Shyam Narain Dwivedi vs State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 5316 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

AFR
 
Court No. - 19
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10733 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- Shyam Narain Dwivedi
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- H.C. Mishra,M.B. Yadav,M.C.Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 
		Connected with
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22474 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- Charan Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. Home & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- H.C. Mishra,M.C.Chaturvedi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
		Connected with
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 8880 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- Rajul Garg
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru' Secy. & Ors.
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Narendra Mohan,H.C. Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
		Connected with 
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 17786 of 2002
 

 
Petitioner :- Raheemuddin Khan
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Ministry Of Home Thru' Secy. & Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- H.C. Mishra
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

1. In all these writ petitions, the petitioners have prayed to quash the order/letter dated 16.2.2001 (Annexure-13) issued by Additional Superintendent of Police (Establishment), U.P., Lucknow communicating the decision of the Committee constituted by the Director General of Police (Establishment), U.P., Lucknow for considering the out of turn promotion to police men showing indomitable courage and gallantry as per Government Order dated 3.2.1994.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that as per averments made in the writ petitions, the petitioners were Sub Inspectors of Police. An information on telephone in the night of 17/18.5.2000 was received by the Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat, that notorious dacoit Lala Ram along with his two companions is shortly to go on motorcycle to village Aslanapur through Derapur Road to meet her sister .

3. As per statement of the Senior Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat (Annexure-8 to the writ petition ) recorded in Crime Case No.48/2000, P. S. Derapur, district Kanpur Dehat, that on receipt of the said information he constituted two teams consisting of 18 police personnel. One team was led by him and the other team was led by Sri G.M. Goswami, Additional Superintendent of Police. The aforesaid two teams when reached on Mungeesapur Crossing and proceeded towards Derapur, a motorcycle was seen on which three persons were sitting including the driver. They were chased by the police team. Thereupon, one person sitting on the motorcycle jumped and ran towards left side of the road and on being chased he started firing. The police team also jointly fired. When the firing stopped, the police team found that the said person was dead and near his right hand a country made pistol of .315 bore with some cartridges was found. The other two miscreants fled away. Later on the dead person was recognised as dacoit Lala Ram. The Sub Divisional Magistrate, Derapur, Kanpur Dehat sent a letter of appreciation dated 20.7.2000 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition ) to the District Magistrate, Kanpur Dehat. The Superintendent of Police, Kanpur Dehat vide D.O.letter of June 2000 sent to the petitioner, appreciated the efforts made by the petitioner. Vide letter dated 7.8.2000 (Annexure-12 ), the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur recommended for out of turn promotion of nine police personnel and sent it to the Inspector General of Police, Kanpur Zone, Kanpur. A report was called for the consideration for out of turn promotion to the said police personnels. The report was sent by the Inspector General of police, kanpur Zone, Kanpur vide letter dated 17.10.2000 (Annexure-12) to the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Establishment), U.P. Police Headquarter, Allahabad. The committee considered the proposal/recommendation for one rank promotion in the light of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 and examined the matter. The committee did not recommend for out of turn promotion to the aforesaid persons including the petitioners and recorded reasons therefor. The relevant portion of the letter dated 16.2.2001 communicating the decision of the committee to the petitioners is reproduced below :

^^lefr us mDRk eqBHksM+ dh ?kVuk ls lEcfU/kr lEiw.kZ igyqvksa ,oa vfHkys[kksa dk fof/kor ijh{k.k fd;kA lE;d fopkjksijkUr lfefr us Ik;k fd mDRk eqBHksM+ esa lfEefyr dqy 17 vf/kdkfj;[email protected] deZpkfj;ksa }kjk lkewfgd :i ls dh xbZ Qk;fjax ds QyLo:i nL;q ljxuk ykykjke ekjk x;kA mDRk iqfyl vf/[email protected] deZpkjh vR;k/kqfud vL= 'kL= ls lqlfTtr Fks blds foijhr e`rd cnek'k ds ikl dsoy ,d lh0,e0ih0 15 cjken gqvk gSA bl eqBHksM+ esa fdlh Hkh iqfyldehZ us O;fDRkxr :i ls viuh tku tksf[ke esa Mkydj vnE; lkgl o mRd`"V 'kkS;Z dk izn'kZu ugha fd;kA bl dk;Zokgh esa iqfyl deZpkfj;ksa }kjk fd;k x;k dk;Z mudh lkekU; M;wVh ds fuoZgu ds vUrxZr vkrk gSA vr% eqBHks<+ esa lfEefyr m0fu0 jktk izrki flag ,oa 8 vU; dks lfefr us vkmV vkQ VuZ izksUufr dh lqLrqfr ugha dh gSA d`i;k rn~uqlkj vko';d dk;Zokgh lqfuf'pr dh tk;A**

