Dharmendra Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
2012 Latest Caselaw 2236 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 2
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 19070 of 2012
 

 
Petitioner :- Dharmendra Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
 
Petitioner Counsel :- Jyotish Awasthi
 
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.

1. Heard Sri Jyotish Awasthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

2. As requested and agreed by learned counsel for the parties since pleadings are complete, I proceed to decide the matter finally at this stage under the Rules of the Court.

3. This writ petition is listed, connected with another writ petition No.41394 of 2009. The learned counsel for the parties have referred to the documents filed in the connected writ petition also but since, in the present case, during course of arguments, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel stated that he find it difficult to defend the orders impugned in this writ petition and the two orders are unsustainable, I am deciding this writ petition separately.

4. The petitioner, Dharmendra Singh, was appointed a Fair Price Dealer to cater cardholders residing in Village Nagla Shukla, Block Mahewa, Tehsil Bharthana, District Etawah. On 08.01.2011, a Supply Inspector made inspection/enquiry and found several irregularities in petitioner's shop, namely, found closed, no display of various informations, non distribution of essential commodities in a regular manner to cardholders, charging excess price, and, instead of 4 litres of kerosene oil to per cardholders distributed only 3 litres thereof, and thereby selling remaining quantity in black market, violating provisions of U.P. Scheduled Commodities (Distribution) Order, 2004.

5. Founded on the said report, the Deputy Collector, Bharthana, required the petitioner to show cause and during pendency of proceedings towards cancellation of agreement, it was suspended. The petitioner submitted reply stating that he opened shop on 8.1.2011 and it was closed in the evening at about 3.45 p.m., since petitioner has suddenly to go to attend some of his relatives. Every information was displayed properly and there is no otherwise violation in any manner. He also filed a copy of letter of Gram Pradhan addressed to Deputy Collector, which was signed by some cardholders also to stress on the fact that Supply Inspector actually visited the village in evening, at about 5 p.m. on 08.1.2011 and not during day time.

6. The Deputy Collector passed cancellation order on 09.2.2011 wherein he firstly reproduced show cause notice containing various charges, thereafter petitioner's reply, which has taken about three and a quarter pages of his four and a half pages order, and then in one paragraph he says that various letters and photographs etc. appears to have been obtained by the petitioner exercising undue influence. He further said that during course of inspection on 8.1.2011, petitioner threatened Enquiry Officer and misbehaved with him. The complaint made against Supply Inspector is nothing but a kind of Peshbandi. He further said that record does not show residents of which area have been distributed with essential commodities; number of cardholders have not been clearly mentioned on certain dates and one or two cards have not been mentioned on other dates which show negligence of petitioner in maintaining record. Regarding distribution of sugar, he said that 700 gms. of sugar per unit have been shown distributed though at the time of inspection many cardholders complained to have been given about 400 gms. of sugar only. Further, price of commodities was not mentioned in ration cards though it has been so mentioned in distribution register. He drew an inference that petitioner-dealer is a clever and influential person, his behaviour with public is suspicious, which justify cancellation of agreement. He also forfeited security deposit.

7. The matter was taken in appeal in which petitioner stated that cardholders, who made complaint against him, their names and details were not informed and that the order was passed on conjecture and surmises. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 21.11.2011 relying on inspection report dated 8.1.2011 stating that petitioner's shop was found closed and there was no display of various informations, petitioner was not permanent resident of village concerned, charged higher price of wheat from APL cardholders and for 10 kgs. of wheat, instead of Rs.66/-, he had charged Rs.70/-. This complaint was made by Sri Niksan Son of Dhani Ram, Radhey Shyam Son of Maujilal, Raghuveer son of Jeevan Lal, Shri Ram son of Bhikhari Lal, Amar Singh son of Dhanni, Bhure Lal son of Bhikhari, Hari Shankar son of Munni Lal and some other villagers. The other charges levelled in charge sheet are also reiterated and thereafter repeating what has been said by Deputy Collector verbatim in order dated 21.11.2011, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal.

