Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

MOTI LAL AND OTHERS versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Moti Lal And Others v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - A No. - 10184 of 2006 [2007] RD-AH 18082 (20 November 2007)

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

A.F.R

Reserved

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 10184 of 2006

`````````

Moti Lal & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.

Hon. Arun Tandon J.

Heard Sri Vijay Gautam, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for private respondents and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondents.

Petitioners, who are 21 in number, claims to have been appointed as daily-wage class-IV employees in Printing and Stationery Department, Government Press, Allahabad. Such appointments are alleged to have been offered to the petitioners between 1988 to May, 1993.

Petitioners through this petition have prayed for two reliefs:

(a) regularisation of their services in terms of the Government Order dated 2nd June, 2001 and dated 24th September, 2001,

(b) a writ of certiorari quashing the orders dated 24th February, 2005 and dated 25th August, 2005, whereby the respondents have rejected the representations of the petitioners against regularization offered to private respondent nos. 6 to 35 on Class-IV posts, which according to the petitioners is illegal, inasmuch as petitioners being senior having being appointed on daily wages basis, at a prior point of time, as Class-IV employees to the said respondents, have been denied such regularization, while the said respondent nos. 6 to 35 have been regularised.

On 23rd February, 2006, this Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, passed a detail order, which reads as follows:

23rd February, 2006

"The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 6326 of 1994 in its order dated 26th November, 1997 with reference to the scheme, which had been formulated in the shape of circular dated 12.11.1997 held as under.

"The aforesaid appeal sets out a claim for regular appointment being offered to the daily rated employees working in the Government Press. We take this as willingness on the part of the Government to grant such age relaxation in all suitable cases wherever required. In view of the scheme, which has now been proposed, no further order are required to be passed in the appeal."

The scheme in the shape of circular dated 12.11.1997 has been brought on record in the present writ petition at page 66 of the paper book. It only provided for age relaxation being granted to daily rated employees who were working in the Government Press as well as for filling up the vacancy against the reserved category before making appointment of the person belonging to general category. The circular did not contemplate any regularization being offered to the daily rated employees.

Taking shelter behind the said order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondent State Authorities surprisingly issued a circular dated 2nd June, 2001 where under it has been provided that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.11.1997 (referred to above) a decision has been taken to regularize the services of daily wages employees in accordance with the relevant service rules applicable.

The aforesaid circular was further modified vide Government letter dated 24th September, 2001 and it is now provided as follows:

"jktdh; eqnz.kky;ksa esa orZeku esa dk;Zjr" 'kCn ds LFkku ij "fnukad 12-11-97 dks dk;Zjr nSfud osru Hkksxh dehZ" i

Meaning thereby that the claim of the employees, who were working on 12.11.1997 be considered in accordance with the Government Order dated 2nd June, 2001, which in turn provides for regularization being offered in accordance with the relevant service rules applicable.

Standing Counsel has not been able to point out any Statutory Rules/Government Orders providing for regularization of daily wages employees applicable on the subject. He has, however, referred to the Grade "D" Daily Wages Employees Service Rules, 1985 with the allegation that the aforesaid rules were in fact produced before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Civil Appeal (referred to above). The aforesaid rules provide for regular appointment by direct recruitment only.

It may also be taken note of that it was only in the year, 2001 the State of U.P. has come up with U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments of Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001 and under the aforesaid rules it has been provided that any daily wages employee appointed prior to 29th June, 1991 and in continuous employment as such on the date of enforcement of the U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments of Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001 is alone would be entitled for being considered for regularization.

In view of the aforesaid fact, this Court is prima facie satisfied that respondents have adopted an apparently arbitrary attitude in offering regularization to the daily wages employees working in the Government Press at Allahabad as well as at Lucknow without there being any Statutory Rules or Government Orders applicable in their favour.

These orders have resulted in a situation where a daily wage employee irrespective of his date of appointment as well as the period for which he had actually worked has been regularized only if he was working as daily wage employee on 12.11.1997. It has to be kept in mind that in respect all other daily wage employees working in various departments of State a minimum period of working i.e. between 29.6.91 to 2001 (i.e. 10 years) has been prescribed under U.P. Regularization of Daily Wages Appointments of Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001 before a right for consideration for regularizations has been provided. The regularization in respect of employees of the Government Press could have been provided/considered only in light of the rules, which has been enforced in the year, 2001 (referred to above) and not otherwise. However, before any further orders are passed, let separate counter affidavit be filed by respondent no. 1 and respondent no. 3 categorically disclosing as to under what circumstances regularization of daily wages employees working on Group 'D' post in the Government Press de-hors the aforesaid rules has been directed and who is responsible for such an act. Affidavit must be filed on or before 23rd March, 2006.

