Allahabad High Court
Mr. Yogesh Sabharwal vs Yamuna Expressway Industrial ... on 4 September, 2018
Bench: Shashi Kant Gupta, Ajit Kumar
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. - 32 AFR
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 59747 of 2012
Petitioner :- Mr. Yogesh Sabharwal
Respondent :- Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority & Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ganesh Mani Tripathi, Sumita Kapil
Counsel for Respondent :- Mohammad Parvez, S.C.,Suresh Singh
Connect with
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 65872 of 2012
Petitioner :- Mr. Radhey Shyam Arora
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vatsal Srivastava, Sanjay Agrawal, Vikash Bhatnagar
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Suresh Singh
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
1. Since similar questions of fact and law are involved in these aforementioned writ petitions, they are being taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment and order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. Aforesaid Writ C No. 59747 of 2012 (Mr. Yogesh Sabharwal Versus Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority & Others) and Writ C No. 65872 of 2012 (Mr. Radhey Shyam Arora Versus State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others) are referred to hereinafter as Writ -A & Writ- B respectively.
2. In Writ A, the following prayer has been made:-
"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 28.09.2012 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure 12 of this writ petition).
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the amount of Rs.4,17,500/- after deducting the amount of Rs.10,000/- as per 12 II + interest @ 12% p.a. (As per scheme payment rates. YEIDA) has charged from the applicants for the scheme) for the date of surrender of plot letter dated 4th June, 2010. "
3. In the connected Writ B the only relief sought is for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.09.2012.
4. Relevant facts of the case are as follows:-
5. Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority (in short "YEIDA") published an advertisement for settlement of Residential Plot Scheme-2009 wherein prospective candidates were called upon to apply for allotment of plots falling within the territorial jurisdiction of the said development authority. These plots were categorized into five categories i.e. A, B,C, D and E. Yogesh Sabharwal (petitioner in Writ A) (hereinafter referred to as "the original allottee) submitted two applications for allotment of plots under category "E". After draw of lots, he was allotted two plots viz Plot No. 748 Pocket No. 2(B) Sector 18 (hereinafter in short "Plot A") and Plot No. 468 Pocket No. K, Sector 20 (hereinafter in short "Plot B") on 20.11.2009 and 21.01.2010 respectively both in category "E". Thus, the allotment of Plot No. 748 Pocket 2(B) Sector 18 was made prior to date of allotment of Plot situated at Sector 20.
6. The original allottee subsequently, on coming to know that he was entitled to only one plot under the scheme immediately moved applications dated 17.05.2010 and 04.06.2010 before the respondent no. 2 -YEIDA stating that in view of Clause 12 of the terms and conditions of residential plot schemes 2009(1) of YEIDA, he would like to surrender Plot No. 468, Pocket No. K Sector 20 back to YEIDA and further prayed that the amount of Rs.427500/- deposited by him against the allotment of the plot be refunded to him as provided under the terms and conditions. The said letter has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the Writ Petition no. 59747 of 2012 (Writ A). For ready reference, the copy of the aforesaid application dated 04.06.2010 is extracted hereinbelow:-
To, Dated:- 4th June, 2010
Chief Executive Officer/Manager (Property)
Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority
A-1, First Floor, Commercial Complex
F-Block, Sector-Beta-II
Greater Noida-201308
Subject: Surrender of Plot No. 468 in Pocket -K of Sector 20 YEIDA
Reference:- Allotment No. YEA016109
Dear Sir,
Referring and Under Article 12 of "Terms and Condition", I would like to surrender Plot No. 468 in Pocket- K Sector 20 back to YEIDA authority to me under scheme "Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority Residential Plot Scheme 2009(1)".
Kindly process my case and remit following payments as stipulated in the Article 12 of "Terms and Conditions", I have already deposited following amount in YEIDA accounts against allocation of above plot.