8. Since an issue was raised regarding non supply of appropriate quantity of foodgrains and other essential commodities so as to meet the requirement of number of cardholders attached with the fair price dealer, the matter was connected with Writ Petition No.41394 of 2009 wherein also similar issue was under consideration. The respondents were permitted to file their reply. Regarding quantity of essential commodity received by respondents authorities and allocated to various dealers, and all other relating facts, respondents have filed a counter affidavit and other affidavits in Writ Petition No.41394 of 2009 while a separate counter affidavit has been filed in the present writ petition also.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner challenged impugned order pleading that the inspection was made in evening, at about 5 p.m., on 8.01.2011, and this fact has not been found incorrect by any of the aforesaid authorities. They have not even attempted to verify this fact. Regarding finding that statement of cardholders must have been obtained by petitioner under pressure, he said that neither there was any enquiry nor any other material and this finding is solely conjectural and imaginary. He further said that petitioner was supplied less quantity than it was required to be distributed to the number of cardholders attached with petitioner's shop and in these circumstances petitioner had no option but to distribute commodities on the basis of "first come first serve", which obviously would have to deprive some of the cardholders from getting essential commodities. In this regard, he pointed out that for 219 APL cardholders, petitioner ought to have been supplied 21.90 quintals wheat per month taking 10 kgs. wheat for every APL cardholders but the respondents authorities supplied only 16 quintals of wheat and 2 quintals rice, which was distributed to APL cardholders applying principle of "first come first serve" charging Rs.6.60 per kg. for wheat and Rs. 8.80 per kg. for rice. Similarly 159 BPL and 120 Antyodaya Anna Yojna (hereinafter referred to as "AAY") cardholders were attached with petitioner's shop. The total units in these 279 cards was 1542. The Government has prescribed 700 gms. sugar per unit and therefore petitioner needed 10.79 quintals of sugar per month to cater 159 BPL and 120 AAY cardholders (1542 units). The respondents, however, supplied only 8.75 quintals of sugar. Meaning thereby, a number of cardholders were deprived sugar since petitioner had to follow the principle of "first come first serve". Similarly in respect to kerosene oil, he pointed out that there are total 498 cards (APL 119, BPL 159 and AAY 120). Every cardholders is entitled for 4 litres of kerosene oil per month. Meaning thereby, petitioner needed 1992 litres of kerosene oil per month to cater all the aforesaid cardholders but was actually supplied only 1800 litres of kerosene oil, which he distributed @ Rs.10.15 per litre following the principle of "first come first serve". These facts are pleaded in paras 17, 19 and 21 of the writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner further said that these facts were pleaded by him also in his reply to show cause notice and charge sheet (paras 8, 10 and 12). However, the authorities completely ignored this aspect while holding all the charges proved against him.

10. Regarding excess charging, he said there is no evidence at all and yet on sheer conjectures, charge has been held proved against him. No enquiry was conducted by Deputy Collector, the cancelling authority, after receiving reply of petitioner to verify the facts stated therein and therefore, entire procedure followed by respondents was contrary to para 5 of Government Order dated 29.7.2004 and Full Bench judgment in Puran Singh Vs. State of U.P. & others, 2010 (3) ADJ 659. He also contended that in any case the impugned orders are wholly unreasoned and non speaking, inasmuch as, they contain only conclusion and inference drawn by respondents authorities. There is no discussion or findings on the issues raised by petitioner and therefore, orders are wholly non speaking.

11. The interesting aspect is that the averments contained in para 17 of writ petition have not been denied while replying the same in para 12 of the counter affidavit. The respondents however have filed a copy of allocation/release order passed by Deputy Collector, Bharthana on 16.9.2010 for the period of August, 2010 to January, 2011, which shows that an additional quantity of 16 quintals of wheat was allotted to the petitioner for distributing 239 APL cardholders for the period of August, 2010 to January, 2011 i.e. for a period of 6 months. 2.50 quintals of rice was also allocated for the said period. Even if this fact is taken correct, it would mean that about 3.33 quintals of wheat per month for the period of August, 2010 to January, 2011 i.e. for a period of six months was allotted to the petitioner for 239 APL cardholders while initially only 16 quintals of wheat and 2 quintals of rice was allotted and therefore, even the additional allocation would not meet the requirement of all the APL cardholders.