4. In paragraph 3(1)(d) of the counter affidavit, the conclusion of the committee has been mentioned, which is being reproduced below :

^^¼1½ nL;q ykykjke ls gqbZ eqBHksM+ esa 17 iqfyl vf/[email protected] deZpkjh lfEefyr Fks] ] tks ,0ds0 47 jk;Qy] ,l0,y0vkj0 o fiLVy vkfn vR;k/kqfud vL= 'kL= ls lqlftTr Fks] blds foijhr e`rd cnke'k ds ikl ,d lh0,e0ih0 15 cksj cjken gqbZ gSA

¼2½ lHkh iqfyl vf/kdkfj;ksa @ deZpkfj;ksa }kjk lkewfgd :i ls dh x;h Qk;fjax ds QyLo:i nL;q ykyk jke ekjk x;k gSA bl dk;Zokgh esa fdlh Hkh iqfyl dehZ }kjk O;fDrxr :i ls viuh tku tksf[ke esa Mkydj vnE; lkgl o mRd`"V 'kkS;Z dk izn'kZu ugha fd;k gSA

¼3½ Hkkjh la[;k esa ,oa vR;k/kqfud vlygksa ls ySl iqfyl cy dh ekStwnxh ds ckotwn 2 cnek'k Hkkxus esa lQy jgsA

¼4½ eqBHksM+ ds nkSjku lHkh iqfyl vf/[email protected] deZpkjh iw.kZ :i ls lqjf{kr jgs Fks rFkk fdlh dh tku dks dksbZ tksf[ke mRiUUk ugha gqvk FkkA**

5. The Government Order No.665(1)/Chh: Pu-1-24-93 Lucknow dated 3.2.1994 under which the petitioners are claiming for out of turn promotion, is reproduced below :

^^'kklukns'k

mRrj izns'k 'kklu

x`g ¼iqfyl½&665¼1½@N%iq0&1&24&93

y[kum

fnukad % Qjojh 3] 1994

dk;kZy; Kki

v/kksgLrk{kjh dks mRrj izns'k iqfyl cy ds ,sls vkj{kh vkSj mifujh{[email protected] IykVwu dek.Mj dk] ftUgksaus vnE; lkgl vkSj 'kkS;Z dk izn'kZu fd;k gks] eukscy ,oa lkgl c<+kus ds fy;s dze'k% eq[; vkj{kh in ij vkSj fujh{[email protected] dEiuh dek.Mj ij fu;qDr djus ds laca/k esa fuEufyf[kr vkns'k nsus dk funsZ'k gqvk gSA

¼1½ vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z izn'kZu djus okys iqfyl cy ds mDr dfeZ;ksa dks ;FkkfLFkfr vkj{kh ls eq[; vkj{kh rFkk mifujh{kd ls fujh{[email protected] dEiuh dek.Mj ds fu%loxhZ; in ij fu;qDr fd;k tk;sxkA

¼2½ izR;sd foRrh; o"kZ ds fy;s] ;FkkfLFkfr eq[; vkj{kh ;k fujh{[email protected] dEiuh dek.Mj ds fu%loxhZ; inksa dk l`tu jkT; ljdkj }kjk iqfyl egkfujh{kd] mRrj izns'k ds izLrko ij fd;k tk ldsxkA

¼3½ iqfyl cy ds ,sls vkj{kh ;k mifujh{[email protected] IykVwu dek.Mj vnE; lkgl vkSj 'kkS;Z dk izns'kZu djus okys iqfyl dehZ Hkh dksfV esa vk;saxs] ftUgksusa dq[;kr vkradoknh ;k t?kU; vijk/kh ds lkFk esa eqBHksM+ esa ;k mudh fxjQrkjh esa lkgl vkSj 'kkZ;Z iznf'kZr fd;k gks ;k vius drZO; ikyu ds nkSjku tksf[kr Hkjk dk;Z fd;k gksA