The following amount has been submitted by me and detail is given below:-
Description
Banker Name (Submitted at)
Submitted by
Amount (Rs)
Amount Deposited as Registration Money
HDFC Bank Ltd submitted on 2nd May, 2009
Pay Order No. 082237 dated 30th April, 2009 Drawn on Citi Bank payable at Delhi
Rs.100,000
Allotment Money
Challan of Receipts for Residential Scheme deposited in Bank of India, Beta II, Greater Noida
Demand Draft No. 518964 dated 16th Jan 2010 for Citi Bank Ltd
Rs.327,500
Total
Rs.427,500
Please find enclosed self attested following documents in support to above reimbursement:-
1. Allotment-Cum-Allocation Letter No. YEA/2009(I)/14434 dated 23rd November, 2009 (Original copy self attested enclosed).
2. Receipt of Registration Money deposited (Original copy self attested enclosed).
3. Allotment money deposited Rs.327,500 in Bank of India (Original copy self attested enclosed).
You are requested to issue account payee cheque.
In case of bank transfer advise request you to send the payment directly to my account at the following bank, details also provided in the application, with intimation to me.
Citibank Delhi
Connaught Circus, Jeevan Bharti
New Delhi
Saving Bank Account No. 5050113223
Kindly provide acknowledgment of this letter.
Regards.
Yogesh Sabharwal
H.No. 163, Sector-15
Panchkula
Haryana
7. In the meanwhile, the original allottee entered into an agreement to sell on 07.05.2010 qua plot no. 748 located at Sector18 with one Mr. Ramesh Aggarwal for a consideration of Rs. 7,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Lacs Only), the price so fixed by the YEIDA. Subsequent thereto, on 24.05.2010, the original allottee entered into a tripartite agreement qua plot (Plot A) located at Sector 18 with Mr. Ramesh Aggarwal and Radhey Shyam Arora (petitioner in Writ B) (hereinafter referred to as the "transferee) whereby he transferred his entire interest along with the peaceful possession to the transferee for a consideration of Rs. 7 Lacs. Thereafter, the original allottee-Yogesh Sabharwal and transferee Radhey Shyam Arora (petitioners in Writ A and Writ B respectively) jointly moved a duly filled application as prescribed for transfer of allotment rights of the said residential plot in question in favour of transferee before the YEIDA along with all necessary documents and the same was duly allowed by the competent authority (respondent no. 4-Manager (Property) YEIDA), by an approval letter dated 23.06.2010 and the possession of the plot in question was handed over to the petitioner Radhey Shyam Arora. Thus, by letter dated 23.06.2010, the permission was granted by YEIDA to transfer the plot in question in favour of the transferee Radhey Shyam Arora, who was named as the trasferee in the said letter. The transferee started making regular payment of the due amount of installments which becomes due on 18th of January and 18th of July of every year and till the filing of the present writ petition, he had deposited five installments in favour of the respondent no. 2 strictly as per the Rules without any default, which were duly received by YEIDA without any objection.
8. Subsequently, nearly after two years of the filing of the application for surrendering the plot located at Sector 20 (Plot B), a show cause notice dated 25.04.2012 was issued by the YEIDA to the original allottee seeking an explanation as to why the allotment of both the plots (plots allotted to him at Sector 18 & 20) be not cancelled since he had submitted two applications in violation of the terms and conditions of the scheme. For ready reference the show cause notice dated 25.04.2012 issued by YEIDA is quoted herein below:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
यमुना एक्सप्रेसवे औद्योगिक विकास प्राधिकरण
........ काम्प्लैक्स, पी0 2 सेक्टर ओमेगा.........