12. Here it is also interesting that petitioner has calculated the requisite quantity in the context of 219 APL cardholders though as per the respondents, there are 239 APL cardholders attached with petitioner's shop. That being, the deficiency would be more.

13. The contents of paras 19 and 21 of the writ petition are denied in para 14 of the counter affidavit. In regard to the allocation of kerosene oil, Annexure C.A.-4 has been filed to show that Deputy Collector allocated 1900 litres of kerosene oil to petitioner though he (petitioner) had distributed only 1800 litres thereof. On other appects, it is said that Supply Inspector reached Village Nagla Shukla on 08.1.2011 at 12.30 p.m. but found shop closed and thereafter made enquiry from some cardholders and prepared report (copy whereof has been filed as Annexure C.A.1 to the counter affidavit).

14. The Court find that there are two reports on pages 8, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit, one is a very short one and another is a detailed report, discussion whereof I shall make later on.

15. The petitioner has filed rejoinder affidavit stating that the alleged statements of cardholders (copy whereof has been filed as Annexure C.A.-3) show that all these documents were prepared by Supply Inspector himself. He also pointed out that respondents have stated in para 12 of the counter affidavit that stock was never found surplus though petitioner's case was that the essential commodities were in short supply, hence the question of surplus stock cannot arise at all and this shows total non application of mind on the part of respondents. He also pointed out that with regard to short supply of sugar, there is no reply in counter affidavit at all. With regard to kerosene oil, he has stated that 1900 litres of kerosene oil was allotted but the bulk supplier i.e. M/s Deep Trading Company, Bharthana, Etawah had supplied only 1800 litres of kerosene oil instead of 1900 litres and this fact was well within the knowledge of respondents authorities but they never took any action against said supplier. He also pointed out various documents of counter affidavit to show that short supply of essential commodities was not confined to petitioner's shop but almost all the dealers in the sub division/Block were given short supply of essential commodities resulting in ultimate deprivation of essential commodities to some/many of the cardholders.

16. In connected writ petition, Principal Secretary, Food and Civil Supply has filed his affidavit giving certain statistics relating to public distribution system which were also referred by the learned counsels for the parties during arguments.

17. He (the Principal Secretary) has stated that there are four schemes running under the control of Food and Supply Department under Public Distribution Scheme for benefit of poor and poorest section of society, which are :

(i) BPL -: (a) It is meant for the families living below poverty line. The families having an annual income of Rs.25546.60, per family in urban areas, and Rs.19884/- per family in rural areas, constitute the above category. The respondents have identified 1.06 crores BPL families across the State. It is said that there are still some families who qualify under BPL but they have not been included in BPL for the reason that Government of India has fixed target of 1.06 crores BPL families under PDS. Hence, those excluded/left out families, are being provided benefits under U.P. Mukhya Mantri Mahamaya Garib Arthik Madad Yojna and have been covered under APL.

(b) The quantity of foodgrains supplied to the beneficiaries under BPL Scheme is 15 kgs. of wheat @ Rs.4.65 per kg., 20 kgs. of rice @ Rs.6.15 per kg. And 700 gms. of sugar @ Rs.13.50 per kg. The above quantity is per family in respect to wheat and rice but per unit per card in respect to sugar. The BPL families included in APL have been provided APL card and are given monthly aid of Rs.300/- per family under Mahamaya Garib Arthik Madad Yojna. In the State of U.P. number of families in this category are 24.80 lacs.

(ii) Antyodaya Anna Scheme (in short "AAY"):-It includes the poorest among the poor persons under the poverty line, selected on the basis of descending order of family income. In the State, it is more than 40 lacs families. They are provided 15 kgs. of wheat @ Rs.2/- per kg.; 20 kg. Rice @ Rs.3 per kg.; 700 gms. of sugar per unit per card @ Rs.13.50/- per kg.

(iii) APL:- The families Above Poverty Line have been issued ration cards under APL Scheme. In the State of U.P. there are 3.25 crores APL Ration Cards. They are provided kerosene oil every month as per rates fixed by the State under relevant Government Orders. The foodgrains distributed to APL card holders is according to the Government Orders and the rates and quantities as determined by Government of India from time to time.

