiction when comes across such gross facts, then the issue as to who brought these facts to the notice of the Court loses all its relevance. The Writ Court cannot close eyes and permit the illegalities by declining to entertain the proceedings on the ground that the persons who filed the Writ Petitions had their own cause to serve. We must at once make it clear that we are not impressed by the submission that Muninanjappa had instituted proceedings to take vengeance against the appellants. The averments made in the return are not sufficient to warrant any such conclusion. In these circumstances, in our Judgment, the first contention of the learned Counsel is required to be turned down.
11. Mr. Sundaraswamy then submitted that even though the Writ Petitions were admitted by the learned Single Judge in the year 1986, interim relief was not granted and the appellants had raised construction to a substantial degree. It was claimed that the appellants had already constructed basement and ground floor and the construction has come upto roof level and this construction had cost substantial amount. The Counsel submitted that even assuming that the allotment was illegal and collusive, still when the appellants desire to raise construction for a charitable purpose like running of Nursery School, Temple and Kalyana Mantapa (Marriage Hall), the Court should not disturb the order of allotment. The submission is merely required to be stated to be rejected, it is impossible to imagine how it can be even claimed that whatever may be the means to secure the allotment, as the object of the appellants is charitable, the means should be ignored. It is not permissible to adopt dishonest and illegal means and then claim that the means were adopted for good cause. We are not also prepared to accept the contention of the appellants that the construction for charitable and religious purposes are beneficial to the public. We have no hesitation in observing that the appellants were actuated by commercial motive to secure such an allotment. The marriage-halls, we were informed at the Bar, fetches huge fortune on letting out from day to day on exhorbitant rent. The claim that the Temple and Nursery School were to be constructed for the benefit of the people is also devoid of any merit, because it is not unknown that even Temples and Nursery Schools fetch huge benefits to the owner. These are tell-tale circumstances to indicate that the appellants were actuated with the profit element as disclosed in the Trust Deed. A perusal of the Trust Deed makes it clear that the income of the Trust after deducting expenses was to be divided and credited to the accounts of each of the beneficiaries or the family members of the creator of the Trust. Mr. Sundaraswamy submitted that though the Trust Deed does indicate that the profits and benefits out of the properties secured from the Authority were to be distributed between the members of the family, the appellants have filed undertaking before the learned Single Judge inter-alia stating that the appellants would utilise the income received from the buildings constructed for meeting capital and revenue expenditure of the buildings and the institutions to be run thereon are not for their personal benefits. We are amazed at the plea of the appellants expecting that the Courts will be taken in by such undertakings. The appellants cannot expect the Courts to believe a person who had played fraud upon the Authority and had secured large area of 5 1/2 acres of prime-land in the City of Bangalore at a throw-away price. Even assuming that the appellants had a change of heart because of the proceedings, it is impossible to imagine how the undertakings filed before the Single Judge can be enforced in any manner. We do not attach any importance to such frivolous undertakings. In out Judgment, the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in concluding that the allotment secured by the appellants was fraudulent, collusive and should be set aside.
12. Though we agree with the conclusion recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are not prepared to uphold the directions given in clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (x) of the operative order of the learned Single Judge. By clauses (v) and (x) the learned Judge directed that the incomplete construction commenced by the appellants should be taken over by the Authority and complete it within a period of six months and thereafter should be run on no profit no loss basis. We are not prepared to foist the Authority with completion of construction of illegal buildings. We are unable to appreciate why a public body should be foisted with expenses of completing the construction which had commenced illegally and by practising fraud. Merely because some of the officers of the Authority are not above board, that is no ground that the public funds held by the Authority should be wasted on completion of illegal construction undertaken by the appellants. It is not the function or the duty of the Authority to run Marriage-Hall partly constructed by the appellant. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the directions given by the learned Single Judge in clauses (v) and (x). We do not desire that the public authority should waste huge amounts on such useless and illegal constructions. By Clause (vi) of the operative order, the learned Judge directed the Authority to refund Rs.2,75,000/- to the appellants. The learned Judge further directed that the Authority should pay the value of the structure illegally constructed by the appellants on the land in dispute; and by Clause (vii) it was directed that the value of the structure constructed should be determined by the Authority in consultation with its Engineering Department after giving hearing to the appellants. We are unable to appreciate how the appellants can ever claim such directions from Writ Court which had found that the appellants were guilty of practising fraud and colluding with some of the officers of the Authority in securing the allotment order by flouting every norms and Rules. Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the appellants were guilty of practising fraud and colluding with the officers of the Authority, then the appellants are not entitled to get any benefit whatsoever. In paragraph 26 of the Judgment, the learned Judge felt that as the appellants had raised a part of the structure, the appellants should be paid the value thereof. We entirely disagree with such observation. A person who illegally constructs on a public property, cannot claim any return from the said property. The appellants are also not entitled to seek refund of the amount paid to the Authority, because the appellants had retained the property with them from the date of allotment till to-day. The Authority was deprived of the property for more than twelve years and the learned Single Judge was clearly in error in giving directions to the Authority to return the amount. The direction given in clauses (vi) and (vii) are, therefore, required to be set aside.
The directions given in Clause (viii) also cannot be sustained because the Authority was directed to pay the cost of the original Writ Petitioners. We think that it was the appellants who should have been directed to pay the costs. Merely because some of the officers of the Authority are not above board and were obviously colluding with the appellants in misrepresenting, that is no ground that the public authority should be directed to pay the costs of the Writ Petitioners. The main culprits in the entire show are the appellants and the appellants are liable to pay the costs to the original Writ Petitioners. The direction given by the learned Single Judge in Clause (viii) is also, therefore, required to be set aside and the appellants should be directed to pay the costs of the Writ petitioners.
13. We direct the Authority to take immediate steps to recover possession of the land allotted and that means not only Sy.Nos.19 and 20 of Dhookanahalli village, but each and every part of the land covered by the schedule to Lease-cum-Sale agreement executed by the Deputy Secretary of the Authority in favour of the appellants. The Authority is directed to take possession forthwith and thereafter demolish all illegal construction erected thereon by the appellants and recover from them all the expenses which will be required for demolishing the illegal construction made thereon. The Authorities are directed that thereafter, the land should be allotted only in accordance with the Rules and only after properly advertising the same. We are conscious that even though the original petitioners and the Authority have not preferred any Appeal against the directions given by the learned Single Judge in clauses (v) to (viii) and (x), still in the interest of Justice, those directions are required to be set aside. We are hearing the Appeals in proceedings commenced as Public Interest Litigation and we cannot permit public interest to be suffered because of erroneous directions given by the learned Single Judge.
14. Accordingly, Appeals are dismissed and the directions given by the learned Single Judge in Clauses (v), (vi), (vii), (viii) and (x) are set aside. The Appellants shall pay the costs of the original petitioners throughout. Advocate's fee fixed by the learned Single Judge as Rs. 1000/- in each of the Petitions is maintained.