दूरभाष नं0- 0120-2395153/57/58, फैक्स नं0 - 0120-2395150
पत्रांक: वाई.ई.ए./ सम्पत्ति/1217/2012
दिनांक 25/04/2012
सेवा में,
श्री योगेश सबरवाल
भवन सं0 - 163, सैक्टर-15
पंचकुला (हरियाणा)
कारण बताओ नोटिस
महोदय,
प्राधिकरण की आवासीय भूखण्ड योजना 2009(1) के अन्तर्गत आपके द्वारा 300 वर्गमीटर के भूखण्ड के आवंटन हेतु दो आवेदन पत्र संख्या 34300 व संख्या 15625 के द्वारा आवेदन किया गया था। उक्त योजना के ब्रोशर के नियम व शर्त संख्या 10 "क" (II, III) में स्पष्ट उल्लिखित था कि किसी भी श्रेणी में कोई भी व्यक्ति एक ही भूखण्ड के आवंटन हेतु आवेदन कर सकता है तथा एक से अधिक भूखण्ड के आवंटन हेतु पात्र नहीं होगा। आपने योजना की नियम व शर्तों का उल्लंघन करते हुए दो आवेदन पत्र प्रेषित किये थे तथा नियमों के विरुद्ध प्राधिकरण से दो भूखण्डों का आवंटन प्राप्त किया है।
अतः आपको यह कारण बताओ नोटिस जारी किया जा रहा है कि क्यों नहीं आपको आवंटित भूखण्डों का आवंटन निरस्त कर जमा धनराशि नियमानुसार जब्त कर ली जाये। आप इस पत्र के जारी होने की तिथि से 21 दिन के अन्दर अपना स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत करें। यदि आपका स्पष्टीकरण उक्त अवधि के अन्दर प्राप्त नहीं होता है तो यह समझा जायेगा कि आपको इस सम्बन्ध में कुछ नहीं कहना है। तथा प्राधिकरण द्वारा निरस्तीकरण व जमा धनराशी जब्त करने की कार्यवाही कर दी जायेगी।
भवदीय
ह0 अपठनीय
25/4/12
(संदीप कुमार)
प्रबन्धक (सम्पत्ति)
Against the said show cause notice, the original allottee submitted his reply explaining the whole position but YEIDA by the impugned order dated 28.09.2012 cancelled both the plots as well as the permission granted by it earlier for transferring the plot situated at Sector 18 in favour of the transferee-Radhey Shyam Arora. The entire amount deposited by the petitioners namely Yogesh Sabharwal and Radhey Shyam Arora also stood forfeited. Hence the present writ petitions.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners have submitted that the impugned order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the respondent authority is illegal, arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. It has been further submitted that the respondent no. 1 has erred in not considering that the original allottee has neither suppressed any material facts at the time of applying for plots nor there is a taint or touch of fraud, mis-representation or deceit. The applications filed by him for allotment clearly reveals that the original allottee furnished true and correct information in the prescribed Registration Form. It was further contended that the impugned order has been passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. It was further contended that the respondent no. 2 completely overlooked and ignored the mistakes and lapses of his own officers, who themselves violated the clause 10 of the Brochure. The Officers of YEIDA ought to have informed the original allottee about his mistake at the time of allotting the two plots in his favour and not after two and half years of the allotment of plots after collecting installments as per schedule and approving the transfer of plot in favour of the transfereeRadhey Shyam Arora.
10. It was further submitted that the original allottee himself moved applications dated 17.05.2010 and 04.06.2010 for surrendering Plot B before the YEIDA, after coming to know that two plots can not be allotted to one person as per the terms and conditions provided in the Brochure. Had the petitioner not apprised the YEIDA about it, the Authority would not discovered the same. Thus there were lapses and negligence in allotment on the part of the respondents also. YEIDA ought to have considered the facts that the original allottee himself had come forward to surrender his second plot when he realized his bonafide mistake in applying for two plots in the same category.
11. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the transferee Radhey Shyam Arora has stated that the YEIDA itself had approved the transfer of plot-A in question situated at Sector 18 in his favour and he kept on depositing the installments for more than two years and no objection was ever raised by the YEIDA. It was further submitted that no concealment of any nature at any stage was made by the petitioner Radhey Shyam Arora but still the competent authority after expiry of nearly two years has cancelled the plot which was transferred in his favour in gross violation of principles of natural justice and without there being any fault on his part. It was further submitted that the impugned order canceling the valid and lawful transfer of Plot A in his favour has been passed in a mechanical manner without any application of mind and affording any opportunity of hearing to him, as such, the order is wholly illegal and arbitrary and is liable to be set aside.
12. It has been further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in an identical matter this Court in Writ Petition i.e. Writ C No. 2002 of 2015 (Vineet Sachdeva Versus State of U.P. & 3 Others) allowed the writ petition and the order cancelling the allotment in favour of the allottee Vineet Sachdeva (petitioner in the said writ petition) was quashed.
13. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the YEIDA has submitted that since the allotment was obtained by the petitioner Yogesh Sabharwal by filing two applications in a Prescribed Form under the category "E", in violation of the terms and conditions contained in the Brochure, YEIDA was fully justified in cancelling both the plots and forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioners.
14. Heard Shri Yatindra Kumar Mishra holding brief of Ms. Sumita Kapil, learned counsel for the original allottee-Yogesh Sabharwal (petitioner in Writ A), Shri Sanjay Agarwal, learned counsel for the transferee-Radhey Shyam Arora (petitioner in Writ B), Sri Suresh Singh appearing on behalf of the respondents-Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and perused the record.
15. Before proceeding any further it would be useful to refer to Clause 10 of "Terms and Conditions of the Residential Plot Scheme 2009(1) of YEIDA. The copy of the Brochure titled "Terms and Conditions of the Residential Plot Schemes 2009(1) of YEIDA" in English and Hindi has been filed along with the writ petitions, which reads as under:-
"10. A- General Category:
(i) The applicant must be competent to contract and shall have attained the age of majority.
(ii) All Indians/Non Resident Indians, who are neither in any way prohibited by the Government of India nor by U.P. Government under any specific rules to purchase any immovable property in U.P., shall be eligible to apply. Persons eligible as above can apply under any category only for one plot.
(iii) No person shall be eligible to get allotment for more than one plot in this scheme."
16. Admittedly, in the present case, the original allottee- Yogesh Sabharwal submitted two separate applications in the Prescribed Form for allotment of plots in his favour under the category "E" (plot measuring 300 Sq. Meter). The Plot situated at Sector 18 was allotted to the petitioner Yogesh Sabharwal on 20.11.2009 and the plot situated at Sector 20 was subsequently allotted to him on 21.01.2010, thus, the plot situated at Sector 18 was allotted prior in time to him. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the original allottee that the petitioner at the time of filing the applications for allotment of plots was not aware about the condition that only one application can be submitted and as soon as he came to know about the aforesaid fact, that he was not entitled to file two applications for allotment of plots, he made applications on 17.05.2010 and 04.06.2010 for surrender of the subsequent plot allotted in Sector 20. It has also come on record that YEIDA Authority granted permission for transfer of the plot in Sector 18 being Plot No. 748 by letter dated 23.06.2010 and thereafter the said plot was transferred in favour of the transferee-Radhey Shyam Arora. It is not the case of YEIDA that the petitioner Yogesh Sabharwal ever mislead, manipulated or suppressed any material facts at the time of filing of the applications for the allotment of plots. It is also not the case of YEIDA that it cancelled the plots on the basis of any complaint or any investigation/enquiry. In fact, YEIDA came to know about the double allotment, only on account of the applications filed by the original allottee himself on 17.05.2010 and 04.06.2010 wherein he showed his willingness to surrender the subsequent plot situated at Sector 20.
17. At this stage, it is relevant to quote Clause 12 of the Brochure of YEIDA, which reads as follows:
"12. WITHDRAWAL/SURRENDER
(i) In the case of withdrawal of the application before any allotment is made, then after deducting an amount of Rs.5,000/- from the registration money, the balance shall be refunded without any interest thereon.
(ii) In the case of surrender at any time after allotment but before the execution of lease deed, then after deducting an amount of Rs.10,000/- out of deposited amount, the balance shall be refunded without any interest thereon.
(iii) In the case of surrender at any time after the execution of lease-deed then out of the deposited amount, an amount of Rs.20,000/- as a processing fee and 10% of the total premium of the plot both shall be deducted and the balance shall be refunded without any interest thereon."