Put up on 23rd March, 2006. for further hearing.

Any regularization made shall be subject to the orders to be passed in the present writ petition.

Certified copy of this order may be supplied to the Standing Counsel by Monday i.e. 27.2.2005."

Thereafter on 5th May, 2006, this Court not being satisfied by the affidavit filed by the Special Secretary, Heavy Industries, U.P., framed two issues qua which reply was called for from the Secretary concerned. It is worthwhile to reproduce the order of the Court dated 5th May, 2006, which is being quoted herein below:

5th May, 2006

"From the affidavit filed by the Special Secretary, Heavy Industries, U.P. on behalf of respondent no.1, this Court is satisfied that deliberately an evasive reply has been given in order to circumvent the detailed order passed by this Court dated 23rd February, 2006. On 23rd February, 2006 this Court had insisted upon the respondent to disclose the rules/scheme under which regularization has been offered to the daily wage employees working in the Government Press at Allahabad. Instead of explaining the query so made, the respondents have come up with a plea that the State Government had permitted grant of age relaxation to the employees already working, as the time of regular selection. It necessarily follows that regular selection was required to be held in accordance with the rules applicable for which advertisement is a must. The Counter Affidavit filed today does not disclose any procedure known to law for regular appointment on Class IV post having been adopted while offering regularization to the employees of Government Press. Further under order of this Court dated 23.2.206 the Principal Secretary, respondent no.1 was required to file his personal affidavit which has not been done and the deponent Special Secretary has made an attempt to confuse the real issue.

However, before any further orders are passed, one more opportunity is afforded to the Respondent no.1 to file his personal affidavit categorically stating:

a. As to whether any scheme or statutory rule providing for regularization of daily wage employees is followed while offering regularization to the employees of the Government Press at Allahabad or not.

b. Whether any regular selection has been made in accordance with the rules applicable for such regular appointment before offering regularization to the employees of the Government Press or not.

If the Secretary is satisfied that procedure known to law has not been followed, he may take action in accordance with law against all involved.

The Secretary must file his personal affidavit on or before 23.5.2006, failing which he shall remain present before this Court in person.

List on 23.5.2006."

The Court on 23rd May, 2006 passed the following order:

"23rd May, 2006

Learned Standing Counsel states that a counter affidavit on behalf of Secretary, Industries, Geology and Mining has been filed on 19th May, 2006 in the office of this Court and a copy of the same has been produced before this Court.

Office is directed to trace out the same and place it on record.

From paragraph nos. 8 and 9 of the affidavit filed by the Secretary, Industries, Geology and Mining, this Court is prima facie satisfied that there is deliberate attempt to evade specific reply to the queries made by this Court and further to some how or other prolong the proceedings in respect of illegal appointment offered to daily wage employees. Even after noticing that the appointment (regularization), which has been offered to daily wage employees in the Government Press, Allahabad is de horse the rules, the Secretary comes up with a plea that an inquiry is being conducted and for the same he may be granted some time.

It is surprising that instead of taking appropriate action for setting the wrong right, an effort is being made to perpetuate the illegality by directing an inquiry.

Before any further orders are passed, it would be fair that the Secretary may have one more opportunity to explain as to why appropriate action against the employees, who have offered illegal appointment (regularization) as well as against the officers, who were involved in such illegal acts, has not been taken. He shall also file his personal affidavit by the next date fixed, failing which he shall remain present before this Court with all relevant records.

List on 10th July, 2006."

It appears that the State-authorities decided to issue notices to the persons, who were offered regularization, namely, respondent nos. 9 to 35 having regard to the observations made by this Court in the aforesaid orders, accordingly, notices dated 29th July, 2007 were issued to the respondent nos. 9 to 35 to show cause as to why their regularization be not held to be null and void.

Gajendra Singh & Ors. (respondent nos. 9 to 35), however, filed an application before this Court seeking stay of the proceedings with reference to the notices dated 29th July, 2006. The application so made was rejected by the Court vide order dated 2nd August, 2006 with the observation that the private-respondents may file their reply to the notice so issued.

