Chattisgarh High Court
Nazeem Khan vs Nagar Palika Parishad And Anr on 12 May, 2022
Page 1 of 15
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Reserved on 16-3-2022
Delivered on 12-05-2022
FA No. 62 of 2014
Girwar Singh S/o Hirdelal Halba Aged About 47 Years R/o Ram
Mandir Ward No. 08, Dallirajhara, P.S. Dallirajhara, Tah. Dondi,
Distt. Balod C.G., Through- Its General Power Of Attorney Holder-
Naimuddin, S/o Kamruddin Khan, Age- 62 Yrs, R/o Ward No. 08,
Indira Colony, Chikhlaksa, Tah. Dondi, Distt. Balod C.G.,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Nagar Palika Parishad,. Dallirajhara, Thru- The Chief Municipality
Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Dallirajhara, Tah. Dondi, Distt.
Balod C.G., Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Collector, Balod, Distt. Balod
C.G., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
FA No. 63 of 2014
Nazeem Khan S/o Naimuddin Khan Aged About 30 Years R/o Lic
Road, Indira Colony, Chikhlaksa, Tah. Dondi, Distt. Balod C.G.,
Through- General Power Of Attorney- Naimuddin, S/o Kamruddin
Khan, Civil And Revenue Distt. Balod C.G., Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. Nagar Palika Parishad, Dallirajhara, Thru- The Chief Municipality
Officer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Dallirajhara, Tah. Dondi, Distt.
Balod C.G., Chhattisgarh
2. State Of Chhattisgarh Thru- The Collector, Balod, Distt. Balod C.G.,
District : Balod, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants : Mr. B.P. Sharma and Mr. Arpit Agrawal,
Advocates.
For respondent No.1. : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate.
For State : Mr. Avinash K. Mishra, Govt. Advocate
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
CAV JUDGMENT
1. Since an identical question involves in both the appeals, they are
heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common
judgment.
2. The appellant/plaintiffs (appellant Girwar Singh has preferred First
Appeal No. 62 of 2014 and appellant Nazeem Khan has preferred
First Appeal No. 63 of 2014) have preferred both the appeals
against the judgment and decree dated 20-12-2013 passed by the
learned 2nd Additional District Balod (CG) in Civil Suit Nos.20-A/13
and 21-A/13 whereby the suits filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for
allotment of shop in their names, registration possession of Shop
Nos. 1 and 2 situated at Commercial Complex, Ward No.24,
Pratiksha Bus Stand, Opposite Sulabh Sauchalay, Dallirajjhara and
for restraining the respondent No.1 from initiating the auction
proceeding have been dismissed.
3. The brief fact, as reflected from the record are that the
appellants/plaintiffs have filed Civil Suit before the learned 2 nd
Additional District Judge, Balod mainly contending that the
defendant No.1 namely Nagar Palika Parishad, Dalli-rajhara has
issued an advertisement in daily newspaper on 26-8-2009 for
auction of the suit property of 14 shops situated at Ward No.24, near
Pratiksha Bus Stand, Opposite Sulabh Sauchalay, Dallirajjhara as
per the right of occupation accordingly, earnest money has to be
deposited on 30-9-2009 and auction has to be conducted on 1-10-
2009 at 2.00 pm. The plaintiffs have deposited Rs.3,000/- each as
security amount/auction money. The minimum price was
determined by the respondent No.1 was at Rs. 2,00,000/-. The
appellant and two persons have also participated in the auction.
The plaintiffs offered maximum price to the tune of Rs.2,27,000/-, in
the auction and auction was closed at Rs.2,27,000/- and the rent
was fixed at Rs.1,500/-. As per advertisement, 1/3rd amount has to
be deposited after accepting the auction and entire amount has to
be deposited within 15 days from the date of acceptance of the bid
then only shops have to be allotted. It has been further contended
that as per the Rules when plaintiff went to office of Municipal
Corporation, Dalli-rajhara, for depositing 1/3rd amount the Chief
Municipality Officer has informed them that construction of shop has
not been completed, when the construction will be completed they
will intimate the appellant with regard to deposit the amount.