18. Perusal of the aforesaid clause shows that in case of surrender at any time after allotment but before the execution of lease deed, after deducting an amount of Rs.10,000/- out of the deposited amount, balance shall be refunded without any interest thereon. In the present case, the petitioner Yogesh Sabharwal admittedly had made a request through applications to surrender the subsequent plot on 17.05.2010 and 04.06.2010 immediately after the allotment and before the execution of the lease-deed but no order was passed by YEIDA on the said application and it kept the matter pending. Even though, the aforesaid fact was brought to the knowledge of YEIDA way back on 17.05.2010/04.06.2010 but still it raised no objection while approving the transfer of a plot by the original allottee in favour of the transferee Radhey Shyam Arora. Further the transfer of plot was also approved on 23.06.2010 by the Authority and not only this, YEIDA kept on receiving the installments from the transferee for more than two years without raising any kind of objection. However it appears that the Authority has woken up after more than two years from its deep bureaucratic slumber and issued the show cause notice only to the original allottee Yogesh Sabharwal and no show cause notice or any opportunity of hearing was ever granted in this regard to the transferee. YEIDA while cancelling the allotment of two plots and forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioners has invoked Clause 13(iv) of the terms and conditions of the Brochure. For ready reference, the relevant clause 13(iv) of the terms and conditions of the Brochure is quoted herein below:-
"13(iv)- In the event of cancellation, under sub-clause (I), (ii) and (iii), above, the entire deposits till the date of cancellation shall be forfeited and possession of the plot shall be resumed by the Authority/Lessor with structures thereon, if any, and the allottee/lessee will have no right to claim any compensation thereof. Without prejudice to the aforesaid, the Authority shall also have the liberty to initiate legal action against such allotee/lessee."
19. It is not the case of YEIDA that the original allottee Yogesh Sabharwal had filed the application form through some third person or through any members of his family. According to the original allottee at the time of filing of two applications for the allotment of plots, he was not aware about the condition that only one application can be submitted and as soon as he came to know about the fact that he is not entitled to move two applications in the same category, he made requests on 17.05.2010/04.06.2010 for surrender of plot situated in Sector 20 which was allotted subsequently to him. Admittedly, the application form was submitted by the original allottee on 28.04.2009 disclosing the correct particulars as required in the prescribed Form. Neither any suppression of material facts nor any concealment to mislead the Authority was made by him and the allotment of two plots was made in his favour on 20.11.2009 and 21.01.2010 respectively. Despite the information being well within the knowledge and possession of YEIDA that two applications have been filed by the original allottee Yogesh Sabharwal, still two plots were allotted in his favour. Not only this, the original allottee in all fairness, when he came to know that two plots can not be alloted to him immediately filed an application to surrender one plot to YEIDA situated at Sector 20, but the Officers of YEIDA conspicuously kept on sleeping over the matter for more than two years and did not take any action in this regard. Not only this on 23.06.2010 it also approved the transfer of plot no. 748 Pocket 2(B) Sector 18 in favour of the transferee and now the impugned order has been passed without even issuing any show cause notice or affording any opportunity of hearing to Radhey Shyam Arora (petitioner in Writ B).
20. The aforesaid facts clearly indicates that by approving the transfer of plot situated at Sector 18, YEIDA in favour of transferee, YEIDA was estopped from canceling the plot situated at Sector 18, which was transferred to the transferee Radhey Shyam Arora by the original allottee- Yogesh Sabharwal. An estopple may arise from an omission or silence or acquiescence. Party to be estopped must be bound in equity and good conscience to speak and that party claiming estoppel can rely upon such silence or acquiescence which misled to change his position to his prejudice.
21. The Apex Court in the case of Manuelsons Hotels Private Limited Versus State of Kerala and Others, (2016) 6 Supreme Court Cases 766 has held as follows:
"In fact, we must never forget that the doctrine of promissory estoppel is a doctrine whose foundation is that an unconscionable departure by one party from the subject matter of an assumption which may be of fact or law, present or future, and which has been adopted by the other party as the basis of some course of conduct, act or omission, should not be allowed to pass muster. And the relief to be given in cases involving the doctrine of promissory estoppels contains a degree of flexibility which would ultimately render justice to the aggrieved party."
