Delhi High Court
Colonel Sandes vs Union Of India And Ors. on 26 September, 2008
Author: Mool Chand Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No.5805/2007
% Reserved on :18th September, 2008
Pronounced on :26th September, 2008
COLONEL SANDES ......Petitioner
Through: Petitioner in person.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Ms. Jyoti Singh, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to
see the judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to Reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes
MOOL CHAND GARG,J
1. The short question involved in this writ petition is, "Whether
the respondents were right in having initiated writing of the
impugned Interim Confidential Report (for short "ICR") of the
petitioner for the period from 01.09.1999 to 24.03.2000, despite
pendency of a Court of Inquiry (hereinafter referred to "COI") in
respect of the incident dated 27th February, 2000 which was likely to
affect the Character and Military reputation of the petitioner being
the commanding officer of the Unit under Scrutiny without following
W.P.(C) 5805/2007 Page 1 of 18
rule 180 of the Army Rules 1954 and in violation of Para 26 of the
Special Army Order (3/S/89)".
2. The petitioner was granted permanent commission in the
Indian Army on 16.12.1978. During 1.9.1999 to 24.3.2000
(hereinafter referred to as "the relevant period"), he was working as
Colonel and was commanding 17 Maratha LI in Jammu & Kashmir.
One of the posts under the control of the Unit was "Ashok Post"
(hereinafter referred to as "the said post") situated at the border in
the Kargil area. Unfortunately, on 27th February, 2000 the said post
was attacked by Pakistani Troops resulting in the seven fatal
casualties, injury to three while a JCO went missing. There were also
loss of weapons and equipments. A COI was ordered in the first
week of March 2000 by Brigadier R.K.Saigal who also happened to
be the Initiating officer (for short "IO") of the petitioner for the
relevant period to find out the reasons which resulted in casualties,
injuries to jawans beside loss of weapons and equipments. The
inquiry was also to fix the responsibility of the persons responsible
for the incident.
3. The petitioner was neither specifically implicated nor was
given any opportunity to participate in the inquiry in accordance
with the provisions of Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954 (hereinafter
referred to as "the Army Rules"). However soon after setting up the
COI, Brigadier R.K.Saigal also issued a warning letter dated 13th
March, 2000 to the petitioner blaming him for the aforesaid incident.
On 24th March, 2000 Brigadier Saigal initiated an Interim
W.P.(C) 5805/2007 Page 2 of 18
Confidential Report (for short "ICR") for the relevant period in
respect of the work and conduct of the petitioner despite pendency
of the COI which, was likely to affect the character and military
reputation of the petitioner being the Commanding Officer of the
Unit under scrutiny. The pen picture of the petitioner forming part of
the ICR described the aforesaid incident as a case of „command
failure‟ on the part of the petitioner. According to the petitioner, the
impugned ICR also affected chances of his promotion to the next
rank despite his overall „Above Average Profile‟.
4. The petitioner approached the Central Government by filing a
statutory complaint dated 21st April, 2005 which was rejected vide
order dated 1st May, 2006. Before that the petitioner also
approached this Court for seeking a direction for early disposal of
this complaint. While disposing of the aforesaid writ petition this
Court allowed the petitioner to file a second complaint also as in the
meanwhile the petitioner was not promoted to the next rank by the
selection board due to the impugned ICR. The 2nd complaint was
also rejected vide order dated 11th July, 2007.
5. Relying upon Para 26 of Special Army Order (3/S/89) petitioner
has stated that during the pendency of the C O I, the ICR should not
have been written and the case of the petitioner should have been
treated as a case of NIR (Non Initiation Report). The aforesaid
paragraph of the SAO is reproduced hereunder for the sake of
reference:
26. When an officer is the subject of a disciplinary
case, a CR will be initiated on him only after
W.P.(C) 5805/2007 Page 3 of 18
finalization of the case. Where, however, such a
case is not finalized for more than one year and the
officer has been performing regular duties in a
specific appointment, an ACR will be initiated. It
will, however, be ensured that the report is
objective and does not contain reference of the
disciplinary case.