(iv) Rural Foodgrain Bank Programme: Under this Scheme 410 Banks are running in Bundelkhand Region. The Gram Sabha of respective region selects 40 BPL/Antyodaya beneficiaries in an open meeting and they are provided one quintal wheat free of cost subject to return thereof in installments. The return however cannot be compelled. Under the said scheme 6400 quintals of wheat was distributed whereagainst only 2431.05 quintals was returned.

18. He (the Principal Secretary) further said that the Chairman, Central Vigilance Commission (on PDS) vide letter dated 21.6.2011 informed U.P. Government that Planning Commission has identified 15 districts of State of U.P. as Poorest and Backward i.e. Lalitpur, Banda, Chitrakoot, Mahoba, Hamirpur, Sonbhadra, Unnao, Raebareilly, Sitapur, Hardoi, Fatehpur, Lakhimpur Khiri, Mirzapur, Kushinagar and Barabanki. However, six more districts were included in this category subsequently vide letter dated 2.8.2011 which included Districts Jalaun, Gorakhpur, Jaunpur, Kaushambi, Azamgarh and Pratapgarh. In these twenty one districts 7,59,786 families have been identified as the poorest among poor families and as per prescribed norms, they require 11,396.79 metric tonnes wheat per month (1,36,761.48 metric ton per annum) and 15195.72 metric tonnes of rice per month (1,82,348.64 metric ton per annum).

19. The foodgrain is made available to Food and Civil Supply Department of the State Government (hereinafter referred to as "UPFCSD") by Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as "FCI") for distribution under PDS. The price paid by UPFCSD to FCI is, at the rates, as under:

Commodities

AAY

BPL

APL

Wheat

Rs.2.00

Rs.4.15

Rs.6.10

Rice

Rs.3.00

Rs.5.65

Rs.8.30

20. The sale price of commodities to AAY card holders is the same as purchase price. However, to BPL Card Holders the purchase price of wheat is Rs.4.15 but its sale price is Rs.4.65 i.e. with a moderate hike of 50 paise per kg. Similarly, rice is sold against the purchase price of Rs.5.65 to BPL card holders at Rs.6.15 i.e. with a moderate hike of 50 paise per kg. Similar is the position in respect to APL card holders where also the sale price is 50 paise per kg. above than the purchase price, which comes to Rs.6.60 for wheat and Rs.8.80 for rice.

21. The respondents also gave details of quantity (in Metric Tonnes) of foodgrains allotted in 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 under various schemes which read as under:

Fin.Year

Antyodaya

BPL

APL

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

2006-07

566080.005

1153609.995

911262.405

1854227.595

1901469.000

3247146.000

2007-08

635511.200

1084178.800

1023020.700

1742469.300

17412.000

550770.000

2008-09

566077.440

1153612.560

1207871.340

1557618.660

192838.000

8640.000

2009-10

566077.440

1153612.560

1306638.840

1458851.160

2174719.000

0.000

2010-11

565889.120

1153612.560

1195329.070

1570160.930

2295767.080

77315.000

(The figures in bold are apparently incorrect/not supplied.)

22. Against the aforesaid allocation, actual quantity (in Metric Tonnes) distributed, under aforesaid three schemes, in the last five financial years, is as under:

Fin. Year

Antyodaya

BPL

APL

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

2006-07

559712.44

1123710.854

828477.373

1641403.383

33927.108

5334.164

2007-08

631358.554

1080185.245

980548.917

1644734.976

19957.937

934.916

2008-09

565820.395

1151654.667

1188615.290

1533165.082

134765.779

5225.820

2009-10

565894.582

1152858.289

1304816.959

1455179.309

2035548.314

0.000

2010-11

563636.071

1146153.269

1176883.347

1538234.197

1760278.102

42500.952

23. From the figures referred to in para 21 and 22 (above), it is evident that a huge quantity of foodgrains though allotted, but remained undistributed, in different categories. In the last five financial years, such quantity (in Metric Tonnes) of foodgrains is as under:

Financial Year

Antyodaya

BPL

APL

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

Wheat

Rice

2006-07

6367.565

29899.105

82785.032

212824.212

1867541.892

3241811.836

2007-08

4152.646

3993.555

42471.783

97734.324

-2545.937

549835.084

2008-09

257.045

1957.893

19256.05

24453.578

58072.221

3414.18

2009-10

182.858

754.271

1821.881

3671.851

139170.686

0.000

2010-11

2253.049

7459.291

18445.723

31926.733

535488.978

34814.048

24. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that non distribution of requisite quantity of essential commodities is virtually admitted and proved yet without considering this aspect, petitioner has been held guilty of non-supply of required quantity of foodgrains to cardholders though it was not possible since requisite quantity of essential commodities were admittedly not supplied and from the above pleadings this fact stand proved.