22. YEIDA was in possession of all the documents and material on 28.04.2009/01.05.2009 when two applications were filed by Yogesh Sabharwal (the petitioner in Writ A) but still they allotted two plots to him in violation of condition 10 of the Brochure and even subsequently approved the transfer of one plot in favour of petitioner-Radhey Shyam Arora, despite the surrender application having been submitted by the original allottee in respect of the subsequent plot.
23. Further Condition No. 10(ii)(iii) of the Brochure does not provide the consequence if two applications are filed in the same category by the same applicant. It simply says that no person shall be eligible to get allotment of more than one plot in the scheme. Infraction of any condition as provided in the Brochure would not necessarily result in the cancellation of both the plots. Particularly when the application was already filed voluntarily for surrendering one plot out of the two plots. Before invoking the provision of Clause 13 of the Brochure, YEIDA should also have considered the subsequent conduct of the petitioner in the light of Section 8 of the Evidence Act. Facts of the case do not show that the intention of the original allottee at any point of time was dishonest or the application forms submitted by suppressing any material facts for defrauding YEIDA.
24. It was the original allottee who himself informed the YEIDA about the allotment of the two plots, by moving an application for surrendering the subsequent plot situated at Sector 20, as soon as he came to know that he was not entitled to submit two applications in the same category as two plots can not be allotted to one person in view of Clause 10 of the Brochure. But still, the YEIDA after such a long lapse of time chose to cancel both the plots as well as forfeited the entire amount submitted by the original allottee as well as the transferee. In our considered opinion, the lucid, apathetic, oblivious and contumacious conduct of the YEIDA in not acting with any promptitude in taking action in the matter but conspicuously sleeping over the matter for more than two years also dis-entitle the Authority from passing the impugned order.
25. We have also failed to understand that as to how the YEIDA Authority can cancel the allotment of plot situated at Sector 18 for which the approval of transfer was granted by the YEIDA itself in favour of the petitioner Radhey Shyam Arora. There is nothing on record to show the approval of transfer was sought by misleading or concealing any fact. The application of the petitioner Yogesh Sabharwal for surrender of one plot was in the knowledge of YEIDA but still they chose to grant approval of the transfer of plot in favour of the petitioner Radhey Shyam Arora. By transferring the plot in favour of the Radhey Shyam Arora, YEIDA Authority has waived its right to cancel the said transfer. More over the condition under Clause 10 of the Brochure that two plots can not be allotted to the same person is fully satisfied as the petitioner Yogesh Sabharwal had already filed an application surrendering one of the two plots allotted to him, as such, there was no occasion for the YEIDA to have cancelled the plot in favour of the Radhey Shyam Arora. The natural and inevitable conclusion from the conduct of the YEIDA would be that it had waived its right to cancel the plot transferred in favour of the petitioner Radhey Shyam Arora by approving its transfer way back on 23.06.2010. No explanation whatsoever has been given by YEIDA as to why it took around more than two years to cancel the allotment and why they approved the transfer of plot. Why no action was taken immediately when the application was filed by the original allottee for allotment of two plots and thereafter for surrendering one of his plot situated at Sector 20. YEIDA is also guilty of committing contributory negligence in the matter and mislead the petitioner to change their position to their prejudice.
26. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that respondents authority have committed illegality in invoking the Clause 13 of the condition of the Brochure cancelling the plots and forfeiting the amount deposited by the petitioners. Hence, we quash the order dated 28.09.2012 passed by the respondent authority. However, it is made clear that in view of the application dated 04.06.2010 of Yogesh Sabharwal (petitioner Writ C No. 59747 of 2012), the plot no.468, Pocket K situated in Sector 20, would be treated to have been surrendered to the YEIDA and the amount deposited by the petitioner Yogesh Sabharwal would be refunded in accordance with the condition no. 12(ii) as provided in the Brochure and we further direct the YEIDA to notify the revised schedule in the matter of payment of instalment etc to Radhey Shyam Arora (petitioner in Writ C No. 65872 of 2012) within two weeks of the receipt of the certified copy of this order.
27. The aforesaid writ petitions i.e. Writ C No. 59747 of 2012 and Writ C No. 65872 of 2012 are allowed subject to the observation made herein above.
Order Date :- 4.9.2018
Arun