6. It is also submitted that Para 65 of the Special Army Order
(Supra) required that the petitioner to have given 60 days notice for
enabling the petitioner to give his defence in case any adverse
remark was to be made against him in relation to the subject matter
of the inquiry.
7. The COI was concluded only on 9th March, 2002 which has not
blamed the petitioner for the incident. On the contrary, the Inquiry
report suggests that such salutary and isolated posts which are
tactically unsound should have been "resited" and strengthened by
deploying service weapons, obstacles and surveillance devices
which was also the suggestions given by petitioner earlier to the
incident to his higher authority i.e. the I O. It is submitted that in
such circumstances I O ought not to have initiated the impugned
ICR. However, the IO not only initiated the ICR but also wrote the
letter dated 13.3.2000 which shows his bent of mind to hold the
petitioner guilty for the incident without waiting for the report of the
COI.
8. The petitioner has also submitted that throughout his career
he had outstanding career profile but for the period in question he
had been given 7 out of 9 whereas earlier he used to be given 9 out
of 9. Impugned ICR gives the reason for assigning a lower grade to
W.P.(C) 5805/2007 Page 4 of 18
the petitioner as the pen picture blames the petitioner for the
incident by mentioning it as a case of Command failure. Thus the
impugned ICR has affected the career prospects of the petitioner, as
the Selection Boards have not promoted him to the next rank which
as stated above, is in violation of para 26 of the SAO 3/S/89.
9. The petitioner filed a statutory complaint dated 21st April,
2005 against the impugned ICR, which was rejected by the Central
Government by passing the following order:
No.PC-36501/9171/Inf/2005/MS-19/82/SV/2006-D(MS)
Government of India
Ministry of Defence
New Delhi dated the 1st May, 2006
ORDER
IC-35684a Col Sandes, Inf (MARATHA LI) has submitted a
Statutory Complaint dated 21.04.2005 to the Central
Government against CR 09/99-03/00. The officer in his statutory
complaint has highlighted his performance as CO of an INf
Battalion deployed on the LC in Northern Command. He has
stated that the vulnerability and untenability of one of the
listening posts (LP) was brought to the notice of his superiors on
a number of occasions. The vulnerability of the post had
increased during Operation VIJAY and the need to relocate was
projected verbally and in writing. His persistent request to re-
site the post fell on deaf ears. The post was raided on 27
February, 2000 and consequent to this higher formation
accorded permission to relocate/vacate the post. He is
convinced that the incident of raid could have been avoided if
his persistent request to relocate the post had been accepted by
the authorities concerned in time. The officer has impugned the
Cr 09/99-03/00 earned by him or relinquishing of command of
the unit. He has stated that he has not been fairly assessed in
the impugned CR by the IO and the entire report has been
coloured solely by the incident of 27 February 2000. He states
that the RI and the SRO would have endorsed the remarks of the
IO. He has stated that the same IO had rated him „Outstanding‟
in certain qualities in the previous report and an incident in the
unit about which he had forewarned cannot point towards drop
in the said qualities. He has added the Brigade HQ letter
referred as written guidance for improvement in the CR was
initiated after the incident to put the entire blame on him as the
CO. He has highlighted his performance throughout his service
and the CRs earned before and after the impugned CR.
2. The officer has requested that the ICR covering the period
01 September 1999 to 24 March 2000, which is totally incident
based and not in consonance with his entire service profile be
set aside.
3. The Statutory Complaint of the officer has been
examined against his overall profile, comments of the
Reporting Officers, other relevant documents and
analysis/recommendations of Army Headquarters. After
consideration of all the aspect of the complaint and
viewing it against redress sought, it has emerged that
impugned CR 09/99-03/00 has been assessed by IO and
RO based on the demonstrated performance of the
officer. No bias as alleged by the officer against the
reporting officers is discernible in the impugned CR as
the said CR in unambiguous and relates to the COI and
other documents related to the incident of raid of the
enemy on the post held by the unit resulting in fatal
casualties to troops and loss of government property
hence CR 09/99-03/00 does not merits any interference
by the Government.