Somehow it has been dragged and ultimately on 24-4-2010 the
appellants/plaintiffs have moved applications for allotment of shops
and to deposit the amount but their request was not acceded and
again the plaintiffs/appellants have submitted their applications on 3-
8-2010. They have also made a complaint before the Collector,
Durg, and it has been informed to the Collector that vide letter dated
15-9-2010 as per instructions received by the State Government
they will construct the work and do the needful. Thereafter, it has
been brought to the notice of the appellants/plaintiffs that some
persons have illegally occupied the shops and started doing their
business, therefore, they sought information under Right to
Information Act and it has been informed that on 9-9-2009 the
matter will be placed in the meeting of the Council and any action
will be taken as per decision of the committee. It has been informed
that no one has taken possession of the suit property and if anybody
has taken the property of suit shops, they will be evicted as per law
and the said shops shall be taken back. The appellants/plaintiffs
have sent a notice to defendant No.1 on 20.07.2012 through their
Advocates which was replied by the defendant No.1 on 26.07.2012
intimating that on 21.06.2012, the Government has rejected the
proposal made by the council and allotment be treated as null and
void. It has also been informed to the plaintiff that the Government
has directed for conducting fresh auction proceedings as per
Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Transfer of Immovable Propety) Rules
1996. It has been contended that before auction the Municipal
Corporation, Dallirajhara has already allotted 21 shops in which
Pramod Kumar, Manoj Kumar and Pushpa Devi have been allotted
shops by the process of auction on less offered price in comparison
to offer made by the plaintiff. The appellants/plaintiffs are ready and
willing to perform their part of contract, therefore, proposed auction
proceeding may be stayed and on the above factual matrix the
appellants have prayed that the suit shops No. 1 and 2 be allotted
in their names and the defendant no. 1 and 2 be also restrained
from initiating further auction proceeding. The appellants/plaintiffs
have filed applications for grant of injunction.
4. The defendant No.1/respondent No.1 has filed written statement
denying the allegation and contending that as per the right of
auction, Clause 2.9 of the condition of the tender process, if 1/3rd
amount is not deposited by the auction purchaser, immediately after
auction the earnest money shall be confiscated in favour of
Municipal Corporation. The Chief Municipality Officer has already
submitted detailed facts before the Collector vide its letter dated 15-
9-2010. It has been further contended that the plaintiffs/appellants
and other auction purchasers have not deposited the amount,
therefore, as per the approval granted by the Government of
Chhattisgarh on 21.06.2012 the whole auction proceeding was
cancelled, as such the plaintiffs/appellants are not entitled to get any
relief and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
5. Learned trial court on the pleadings of both the parties have framed
as many as five issues which are as under:
i. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is barred
by limitation?
ii. Whether the plaintiffs have done proper
valuation of the suit for the purpose of court
fee?
iii) Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to
get the possession of Shops No. 1 and 2?
iv) Whether the defendants are restrained from re-
auctioning of shops No. 1 and 2 by permanent
injunction?
v) Relief and costs?
6. The appellants/plaintiffs to substantiate their averments in the plaint
have exhibited the documents, notice dated 28.07.2012 (Annexure
P/1), reply of Municipal Corporation dated 25-8-2012 (Ex.P/2),
registered power of attorney (Ex.P/3) and examined themselves as
PW/1 and Shekhar Kamde (PW/2). The defendant No.1 has not led
any evidence. The witnesses Giriwar and Nazeem (PW/1) have
submitted an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 reiterating the stand
taken by them in the plaint, in their cross examination they have
admitted that defendant No.1 Nagar Palika Parishad, Dalli-rajhara
has issued an advertisement with regard to auction in the daily
newspaper. They have also admitted that they read over the terms
of the auction. They have also admitted that immediately after
auction they have to deposit 1/3rd amount but they have not
deposited the same. They have also admitted that other persons are
running shops and in this regard they have not produced any
document. They have also admitted that they have not produced
any document with regard to purchase of the shops by them. The
other witness namely Shekhar Kamde (PW/2) has filed his evidence
by way of an affidavit as per Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC and supported
the case of the plaintiffs/appellants and in the cross examination he
has admitted that he is not aware that whether after auction the
appellants/plaintiffs have deposited 1/3rd amount or not. He is also
not aware that due to non-depositing of amount, auction has been
cancelled. He has stated that shop No.1 belongs to Girwar Singh
and shop No.2 belongs to Nazeem Khan.