For ready reference the order of this Court dated 2nd August, 2006 is being quoted herein below:

"02.08.2006

This application has been filed by newly added respondent nos. 9 to 35. By means of this application, it has been prayed that further proceedings in pursuance of the show-cause notice dated 29th July, 2006 may remain stayed during the pendency of the present writ petition. A copy of the show-cause notice issued to the newly added respondent nos. 9 to 35, dated 29th July, 2006 has been enclosed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

Learned counsel for the newly added respondent nos. 9 to 35 with reference to the various orders passed by the State Government in alleged compliance of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, submits that regularisation/absorption, which were earlier offered to the applicants-newly added respondents, was in conformity with the decision of the State-Government itself. He, therefore, submits that the notice, as has been issued, is legally not justified. He further points out that the orders of this Court, which have been recorded in the impugned notice, do not disclose as to what was the exact objection to the absorption/regularization, which has been offered to the applicants. He, therefore, prays that further proceedings in pursuance of the show-cause notice dated 29th July, 2006, may remain stayed.

I have heard Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Amit Kumar Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of newly added respondents, Sri Vijay Gautam, Advocate on behalf of petitioners and learned Standing Counsel on behalf of State-respondents.

It is admitted to the applicants that their engagement as daily wage employees was ceased in the year 1998. It is also admitted that on the date, provisions of Uttar Pradesh Regularization of Daily-wages appointment on Group-D posts' Rules, 2001, were enforced, applicants were not in employment, therefore, the said Rules have no application in their case. Lastly it has been stated that applicants, infact, were reinstated in employment after years together under the orders of absorption/regularization. It is in these set of facts that the plea raised by the counsel for the applicants are to be examined.

In the opinion of the Court, no interference is warranted at this stage of the proceedings against the show-cause notice dated 29th July, 2006, which has been issued to the applicants newly added respondents, inasmuch as if, the applicants feel that the orders passed by this Court reproduced in the impugned notice do not reflect upon any illegality or irregularity in the absorption/regularization offered to the applicants, it is always open to the applicants to submit reply in that regard and bring to the knowledge of authority concerned that this Court has not found any illegality or irregularity in the absorption or regularization offered to the applicants and, therefore, the show-cause notice issued proceeds on misreading of the orders of this Court.

In case the applicants are able to decipher, the same irregularities/illegalities qua absorption/regularization, having been noticed by this Court in the orders recorded in the impugned show-cause notice, they may be advised to file their reply and justify the order of absorption/regularization issued in their favour.

This Court has no room to doubt that in case the explanation, which may be filed by the applicants, the same shall be considered by the authority concerned before taking a final decision. The authority concerned shall pass a reasoned speaking order by the next date fixed.

This Court has not refrained itself from adverting to the legality of the order of regularization/absorption issued in favour of the applicants, as any observations made while deciding this application may adversely effect the case of the applicants, which they may plead in reply to the notice now issued.

With the aforesaid directions/observations, the present application is disposed of finally."

Instead of submitting a reply to the notice issued by the respondent-authorities, as provided under order of this Court dated 2nd August, 2006, the said respondents filed Special Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court being Special Appeal No. 943 of 2006 (Gajendra Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). The Division Bench disposed of the Special Appeal with the observation that the writ petition itself may be finally decided and that the respondent-authorities shall take action against the appellants, if necessary, in accordance with the findings to be recorded by the Single Judge while deciding the writ petition. Till such decision, the notice dated 29th July, 2006 was kept in abeyance.

For ready reference the relevant portion of the Division Bench Judgement is being quoted herein below:

"In view of the above and the submissions of the learned Standing Counsel, we request the learned Single Judge to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible as the pleadings are already complete. The respondent-authorities shall take action against the appellants, if necessary, in accordance with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in deciding the above writ petition. Till the final decision of the writ petition, the show-cause notice dated 29th July, 2006 shall remain in abeyance.

With the above observations, Special Appeal is finally disposed of."

In pursuance to the judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court, this matter was taken up for final hearing by this Court.

On behalf of respondents, it was submitted that the writ petitioners were not found fit for regularisation because neither they were possessed of the prescribed minimum qualification nor they fulfil the essential physical requirements. It is further submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, inasmuch as the petitioners had approached this Court earlier by means of Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44773 of 2003 (Moti Lal & 21 Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & 4 Ors.), wherein the regularization offered to private respondents had not been challenged. Petitioners only prayed for consideration of their representations. Now since their representations having been rejected, they have no right to enlarge the controversy and raise objections qua regularisation offered to the private respondents.

With regard to the basic issue, as to whether the regularisation, as has been affected by the State-respondents, in respect of daily wages employees, contrary to the Statutory Rules of regularisation, namely, U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments of Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001, learned counsel for the petitioners, learned counsel for private respondents could only refer to the judgement and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 12th November,1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6326 of 1994 (State of U.P. & Anr. Vs. Pradeshik Rajkiya Mudralaya Karmachari), which according to the parties forms the basis for the regularization offered. Petitioners as well as private respondents allege that the judgment and order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred to above, is binding between the parties, irrespective of the Statutory enforced qua regularisation of Class-IV daily wage employees.