4. The Central Government, therefore, rejects the Statutory
Complaint dated 21.04.2005 submitted by IC-35684A Col
Sandes, Inf (MARATHA LI), against CR 09/99-03/00.
By order and in the name of the President
(S.D. Banga)
Under Secretary to the Government of India
10. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that impugned ICR was
very much taken into consideration and was accepted as an incident
based ICR despite pendency of the COI at the relevant time. His
second complaint dated 16th January, 2007 impugning the result of the
Selection Board whereby he was not promoted to the next rank was
also rejected by the Central Government vide its order dated 11th July,
2007. This time the Central Government stated that the promotion
board of the petitioner had taken into consideration his overall profile
which also included the aforesaid ICR.
11. According to the petitioner the impugned ICR could not have
been initiated by the IO at a time when a COI to pin point the
responsibilities of those responsible for the unfortunate incident dated
27th February, 2000 was pending which was likely to affect the
character and military reputation of the petitioner. It is his case that
for the relevant period the petitioner should have been treated as a
case of NIR. It is also his case, that the aforesaid ICR was written
with a biased mind and without affording an opportunity to the
petitioner under Rule 180 of the Army Rules, 1954, and by
describing the incident dated 27.2.2000 as a case of „command
failure‟ which shows that the ICR was not a fair assessment of the
overall performance of the petitioner and was vitiated due to the
bent of mind of the officer who initiated the ICR after forming an
opinion about the conduct of the petitioner even before the findings
were given by the COI.
12. The petitioner also stated that in the report given by the Court
of Inquiry, he has not been found blameworthy for the incident, and
no action has been taken against him. However, the impugned ICR
forms part of his profile.
13. The petitioner in support of his case has also relied upon the
stand taken by the respondents regarding the ICR in their counter
affidavit where they have stated:
It is further submitted that as per petitioners own
admission the COI had been finalized on 9.03.2000,
whereas the ICR was initiated after 24.03.2000.
Therefore, even by the petitioner‟s own admission he was
not subject of disciplinary case on the date when the ICR
was initiated. It is submitted that Report for the period
Sep 99-- Mar 2000 was initiated due to his (petitioner‟s)
moving out on posting and accordingly the same was
correctly initiated and was technically valid. Since the
petitioner was not a disciplinary case his contention
regarding initiation of Non Initiation Report (NIR) is
misconceived and it is denied.
In so far as the contents of the said ACR are
concerned it is submitted that the pen picture
contains adverse remarks, which were duly
communicated to the Petitioner. It is submitted
that the petitioner is trying to mislead the Hon'ble
Court by confusing adverse remarks and adverse
report. An adverse report is one which is initiated
under specific provisions of Para 79 of Special Army
Order (SAO 3/S/89). An adverse report under the
said para is one which is initiated when an officer's
service is considered unsatisfactory, or when it is
desired to recommend release of an officer from
service, or removal from an appointment in his
acting rank for reasons of professional
incompetence, inefficiency or inherent traits of
character which makes his utility to the service/unit
doubtful. Whereas, adverse remarks in a report is
one, which is endorsed by the reporting officer
based on performance of the officer concerned
during the relevant reporting period. In the instant
case, the report for the period Sep 99 to March
2000 is not an adverse report in terms of Para 65 of
SAO but it is a report containing adverse remarks.
The said report was initiated in terms of Para 68 to
72 of the said SAO. A bare reading of the pen
picture(Annexure P-1) shows the actual
performance of the petitioner in that particular
period of assessment. The letter dated 13 Mar 2000
mentioned in the pen picture (Page 23 of the writ
petitioner) under column 18(b) of ICR form reveals
that the letter was written as guidance to the
petitioner for improvement and not a warning
letter as claimed by the petitioner. This written
guidance for improvement is not a warning order
and is different from what is required to be issued
under para 80 of SAO before initiation of an
adverse report under para 79 of SAO.
In so far as the comparison sought to be drawn by the
petitioner between his ICR and the earlier report written
by Brig. RK Saigal it is submitted that because the
petitioner got a good report prior to the report under
challenge, it cannot be a ground to assail the confidential
report in question which was recorded based on
performance of the petitioner during the relevant
reporting period. It is submitted that the Petitioner
cannot absolve himself from his responsibility as a
commanding Officer of the Battalion about the incident
which resulted into the death of 07 jawans, three
wounded and one subedar missing and loss of arms and
ammunition.