7. Learned trial court while considering the provisions of the
Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961, has considered how the
property of the Municipal Corporation has to be disposed off and
has taken a note of provision and thereafter, the learned trial court
has recorded a finding that as per Clause IV of the Rules of 1996
the proposal was sent to the State Government which has rejected
the same on 21-6-2012. Learned trial Court has also recorded a
finding on the basis of the evidence of the plaintiffs themselves that
proposal has not been accepted and in fact, the claim of the
plaintiffs/appellants is that as per the terms and conditions of tender
is only invitation of offer and unless the offer is accepted by the
competent authority, it cannot become the contract, as such it is not
a contract. Since the contract has not been executed, therefore, the
appellants/plaintiffs have no right to get the registration of the suit
property in their names and on that ground the trial court has
dismissed the suit. Against that, the plaintiffs/appellants have
preferred the instant appeals before this court.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the finding
recorded by the learned trial court is perverse and suffers from
surmises and conjecture as the learned trial Court has not
considered the fact that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform
his part of contract but the defendant no.1 has not performed his
part of the contract. It has been further contended that plaintiff has
gone to defendant to deposit the amount as per the terms
mentioned in the tender but the defendant no.1 has not accepted
the same on the pretext that construction of shop is not completed.
This vital fact of the case has not been taken into consideration by
the learned trial Court therefore, judgment and decree passed by
learned trial Court deserves to be set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs would submit by way of
written synopsis that plaintiffs have been allotted Gumpti which was
caught fire on 22-9-2019 and to rehabilitate them authorities have
already asked the appellants/plaintiffs to run the present shop No. 1
and 2 which are under construction near Bus Stand. Since then they
are running the shops. It has also been contended that at the time of
rehabilitation, it has been informed to them whenever the allotment
of shops would be made, then shop Nos. 1 and 2, shall be allotted
to them. This submission made by the appellants/plaintiffs cannot
be considered as there was no such material placed on record
before the trial court and the proceeding of First Appellate Court is
continuation of civil suit, as such this court cannot take note of
factual position made in the written synopsis. Therefore, this
submission cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the submission made
by learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs deserves to be and is
hereby rejected.
10. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 would submit that the findings
recorded by the learned trial Court is perfect, justified and in
accordance with the Municipal Corporation Act and Rules made
therein. He would refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of State of Punjab vs. Mehar Din in Civil Appeal no. 5861
of 2009 decided on 02.03.2022 and would pray for dismissal of the
appeal.
11. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and record of the Court
below with utmost satisfaction.
12. Before going into the legal submissions raised by the learned
counsel for the appellants and respondents in the bar, it is expedient
for this court to examine the relevant provisions which are
applicable in the present case. Section 109 of the Chhattisgarh
Municipalities Act, 1961 provides provisions governing the disposal
of Municipal property vested in or under the management of council.
Section 109 of the Chhattisgarh Municipalities Act, 1961 reads as
under;
"Section 109 - Provisions governing the disposal
of Municipal property vesting in or under the
management of Council (1) No streets, lands,
public places, drains or irrigation channels shall
be sold, leased or otherwise alienated, save in
accordance with such rules as may be made in
this behalf.
(2) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (1),--
(a) the Chief Municipal Officer may, in his
discretion, grant a lease of any immovable
property belonging to the Council, including any
right of fishing or of gathering and taking fruits,
flowers and the like, of which the premium or
rent; or both, as the case may be, does not
exceed two hundred and fifty rupees for any
period not exceeding twelve months at a time:
Provided that every such lease granted by the
Chief Municipal Officer, other than the lease of
the class in respect of which the [Substituted by
M.P. Act No. 20 of 1998.] [President-in Council]
has by resolution exempted the Chief Municipal
Officer from compliance with the requirements
of this proviso, shall be reported by him to the
[Substituted by M.P. Act No. 20 of 1998.]