The issue as to whether this writ petition suffers from laches or not, may be examined by this Court first.

It is no doubt true that the regularisation was offered to the private respondents vide order dated 10th December, 2003. The petitioners approached this Court immediately by filing of Writ Petition No. 44773 of 2003 (Moti Lal & 21 Ors. Vs. The State of U.P. & 4 Ors.) claiming that they were entitled for such regularisation in preference to the respondents. The writ petition was decided under judgment and order dated 20th December, 2004 requiring the State-authorities to decide the representations made by the petitioners. The representations made on 6th January, 2005 by registered post, were received in the office of competent authority, namely, Director, Government Press, Allahabad. The representations were finally decided vide order dated 24th February, 2005 passed by the Deputy Director, Government Press, Allahabad, the same was communicated to the petitioners vide letter of the Joint Director, Government Press, Allahabad vide letter dated 25th February, 2005. The petitioners thereafter on 18th March, 2005 through their Counsel, made another representation before respondent no.4 for compliance of the order of this Court dated 20th December, 2004. Thereafter petitioners initiated contempt proceedings before this Court being Contempt Petition No. 1676 of 2005, which accordingly to the petitioners is pending consideration before this Court.

The present writ petition challenging the aforesaid order was filed on 14th February, 2006. From the facts, as noticed herein above, it is apparently clear that the petitioners were pursuing their remedy with due diligence, therefore, it cannot be said that the present writ petition suffers from laches, as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents.

The second issue with regard to the petitioners being not found eligible for regularisation because of lack of minimum qualifications, as they could not fulfil the requisite physical requirements/academic qualification is dependant upon the basic issue as to whether the consideration for such regularization has taken place in accordance with law, which regulates the procedure for regularisation or not.

From the records of the present writ petition, it is apparently clear that the petitioners as well as the private-respondents have solely relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 26th November, 1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6326 of 1994 (State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Pradeshik Rajkiya Mudralaya Karmachari) and the Government Order dated 24th September, 2001. The order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as the Government Order have already been quoted in the order of the Court dated 23rd February, 2006 referred to above. It may be noticed that on the date the regularization orders had been issued, the Statutory rules, namely, U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments of Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001 had already been enforced to be pr??cised on 21st December, 2001.

This Court may record that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its order dated 26th November, 1997 had only recorded the willingness on the part of the State Government, to grant age relaxation for the purposes of regular appointment and not for regularization, as claimed by the daily wage employees. The Hon'ble Supreme Court permitted the age relaxation as proposed, to be acted upon only for the purposes of regular appointment to be made as per the rules applicable. Even otherwise, the Government Order dated 24th September, 2001, which extended the date of appointment of such daily wage employees entitled to be considered for such regular appointment as 12th November, 1997, was a subject matter of consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, no its validity has been subject matter of consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.

In view of the aforesaid, this Court has no hesitation to record that Government Order dated 26th November, 1997 did not contemplate regularization, not it contemplated any regular appointment, contrary to the rules applicable, the Government Order dated 29th September, 2001, which extended the date of appointment in respect of daily wage employees entitled to be considered for regularization, is totally misplaced and based on misreading of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India dated 26th November, 1997 referred to above.

In response to the orders of this Court dated 23rd February, 2006 and dated 5th May, 2006, the Secretary, Industries, Geology and Mining, Government of U.P. Lucknow has filed an affidavit, wherein it has been more or less admitted that the regularization offered to respondent nos. 9 to 35 runs contrary to the statutory provisions and therefore, is illegal. In the affidavit it has been stated as follows:

"3. That the Government Presses at Allahabad, Lucknow, Rampur and Varanasi conducted proceedings and appointed 139 daily-wage employees on Class IV posts between July 2001 and December, 2003. This selection was made from among the daily-wage employees who had either worked or were working at the time of selection proceedings as daily-wagers.

4. That vide G.O. No. 2777/PS/18-8-1 (i) PS/96 dated 12.11.1977, direction was given to make regular selection to vacant posts of Class-IV employees according to rules applicable and in that selection qualified daily wage employees of the aforesaid four Government Presses who were found fit were to be given age relaxation. A copy of the G.O. Dated 12.11.1997 has already been filed as ANNEXURE NO. CA-4 to the Counter Affidavit of Shri Naval Kishore, Special Secretary filed on 05.05.2006.