¼4½ mDr fu%loxhZ; inksa ij fu;qfDR iqfyl egkfuns'kd ds iwokZuqeksnu ds mijkUr fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk dh tk;sxhA

¼5½ ;g vkns'k bl fo"k; ij le; le; ij tkjh vkns'kksa esa fdlh vU; ckr ds gksrs gq;s Hkh izHkkoh gksxkA

¼6½ ;g vkns'k rkRdkfyd izHkko ls ykxw gksxkA

la[;k&665¼1½@N%iq&1&[email protected]

rn~fnukfdr

izfrfyfi % fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr %

1- iqfyl egkfuns'kd] mRrj izns'k ] y[kumA

2- vij iqfyl egkfuns'kd] mRrj izns'k iqfyl eq[;ky;] bykgkcknA

3- leLr iqfyl egkfuns'kd] tksUlA

4- leLr iqfyl mi&egkfuns'kd] jsUtA

5- vij iqfyl egkfuns'kd] ih0,0lh0 y[kumA

6. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that out of turn promotion under the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 cannot be claimed by a police personnel as a matter of right. As per Circular of the Inspector General of Police (Establishment ), U.P., Lucknow dated 16.2.2000, the out of turn promotion may be considered as per Government Order only to the extent of 2% of the vacancies and thus, the provision of out of turn promotion has been made only for rarest of rare cases, none of the police personnel showed "Indomitable courage and gallantry (vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z )" and the petitioners were rightly not found to be entitled for out of turn promotion.

7. I have heard Sri M.B. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner in writ petition No.10733 of 2002, Sri R.K. Mishra holding brief of Sri H.C. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in rest of three writ petitions and Sri M.S. Pipersenia, learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents and perused the record.

8. It is undisputed that as per Government order dated 3.2.1994 the reward of out of turn promotion may be given, if any police personnel falling under the categories specified in the said Government Order dated 3.2.1994, shows "Indomitable courage and gallantry (vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z )".

9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that they are entitled for out of turn promotion under the Government Order dated 3.2.1994 and the impugned order is wholly unjustified. They placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Brij Nandan Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No.18692 of 1997, decided on 21.4.2001 and in Ashok Rana Vs. Home Secretary, Uttar Pradesh reported in Laws (all) 2000-9-557, decided on 8.9.2000.

10. On the other hand, the learned Standing counsel reiterates the stand taken in the counter affidavit. He further submits that neither in the proposal nor in the writ petition there is any material to show that the petitioners have shown "Indomitable courage and gallantry (vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z )".

11. I find that the committee has well considered the proposal of the petitioners and gave sufficient reasons to reach to the conclusion for not awarding out of turn promotion to the petitioners. The scope of judicial review of the assessment made by the committee cannot be interfered with. There is no allegation in the writ petition that the assessment made by the committee as reproduced above, is either malafide or based on inadmissible, irrelevant, insignificant or trivial material.

12. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can interfere with the assessment of the committee , if the assessment is either proved to be malafide or is found to be based on inadmissible or irrelevant or insignificant and trivial material or if an attitude of ignoring or not giving weight to the positive aspect of one's career is strongly displayed or if the inferences drawn are such that no reasonable person can reach on such conclusion or if there is any illegality attached to the decision. There is no material on record to show the existence of any of the above noted circumstances to enable this Court to interfere with the decision of the committee in respect of the petitioners. This Court can neither sit as an appellate authority nor can substitute its own view to the views of the committee constituted to consider the out of turn promotion.

13. In the case of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and another Vs. Munna Lal Jain, (2005)10 SCC 84 vide paragraph-14 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :

"The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the Court should not interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the Court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision."

14. In the case of Canara Bank Vs. V.K. Awasthy, (2005)6 SCC 321 vide para-24 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :-

"Lord Greene said in 1948 in the famous Wednesbury case that when a statute gave discretion to an administrator to take a decision, the scope of judicial review would remain limited. He said that interference was not permissible unless one or the other of the following conditions was satisfied, namely, the order was contrary to law, or relevant factors were not considered, or irrelevant factors were considered; or the decision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. These principles were consistently followed in the UK and in India to judge the validity of administrative action. It is equally well known that in 1983, Lord Diplock in Council for Civil Services Union v. Minister of Civil Service (called CCSU case ) summarised the principles of judicial review of administrative action as based upon one or the other of the following viz. Illegality, procedural irregularity and irrationality. He, however, opined that "proportionality" was a "future possibility".