14. Assailing the aforesaid stand of the respondents, the
petitioner has also referred to the letter written by respondents
dated 13.03.2000, which is reproduced hereunder:
Brigadier R K Saigal
Commander
Headquarters
80 Infantry Brigade
C/o 56 APO
205/DG/GS (Ops) 13 Mar 2000
Dear Colonel,
1. I am writing this letter to you to express my
dissatisfaction regarding our op preparedness and
inability to fight a successful def battel on the LC.
2. Consequent to the ops at Pallanwala in Jan 2000,
and at Mendhar on 15 Feb and 25 Feb 2000, Pak
raids in our posts were expected. Besides, int
inputs on accretion inten str, recce of posts,
presence of SSG pers/ militants in fwd posts and
aggressive posture adopted by the en were a clear
indication of en intentions. Inspite of such clear
indicators, and adequate forewarning, en had been
able to successfully and brutally exec msns across
the LC w/o any loss. We have not only failed to
fight a successful def battle, we could not inflict any
case on the en to make such ventures by him
prohibitive in terms of losses. We seem to have
lost the initiative on the LC.
3. What is even more surprising is that we have failed
to derive and implement useful lessons from our
experience gained during ops in Op Vijay period. I
have constantly been issuing directions from time
to time various forums/media be it my visits to the
posts, periodic confs, address to offrs, instrs from
my staff to improve our op preparedness and
responses to ensure moral ascendancy on the en
and fulfillment of the tasks assigned to us. It is to
my dismay that units have been adopting a
lackadaisical appch in this regard. Such an attitude
needs to be corrected immediately and
accountability at various levels needs to be fixed.
Your attn is once again invited to the instrs for
improving our comb readiness issued vide this HQ
letters No.:-
a) 201/1/CS(SD) dt 20 Jun 99
b) 201/1/GS(SD) dt 25 Jul 99
c) 201/1/GS(SD) dt 07 Dec 99
d) Mins of Conf held on 02 Mar 2000
e) 204/1/GS(SD) dt 05 Mar 2000
4. Please ensure that a review of the sit incl threat
perception in your bn def as is carried out and
remedial measures instituted in all seriousness. A
very serious view will be taken on any lapses in
future.
Col Sandes Sd/xx
CO, 17 Maratha LI. Brig RK Saigal
15. It is submitted that this letter as well as the orders passed by
the Central Government are a reflection upon the work and conduct
of the petitioner in respect of the incident. Similar allegations also
find a reflection in his pen picture. The pen picture also goes to
show that the Commander had made up his mind that the incident
dated 27.02.2000 was a major command failure. The same for the
sake of reference is reproduced hereunder:
Initiating Officer:-
(a) Brief comments: A short, smart and cheerful officer
who is well turned out. He is mentally and physically
tough.
The officer is well read, intelligent and quick on the
uptake. He is hardworking and sincere.
The officer has commanded his battalion on the
Line of Control in a sensitive area reasonably well. The
unit prevented infiltration, through its area of
responsibility.
However despite adequate indicators and warnings
about enemy‟s intention, a successful raid was carried out
by the enemy on one of its forward posts of the unit
resulting in seven fatal casualties and loss of six weapons
besides ammunition and equipment, which has been a
major command failure.
The officer is happily married and has Spartan
habits.
(b) Has the rate been given verbal or written guidance
for improvement during the reporting period, if so, give
details,
(i) Verbal : Yes
(ii) Written: Yes HQ Inf Bde Letter No. 205/DO/GS (Ops)
(ii) dated 13 Mar 2000.
Sd/xx
Signature of Initiating Officer
27 May, 2000
16. By way of the present writ the petitioner has prayed that the
impugned ICR covering the relevant period which is technically
invalid and biased, be set aside and he may be considered as a
fresh look case by No. 2 selection board for promotion to the rank of
„Brigadier‟ which has not selected him only because of the aforesaid
ICR along with his batch mates. The petitioner also prays for setting
aside the orders dated 01.05.2006 and 11.07.2007 passed by the
Central Government rejecting the statutory complaints filed by him.