25. He further submitted that counter affidavit shows preparation of some documents subsequently which fortify a malicious approach of respondents against petitioner. He pointed out that Annexure C.A.-1 to the counter affidavit (page 10) is a short report running in about 15 or 16 lines titled as "inspection report" signed by Supply Inspector, Sri Ganga Shankar Bajpai on 08.1.2011. The file running page number there is "6", which has been scored out and it has been numbered as "37". Then there is another report addressed to Deputy Collector, (running page 8 of the counter affidavit) which is also said to be of 08.1.2011, which shows file running page no.19, which has been scored out and thereafter another page no.38 is marked. On its internal page 2, running page number does not tally with first page. All this show that these document have been prepared subsequently. In earlier report (page 10 of counter affidavit), there is no allegation that petitioner misbehaved with Supply Inspector or even was present at the time of said inspection. There is also no averment that Supply Inspector made enquiry from cardholders and recorded their statements, who made complaint against the petitioner. In fact page 10 of counter affidavit shows that at the time of inspection, shop was found closed, petitioner was not present and that was the only report made by Supply Inspector on 8.1.2011. Subsequently however, going contrary to this report, a note addressed to Deputy Collector was prepared with several documents have been prepared to fix responsibility upon petitioner for something of which he was not responsible at all. This note also given date as 8.1.2011 though not clear whether made at site or in office and why various facts mentioned therein find no space in inspection report.

26. Learned Standing Counsel during course of argument when required to clarify all these facts, he stated after going through the entire documents that he find it difficult to defend impugned orders and therefore the writ petition may be decided accordingly.

27. In these facts and circumstances and stand taken on behalf of respondents, this Court is satisfied that conduct of respondents is highly objectionable, reprehensible and condemnable. It has shown something which was not expected from the persons holding responsible offices. The action of Deputy Collector as also Deputy Commissioner i.e. Cancelling and Appellate Authority, is clearly malicious. In any case it amounts to "malice in law". It is evident that the respondents have passed the impugned orders for collateral reasons.

28. The Apex Court has summarised "malice in law " in (Smt.) S.R.Venkatraman Vs. Union of India and another, AIR 1979, SC 49 as under :

"It is equally true that there will be an error of fact when a public body is prompted by a mistaken belief in the existence of a non-existing fact or circumstance. This is so clearly unreasonable that what is done under such a mistaken belief might almost be said to have been done in bad faith; and in actual experience, and as things go, these may well be said to run into one another." (Para 8)

29. The Apex Court further in para 9 of the judgment in S.R.Venkatraman (supra) observed:

"9. The influence of extraneous matters will be undoubted where the authority making the order has admitted their influence. It will therefore be a gross abuse of legal power to punish a person or destroy her service career in a manner not warranted by law by putting a rule which makes a useful provision for the premature retirement of Government servants only in the ''public interest', to a purpose wholly unwarranted by it, and to arrive at quite a contradictory result. An administrative order which is based on reasons of fact which do not exist must, therefore, be held to be infected with an abuse of power."

30. In Mukesh Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of U.P. and others JT 2009 (13) SC 643 the Apex Court said :

"We also intend to emphasize that the distinction between a malice of fact and malice in law must be borne out from records; whereas in a case involving malice in law which if established may lead to an inference that the statutory authorities had acted without jurisdiction."

31. In Somesh Tiwari Vs. Union of India and others 2009 (2) SCC 592 dealing with the question of validity of an order of transfer on the ground of malice in law , the Apex Court in para 16 of the judgment observed as under:

"16. .... Mala fide is of two kinds--one malice in fact and the second malice in law. The order in question would attract the principle of malice in law as it was not based on any factor germane for passing an order of transfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e on the allegations made against the appellant in the anonymous complaint. It is one thing to say that the employer is entitled to pass an order of transfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thing to say that the order of transfer is passed by way of or in lieu of punishment."