15. In the case of Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Government of NCT of Delhi,(2006) 10 SCC 337 vide Para 11 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under :

"5. While exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not the Appellate Authority and 'the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in the matter of policy or to sermonise qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers.' (See Asif Hameed v. State of J & K, SCC p.374, para 19, Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India.)

The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutory provisions or is violative of the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the court, it cannot be interfere.

6. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in decision-making taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation.

7. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt (sic decide) which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In the matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental rights is not shown the courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government.

8. The Court should constantly remind itself of what the Supreme Court of the United States said in Metropolis Theater Co. v. City of Chicago. (L Ed. p.734).

'The problems of Government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations,-- illogical, it may be, and unscientific. But even such criticism should not be hastily expressed. What is best is not always discernible ; the wisdom of any choice may be disputed or condemned. Mere errors of Government are not subject to our judicial review.' ( See State of Orissa v. Gopinath Dash, SCC p.497, paras 5-8)."

16. Thus, the view taken by me on the scope of judicial review is fully supported by the afore-noted judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

17. All the police personnel are governed by Police Act 1861 and the U.P. Police Regulations and Statutory Rules framed for governing their service conditions. Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861 provides the duties of police officers, which is quoted below :

"23. Duties of police-officers-- It shall be the duty of every police-officer promptly, to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by any competent authority, to collect and communicate intelligence affecting the public peace, to prevent the commission of offences and public nuisances; to detect and bring offenders to justice and to apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorised to apprehend, and for whose apprehension sufficient ground exists; and it shall be lawful for every police-officer, for any of the purposes mentioned in this section, without a warrant to enter and inspect, any drinking-shop, gaming-house or other place of resort of loose and disorderly characters."

18. Chapter- XXX of U.P. Police Regulations provides for mode of promotion of police personnel. Chapter- XXXI of the Regulations provides the provision with regard to 'Rewards'. Paragraph 466(4) provides as under:

"466(4)- Rewards should not be given to any class officers for 'general good work' but only for particular acts of special merit, such as good arrests, good detection or good service on a special occasion. Cash reward for good marksmanship during annual weapon firing and shots during musketry competitions are also admissible. Rewards are not to be given as a matter of routine whenever a case is directed. Nor should they be given for the efficient discharge of ordinary duties, e.g., to a reserve inspector for good recruiting or for training recruits."

19. From perusal of Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861 it is clear that it is the normal duty of a police personnel to detect and bring offenders to justice and to apprehend all persons whom he is legally authorised to apprehend,and for whose apprehension sufficient ground exists. Paragraph-466(4) of the U.P. Police Regulations contemplates that the rewards should not be given to any class of officers for 'general good work' but only for particular acts of special merit. The Government Order dated 3.2.1994 contemplates for out of turn promotion to certain categories of police personal, if a police personnel shows "Indomitable courage and gallantry (vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z )",. The word 'Courage' used in the said Government Order is qualified by the word-"Indomitable". As per Oxford English-Hindi- dictionary the word-'Indomitable' means to defeat or frighten, even in a difficult situation, very brave and determine (dfBu ifjfLFkfr esa Hkh vts; ,oa fuMj ).

20. In the case of Ram Saran Goyal Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2003(6) AWC 5515, vide paragraph-10 this Court held as under :

" Gallantry has been defined as dashing bravery, showily attentive behaviour to women; a compliment made to a woman firing with her (New Lexicon Webster's Dictionary). The same dictionary defines bravery as courage, and courage has been defined as the capacity to meet danger without giving way to fear. The exemplary courage and bravery as such requires something more than being gallant. The award of police medal for gallantry may be one of the consideration for out of turn promotion on the ground of exemplary courage and bravery or taking risk in performance of duties, but that by itself, cannot be a conclusive proof to form an opinion for bravery and courage."

21. In view of the Government Order dated 3.2.1994, Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861, Paragraph-466(4) of the U.P. Police Regulations and the dictionary meaning of the words-"Indomitable courage and gallantry (vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z )", it is clear that for out of turn promotion under the government Order dated 3.2.1994, something more than good work and bravery is required. The said Government Order dated 3.2.1994 requires a police personnel claiming out of turn promotion to prove that his action showed "Indomitable courage and gallantry (vnE; lkgl ,oa 'kkS;Z )". The action of such police personnel may be his individual act or his act in the aid of collective effort of a team.