[President-in-Council] within fifteen days after
the same has been granted.
(b) with the sanction of the [Substituted by M.P.
Act No. 20 of 1998.] [President-in Council], the
Chief Municipal Officer may, by sale or
otherwise grant a lease of immovable property
including any such right as aforesaid for any
period not exceeding three years at a time of
which the premium, or rent, or both, as the case
may be, for any one year does not exceed one
thousand five hundred rupees.
(c) with the sanction of the Council, the Chief
Municipal Officer may lease, sell or otherwise
convey any immovable property belonging to
the Council.
(3) The sanction of the [Substituted by M.P. Act
No. 20 of 1998.] [President-in-Council] or of the
Council under subsection (2) may be given
either generally for any class of cases or
specially in any particular case:
Provided that-- (i) no property vesting in the
Council in trust shall be leased, sold or
otherwise conveyed in a manner that is likely to
prejudicially effect the purpose of the trust
subject to which such property is held;
(ii) no land exceeding fifty thousand rupees in
value shall be sold or otherwise conveyed
without the previous sanction of the State
Government and every sale or other
conveyance of property vesting in the Council
shall be deemed to be subject to the conditions
and limitations imposed by this Act or by any
other enactment for the time being in force.]".
13. Chhattisgarh Municipalities (Transfer of Immovable Property) Rules
1996 (for short, "the Rules 1996") provides that no immovable
property which yields or is capable of yielding an income shall be
transferred by sale, or lease or otherwise conveyed except to the
highest bidder at a public auction or offer in a sealed cover. Rules,
4, 5 and 7 are relevant which are extracted as under:
"4. When a transfer is to be made by a public
auction or by inviting offers, the time, the date,
the place and the conditions of the auction or
offer shall, not less than 15 days prior to the
date of auction or last date for the receipt of
offers, be advertised in one or more local news-
papers and shall be widely made known in the
manner as determined by the Council.
5. The auction shall take place under the
supervision of the Chief Municipal Officer, or
such officials, as may be authorised by the
Chief Municipal Officer in this behalf.
7. When a resolution is passed by the Council
for the purpose of the proviso (ii) of sub-section
(3 ) of Section 109, the Chief Municipal Officer
shall forward the proposal to the State
Government enclosing the following
information ;-
(i) nature of the property, i.e., land, shop,
building, etc.;
(ii) area of such property along with its site plan;
(iii) in case of land acquired/purchased, by the
Council the purpose for which it was
acquire/purchased;
(iv) the purpose for which such land/property is
earmarked in the city Master Plan;
(v) for what purpose the property is being used
at present;
(vi) the purpose for which such property shall be
used by the person whose bid/offer has been
recommended for acceptance;
(vii) in case of building/shop, the cost of
construction and the date of completion of its
construction;
(viii) the date of publication of notice in the local
news-papers, and the date of auction or the last
date fixed for the receipt of offers, as the case
may be;
(ix) Upset price/market value determined for
auction/offers;
(x) conditions of auctions/offers;
(xi) the number of persons participated in the
auction or the number of the offerers who gave
their offer, as the case may be;
xii) the name of the first two highest
bidders/offerers as the case may be, and the
auction/offer price as quoted by them."
14. Section 109 (3) provides that no land exceeding Rs. 50,000/- in
value shall be sold or otherwise conveyed without the previous
sanction of the State Government and every sale or other
conveyance of property vesting in the Council shall be deemed to
be subject to the conditions and limitations imposed by this Act or by
any other enactment for the time being in force. Since, the State
Government has not granted approval and cancelled the tender
process, the plaintiff cannot claim any right to occupy the said
shops.