17. The respondents have contested the petition. It is their case
that the petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed
inter alia on the following grounds:
i) The petitioner is guilty of delay and laches in having
approached this Court by way of the present writ petition
which has been filed after seven years.
ii) The COI, subject matter of the dispute, was not against
the petitioner and therefore para 26 of the Special Army
Order (3/S/89) had no application to the case. In fact, it
was a case covered by para 28 and, therefore, there was
nothing wrong in having initiated the ICR concerned.
The said para reads as under:
28. An officer will be considered to be the
subject of a disciplinary case with effect from the
earlier of the following two dates:--
(a) The date on which a COI is ordered involving
his character or military reputation, or
(b) The date on which formal cognizance of an
offence is taken against him.
In view of the aforesaid, Rule 180 of the Army Rules was
not applicable.
iii) If today, the impugned ICR is taken off from the records,
the result of the selection board may affect many others
who may have been selected without their being party
to the proceedings and are also not a party to the
proceedings. Moreover, taking into consideration the
total profile of the petitioner, he would not have been
promoted.
iv) Insofar as the conduct of the petitioner is concerned it is
stated that a warning letter was also written to the
petitioner on 13.03.2000 (supra).
(v) It has also been stated that the petitioner was neither
subject to a disciplinary case nor COI was ordered
involved his character or military reputation, initiation of
the ICR was legal and in accordance with law. He was
not entitled to the protection of Rule 180 of the Army
Rules. Thus the petitioner is not entitled to any relief as
prayed for.
18. We have considered the rival submissions made by the parties
and have gone through the records. We have also examined the
written submission filed by the petitioner.
19. At the outset we may observe that the following facts are
undisputed:
(a) That at the relevant time the petitioner was
commanding 17, Maratha LI in J & K;
(b) Pakistani troops attacked Ashok Post on
27.02.2000, which was under the command of the
unit of the petitioner;
(c) That the unfortunate incident took life of seven
resulting in injuries to three, one of the subedars
went missing. It also resulted in the loss of
weapons and equipments;
(d) That a COI was ordered in the first week of
March, 2000 and the impugned Interim
Confidential Report (ICR) was initiated by Brigadier
R.K. Saigal on 24.3.2000 who also blamed the
petitioner for the tactical blunder as is reflected
from the pen picture in the impugned ICR (supra)
which is available as Annexure P-1 to the writ
petition and vide his letter dated 13.03.2000.
20. A reading of the ICR in question along with the pen picture
(supra) leaves no room for doubt that the writing of the ICR in
question was directly influenced by an opinion formed by the
initiating officer even before the conclusion of the COI that the
incident dated 27.02.2000 was a case of command failure which
was the subject matter of the COI as aforesaid. In this regard, it is
relevant to take note of the reference made to the presiding officer
of the COI who was deputed to inquire about the incident dated
27.02.2000 as mentioned in page 43 of the paper book as part of
the COI proceedings which reads as under:
Proceedings of a : COI
Assembled at : 17 Maratha LI, C/O 56 APO
On the day : Mar 2000
By the order of : Cdr 80 Inf Bde
For the purpose of : Investigating circumstances
Under which Ashok LP MY
026151 was raided at 0430h
on 27 Feb 2000 by en and
pers were killed/missing and
arms amn and eqpt were lost.
Further to pin point
responsibility and suggest
remedial measures with a
view to prevent such cases in
future.
21. A bare reading of the aforesaid reference shows that the role
of the petitioner being the commanding officer was very much
under investigation by the aforesaid COI. It is also not in dispute
that no opportunity under Rule 180 was given to the petitioner for
enabling him to participate in the COI right from the beginning even
though his character and military reputation was directly at stake.
Thus the submission made by the learned counsel for the
respondent that in the present case paragraph 26 of the relevant
DSR (supra) is not applicable but paragraph 28 is applicable is of no
consequence for the simple reason that even if one goes by para 28
of SAO 3/S/89, the COI was likely to affect the character and military
reputation of the petitioner even though he was not implicated by
name. It was therefore incumbent upon the initiating officer to have
avoided initiation of the impugned ICR.