32. In HMT Ltd. and another Vs. Mudappa and others JT 2007(3) SC 112 the Apex Court in paras 18 and 19 defined malice in law by referring to "Words and Phrases Legally Defined, 3rd Edn., London Butterworths, 1989" as under:

"The legal meaning of malice is "ill-will or spite towards a party and any indirect or improper motive in taking an action". This is sometimes described as "malice in fact". "Legal malice" or "malice in law" means ''something done without lawful excuse'. In other words, ''it is an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable cause, and not necessarily an act done from ill feeling and spite'. It is a deliberate act in disregard of the rights of others."

"19. It was observed that where malice was attributed to the State, it could not be a case of malice in fact, or personal ill-will or spite on the part of the State. It could only be malice in law, i.e legal mala fide. The State, if it wishes to acquire land, could exercise its power bona fide for statutory purpose and for none other. It was observed that it was only because of the decree passed in favour of the owner that the proceedings for acquisition were necessary and hence, notification was issued. Such an action could not be held mala fide."

33. In brief, malice in law is when a power is exercised for an unauthorized purpose or on a fact which is claimed to exist but in fact, is non-est or for the purpose for which it is not meant though apparently it is shown that the same is being exercised for the purpose the power is supposed to be exercised. (See Manager Govt. Branch Press and another Vs. D.B.Belliappa AIR 1979 SC 429; Punjab Electricity Board Vs. Zora Singh and others AIR 2006 SC 182; K.K.Bhalla Vs. State of U.P. and others AIR 2006 SC 898; P. Mohanan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and others (2007) 9 SCC 497; M.P.State Corporation Diary Federation Ltd. and another Vs. Rajneesh Kumar Zamindar and others (2009) 6 SCALE 17; Swarn Singh Chand Vs. Punjab State Electricity Board and others (2009) 7 SCALE 622 and Sri Yemeni Raja Ram Chandar Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others JT (2009) 12 SC 198).

34. In the matters like this where State authorities have acted in such a flagrant illegality going to the extent of manufacturing record, this Court finds that not only the impugned orders are liable to be set aside but the damage, authorities have caused to the aggrieved person, must be suitably compensated by awarding an exemplary cost. In taking this view, I am fortified by a decision of Apex Court in Delhi Jal Board Vs. National Campaign for Dignity and Rights of Sewerage and Allied Workers and Ors., JT 2011(8) SC 232 in which the Court said that Article 21 which guarantees the right to life and liberty will be denuded of its significant content if the power of this Court were limited to passing orders of removing executives illegal orders/action only and nothing more than that. The Court further said that one of the telling ways in which violation of that right can reasonably be prevented and due compliance with the mandate of Article 21 secured, is to mulct its violators in payment of monetary compensation. Administrative sclerosis leading to flagrant infringements of fundamental rights cannot be corrected by any other method open to the judiciary to adopt. The right to compensation is some palliative for the unlawful acts of instrumentalities which act in the name of public interest and which present for their protection the powers of the State as a shield. If civilisation is not to perish in this country as it has perished in some others, it is necessary to educate ourselves into accepting that, respect for the rights of individuals is the true bastion of democracy. Therefore, the State must repair the damage done by its officers to the Petitioner's rights. It may have recourse against those officers.

35. This kind of conduct with an attitude to harass an innocent persons has to be deprecated seriously. Moreover, the respondents by passing impugned orders have deprived the petitioner from running his shop for the last almost one and a half years besides forcing upon him an avoidable litigation and causing serious mental and otherwise harassment to him.

36. In the result, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 09.2.2011 and 21.11.2011 (Annexures No. 4 and 6 to the writ petition) passed by respondents No.3 and 2 are hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to cost which is quantified to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One lac only). The amount of cost shall be paid at the first instance by respondent no.1 but it shall have liberty to recover the said amount from the official(s) concerned found responsible for acting in such a reckless and mindless manner forcing an avoidable litigation upon the petitioner.

Order Date :- 28.5.2012

KA