15. Now coming to the facts of the case, as per the tender document,
Rule 2.8 it is incumbent on the part of the auction purchaser to
deposit the amount within the time prescribed provided in the tender
and the said amount is not deposited then the earnest money will be
forfeited in favour of Municipal Corporation as per Clause 2.9 of the
Tender document. Clause 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11 are relevant which
are extracted as under :
"2.8 उच्चतम बोलीदाता को नीलामी के तुरत
ं बाद नीलामी
बोली राशश की एक ततहाईि राशश जमा करनी होगी यह राशश
धरोहर राशश के अलावा होगी । जो बोली स्वीकृ्त होने पर
राईिट आफ आकूपेशन की शेष राशश मे समायोजजत कर ली
जावेगी ककन्तु अस्वीकृ्त होने पर आकूपेशन की राशश एवं
धरोहर राशश वापस की जावेगी ।
2.9 यकद बोली की एक ततहाईि राशश बोलीदाता
नीलामी के तुरत
ं बाद जमा करने मे असमरर रहते है तो
उसकी धरोहर राशश नगर पाललका कोष मे राजसात कर
ली जावेगी ।
2.10 नीलामी बोली छ०ग० नगर पाललका अतधकनयम
1961 के धारा 109 के अध्यधीन होगी । नीलामी बोली
स्वीकृ्त होने के 30 कदवस के भीतर बोलीदाता को राईिट
आफ आकूपेशन की राशश नगर पाललका कोष मे जमा
करना होगा एवं कनयम/शतर के अधीन स्वयं के व्यय पर
प्रचललत दर अनुसार 15 कदवस के भीतर पंजीयन कराना
अकनवायर होगा । पंजीयन पश्चात बोलीदाता को दक
ु ान का
वास्तकवक कब्जा सौपा जावेगा ।
2.11 कबना कोईि कारण बताये नीलामी की बोली स्वीकार
करने या न करने का अतधकार नगर पाललका दल्लीराजहरा
को होगा ।"
16. Learned counsel for the appellants/plaintiffs have referred to the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rame Gowda (dead) by Lrs
vs. M. Varadappa Naidu (dead) by Lrs and others 1 and would
submit that since the appellants/plaintiffs are in peaceful
possession, rightful owner may only recover it by taking recourse to
law. In the present case, the appellants/plaintiffs are not in
possession of suit property, in accordance with law as they are in
illegal possession, therefore, the judgment cited by learned counsel
for the appellants/plaintiffs is not applicable to the facts of the
present case.
17. Similarly, in Poona Ram vs Moti Ram (dead) through Lrs and
others2 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the suit for
possession based on possessory title/previous possession and not
ownership/proprietary title, essential conditions to be met and
established by plaintiff in such a case, to succeed. In the present
case, appellants/plaintiffs have not been able to prove that they are
in possession of the suit property on the promissory ownership or
the property of right of the title, but they are occupying the land
illegality not in accordance with provisions of law, therefore, this
judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case.
18. The appellants/plaintiffs were highest bidders in the auction but they
have not deposited 1/3rd amount after acceptance of the offer and
the earnest money is liable to be forfeited in the account of
Municipality. The plaintiffs/appellants have also not complied with
condition No.2.8, coupled with facts, the Government has not
1 (2004)1 SCC 769
2 (2019) 11 SCC 309
approved the auction which is a mandatory requirement as per
Rules 1966. Learned trial court has rightly dismissed the suit, even
otherwise, it is well settled proposition of law that the offer unless
accepted by the opposite party, it cannot become contract.
19. Hon'ble the Division Bench of High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the
State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Hamkim Singh and another 3, has
held as under:
"The offer of the bid and deposit of the
amount by the plaintiff No. 1 was in the
nature of a 'proposal'. Before that could be
accepted by the Chief Conservator of
Forests, the communication was sent to
him that the plaintiff was withdrawing his
offer. The Chief Conservator of Forests,
therefore, had no right to put his signature
on the contract deed and to treat it as if
the contract had come into being. It
therefore, follows that, in fact, no contract
came into being between the Parties and
the defendant State had no right to
enforce the contract as such. It is no doubt
true that in Sale Condition No. 14 (Ex. D-l)
a provision has been made that if a
successful bidder fails at the close of the
auction to pay the amount of the
consideration, or the first instalment, as
the case may be, or to furnish a security or
to complete the formalities, the earnest
money deposited by him shall be forfeited
to the State Government and the coupe
shall be re-auctioned and the deficiency
shall be realised from the original bidder
as arrears of land revenue".