22. The committee considered the claim of the petitioners and found them to be not entitled for out of turn promotion. No illegality could be pointed out by the petitioners in the conclusions reached by the committee.

23. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the legal position stated above, I am of the opinion that the decision taken by the committee is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity. The decision of the committee is based on relevant materials and, therefore, it cannot be interfered with.

24. The aforesaid view taken by me with regard to the legal position is also supported by law laid down by this Court in the case of Achal Singh Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2001(3) AWC-2056 in which this Court has held as under :

"8. After having examined the object and contents of the Government order, it has now to be seen as to whether any error has been committed by the committee in examining the claim of the petitioner for grant of out of turn promotion. The writ petition asks this Court to review the decision of the committee. The scope of judicial review of assessment made by the departmental promotion committee are well defined. The Apex Court in Badrinath v. Government of Tamil Nadu and others, MANU/SC/0624/2000 : (2000) 8 SCC 395, has laid down in paragraphs 40 and 41 as under :

"40. Unless there is a strong case for applying the Wednesbury doctrine or there are malafides. Courts and Tribunals cannot interfere with assessments made by Departmental Promotion Committees in regard to merit or fitness for promotion. But in rare cases, if the assessment is either proved to be malafide or is found based on inadmissible or Irrelevant or, insignificant and trivial material and if an attitude of ignoring or not giving weight to the positive aspects of one's career is strongly displayed, or if the inferences drawn are such that no reasonable person can reach such conclusion, or If there is illegality attached to the decision, then the powers of Judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution are not foreclosed.

41. While the Courts are to be extremely careful in exercising the power of judicial review in dealing with assessment made by Departmental Promotion Committee, the executive is also to be in mind that, in exceptional cases, the assessment of merit made by them is liable to be scrutinised by Courts, within the narrow Wednesbury principles or on the ground of malafides. The judicial power remains but its use is restricted to rare and exceptional situations. We are making these remarks so that Courts or Tribunals may not--by quoting this case as an easy precedent interfere with assessment of merit in every case. Courts and Tribunals can neither sit as appellate authorities nor substitute their own views to the views of Departmental Promotion Committees. Undue interference by the Courts or Tribunals will result in paralysing recommendations of Departmental Committees and Promotions. The case on hand can be a precedent only in rare cases."

10. Above considerations cannot be said to be irrelevant. The committee is right while taking the view that for getting benefit of Government order dated 3.2.1994, specific act of indomitable courage and gallantry has to be proved by the individual officer. Requirement of showing act of Indomitable courage and gallantry has to be proved whenever a police personnel is claiming the benefit of Government order whether the act was his act alone or the act done in aid of carrying out operation by a team, even when the individual is claiming benefit of Government order on the basis of his collective role as part of the team it has to be proved that his individual act as part of team work shows indomitable courage and gallantry work.

11. No doubt the work done by the police party was commendable ; for which the police party has already received reward from the State Government and by Delhi Government The giving of award/reward clearly shows good work by the police party and the aforesaid award is in recognition of good work by the police party. However, out of turn promotion on the basis of the Government order dated 3.2.1994 is a shade higher than merely courageous or commendable work.Every courageous or commendable work does not come within the purview of the Government order dated 3.2.1994. This Court has no doubt that the act performed by the petitioner was courageous and commendable."

25. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Brij Nandan Rai Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Writ Petition No.18692 of 1997, decided on 21.4.2001 and in Ashok Rana Vs. Home Secretary, Uttar Pradesh reported in Laws (all) 2000-9-557, decided on 8.9.2000.

26. I have perused the aforesaid two judgments and find that the said judgments are distinguishable on the facts of the present case, which have already been noted above in brief. There cannot be any dispute that out of turn promotion may be granted to a police personnel, if he shows indomitable courage and gallantry, but the grant of out of turn promotion shall depend on the facts of each case. Since, the committee constituted for the purpose has found based on consideration of relevant material, that the petitioners have not shown any indomitable courage and gallantry, the decision of the committee cannot be said to suffer from any infirmity.

27. In view of the above, I find no merit in these writ petitions. The writ petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost.

Order Date :- 2.9.2013

Ak/