5. That there are no separate service rules for these Class-IV employees of Government Press for regular selection as such. The Group-D employees Service Rules, 1985, Department of Personnel were the only rules under which regular selection according to rules could have been conducted. These rules provide for advertisement of the vacant post and proper selection procedure.

6. That, besides this, the Uttar Pradesh Regularisation of Daily-Wages Appointments on Group-D post Rules 2001 were also available for regularization of daily- wagers of these Government Presses but these rules have not been considered by the Appointing Authority.

8. That regarding first point " As to whether any scheme or statutory rule providing for regularization of daily wages employees is followed while offering regularisation to the employees of the Government Press at Allahabad or not", it is to be mentioned that there were no separate departmental rules for selection or regularization of Class IV daily wage employees of the Government Press. No statutory scheme or the afore-mentioned regularization rules 2001 were considered for regular employment of the daily wages employees.

9. That regarding second point "whether any regular selection has been made in accordance with the rule applicable for such regular appointment before offering regularization to the employees of the Government Press or not", it is submitted that directions were issued vide G.O. No. 2777/PS/18-8-1 (i) PS/96 dated 12.11.97, G.O. No. 620 PS/18-08-20 (31) PS/93 dated 15.04.1998, G.O. No. CM-22/77-2-20 (31) PS 93 TC dated 02.06.2001, G.O. No. CM-126/77-2001 dated 24.09.2001, G.O. No. 3268/77-2-20 (31)/93 TC dated 29.10.2001, according to which regular selection was to be followed and qualified daily wagers working in the Govt. Press were also to be given opportunity of Interview along with other candidates and if the daily wage employees were successful in the same, age relaxation was to be granted. Regular selection after due advertisement should have been adopted as per the aforementioned 1985 Service Rules of the Personal Department, Government of U.P., but instead of following this procedure, these 139 daily wages employees were selected only from among the daily wagers by the selection committees.

10. That since the procedure known to law has not been followed, appropriate departmental action against all those involved shall be taken after detailed enquiry."

It is settled law that no policy decision of the State Government can run contrary to the Statutory provisions applicable. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its recent judgment in the case of State of Orrisa & Ors. vs. Prasana Kumar Sahoo; 2007 AIR SCW 4604, in paragraph-14 has held as follows:

"14. Even a policy decision taken by the State in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162 of the Constitution of India would be subservient to the recruitment rules framed by the State either in terms of a legislative act or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. A purported policy decision issued by way of an executive instruction cannot override the statute or statutory rules for less the constitutional provisions."

The Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Umadevi & Ors., reported in JT 2006 (4) SC 420, Paragraph-36 has held as follows:

"36. While directing that appointments, temporary or casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts are swayed by the fact that the concerned person has worked for some time and in some cases for a considerable length of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement either temporary or casual in nature, is not aware of the nature of his employment. He accepts the employment with eyes open. It may be true that he is not in a position to bargain---not at arms length--- since he might have been searching for some employment so as to eke out his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view that a person who has temporarily or casually got employed should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment which is not permissible. .....................The argument that since one has been working for some time in the post, it will not be just for discontinue him, even though he was aware of the nature of the employment when he first took it up, is not one that would enable the jettisoning of the procedure established by law for public employment and would have to fail when tested on the touchstone of constitutionality and equality of opportunity enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India."

Thus, it is held that no regularisation could be offered by the Government Press contrary to the provisions U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments of Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001 after their enforcement.

In view of the aforesaid conclusion, this Court provides that the respondents shall take all appropriate action qua the regularization of daily wage employees strictly in accordance with the provisions U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments of Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001. In case any regularisation has been affected in teeth of the aforesaid provisions, appropriate action be taken in respect of such regularization in terms of the notice issued by the State-respondents dated 29th July, 2006 preferably within four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the authority concerned. In case the petitioners or the private respondents possess the prescribed qualification for regularization as per the provisions of U.P. Regularisation of Daily Wages Appointments of Group 'D' Post Rules, 2001, suitable orders for their regularization may be passed within the same period. Authorities are also directed to make regular appointment on Class-IV posts, as per the rules applicable i.e. Group 'D' employees Service Rules of 1985 and to provided age relaxation to the Daily Wage Class-IV Employees already working in the Government Press as per the Circular dated 12th November, 1997 and as provided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment and order dated 26th November, 1997 passed in Civil Appeal No. 6326 of 1994, preferably within 10 weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is filed before the Director. It is ordered accordingly.

This writ petition is disposed of subject to the observations made above.

November 20th , 2007

Sushil/-


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.