20. Hon'ble Supreme Court in recent judgment decided on 2-3-2022 in
the matter of State of Punjab and others vs. Mehar Din ( Civil
Appeal No.5861 of 2009) has examined the procedure for sale by
public action and has held that in paragraph 17 that "even if the
public auction has been completed to the highest bidder, no right is
accrued till the confirmation letter is issued to him as the
acceptance of the highest bid is provisional, subject to its
conformation by the competent authority". It is not in dispute that the
3 (1973) AIR (MP) 24
competent authority ie., the State Government has not approved the
bidding auction process and after recording its satisfaction, has
accordingly initiated auction process vide its order dated 21-6-2012.
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and
others and Mehar Din (supra), has held in para 21, 25 and 26
which are extracted below:
"18. This Court has examined right of the
highest bidder at public auctions in umpteen
number of cases and it was repeatedly
pointed out that the State or authority which
can be held to be State within the meaning of
Article 12 of the Constitution, is not bound to
accept the highest tender of bid. The
acceptance of the highest bid or highest
bidder is always subject to conditions of
holding public auction and the right of the
highest bidder is always provisional to be
examined in the context in different conditions
in which the auction has been held. In the
present case, no right had accrued to the
respondent even on the basis of statutory
provisions as being contemplated under Rule
8(1)(h) of Chapter III of the Scheme of Rules,
1976 and in terms of the conditions of auction
notice notified for public auction.
19. The scope of judicial review in the matters
of tenders/public auction has been explored in
depth by this Court in a catena of cases.
Plausible decisions need not be overturned
and, at the same time, latitude ought to be
granted to the State in exercise of its
executive power. However, allegations of
illegality, irrationality and procedural
impropriety would be enough grounds for
Courts to assume jurisdiction and remedy
such ills.
21. The exposition of law on the subject has
been consistently followed by this Court even
in the later decisions holding that superior
Courts should not interfere in the matters of
tenders, unless substantial public interest
was involved or the transaction was malafide.
It was consistently stressed by this Court that
the need for overwhelming public interest
should always be kept in mind to justify
judicial intervention in contracts involving the
State and its instrumentalities and while
exercising power of judicial review in relation
to contracts, the Courts should consider
primarily the question whether there has been
any infirmity in the decision-making process.
25. Undisputedly, the provisional bid, in the
instant case, was not confirmed by the
competent authority (Sales Commissioner)
and not being accepted after recording its
due satisfaction by an order dated 2nd July,
1993 and the decision of the authority in
passing the order of cancellation of the
auction bid was scrutinized/examined by the
appellate/revisional authority and the
discretion exercised by the competent
authority in taking decision of cancellation
was upheld at later stages.
26. This being a settled law that the highest
bidder has no vested right to have the auction
concluded in his favour and in the given
circumstances under the limited scope of
judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution, the High Court was not
supposed to interfere in the opinion of the
executive who were dealing on the subject,
unless the decision is totally arbitrary or
unreasonable, and it was not open for the
High Court to sit like a Court of Appeal over
the decision of the competent authority and
particularly in the matters where the authority
competent of floating the tender is the best
judge of its requirements, therefore, the
interference otherwise has to be very
minimal" .
22. From the above stated legal provisions and facts of the case,
evidence brought on record, it is quite clear that the finding recorded
by the learned trial court that the offer has not been accepted by the
Municipal Corporation, even the plaintiffs/appellants have not
complied with the condition No. 2.8 of the tender document, coupled
with the fact that the Government has not approved the said tender
process as per Rules of 1996, therefore, the trial court has rightly
dismissed the suit. This finding is neither perverse nor suffers from
any irregularity or illegality which warrants interference by this court.
23. Accordingly, the instant both the appeals being devoid of merit are
liable to be and are hereby dismissed.
24. Interim relief granted earlier in both the appeals shall continue upto
four months and thereafter the same shall stand vacated
automatically.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge
Raju