22. In any case, the IO had no authority to have drawn conclusions
about the role of the petitioner with respect to the incident dated
27th February, 2000 as the reasons about the happening of the
unfortunate incident and the role played by all concerned was still
subject matter of the COI particularly when the petitioner was not
associated with the enquiry for the purpose of giving him the benefit
of Rule 180 of the Army Rules. Since the petitioner had been taking
steps for the vindication of rights right from 2002 by approaching
the Central Government, this Court, again the Central Government,
it cannot be said that the petition filed by him suffers from delay
and laches.
23. On having scrutinized the records submitted for our perusal
by the respondents, we find that the comments given by the
reporting officer for the consideration of the Central Government
makes exhaustive reference to the enemy action dated 27.02.2000
and the loss suffered by the unit. Further the record also shows that
the petitioner throughout had an "above average profile" whereas
in the impugned ICR, he has been given 7 only because OF THE
reference made about the loss suffered by the Army in the incident
which occurred on 27.02.2000. In this regard the initiating officer
had used the following words. "Despite adequate indicators and
warnings about enemy's intentions, a successful raid was carried
out by the enemy on one of its forward posts of the unit resulting in
seven fatal casualties and loss of six weapons besides ammunition and
equipment, which has been a major command failure".
24. The statutory complaint was also rejected by the Central
Government making observation that the impugned CR was based
upon the demonstrated performance of the officer and "that the said
CR is unambiguous and relates to the COI and other documents related
to the incident of raid of the enemy on the post held by the unit
resulting fatal causalities of troops and loss of government property".
However, while deciding his non-statutory complaint filed on
02.05.2006 against his non-empanelment the same has been rejected
without taking into consideration the grievance of the petitioner that
his non-selection was because of the ICR as aforesaid. In fact, the
grievance about the ICR has simply been overlooked by stating:
"19. I have perused the Non Statutory
Complaint submitted by the officer and
examined the same against his overall profile
and other relevant documents. After
consideration of all aspects of the complaint
and viewing it against the redress sought, it
has emerged that the officer has a balanced
profile wherein all CRs in the reckonable period
are fair, consistent, mutually corroborated and
in tune with his overall profile. None of the CRs
merit any interference.
20. Apparently, the officer has not been
placed in an acceptable grade for promotion to
the rank of Brig because of his overall profile
and its comparative evaluation by No 2
Selection Board."
25. We have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned
confidential report for the relevant period i.e. for 01.09.1999 to
24.03.2000 is not sustainable in law, as it is in violation of para 26 of
the Special Army Order and without having given an opportunity to the
petitioner to have availed the benefit of Rule 180 of the Army Rules.
and therefore should not have been taken into consideration by the
selection board at the time of considering the case of the petitioner for
his promotion to the next rank, i.e., the rank of the „Brigadier‟. If the
aforesaid ICR would not have been part of the overall profile of the
petitioner the possibility of a different conclusion having been reached
by the promotion board cannot be ruled out. Even while deciding the
non-statutory complaint against the non-promotion of the petitioner by
the selection board in question, the authorities have not considered
the distinction which would have been there between the profile of the
petitioner with the aforesaid ICR and without the ICR. The complaint
has been simply rejected by stating that the petitioner had not been
promoted in view of his overall profile, including the impugned ICR.
26. We do not find ourselves in agreement with the submissions of
the learned Counsel for the respondents that the COI was not to deal
with the character and reputation of the petitioner and therefore para
26 of the special army order was not applicable in his case or that he
was not entitled to the benefit of rule 180 of the Army rules for the
simple reason that the reference made to COI, was to deal with the
role of the petitioner in the incident dated 27th February, 2000, which
occurred in his Unit .
27. Taking all these facts into consideration, we find force in the
contentions raised by the petitioner that ICR for the period 01.09.1999
to 24.03.2000 is unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside. We
are also satisfied that the non-promotion of the petitioner to the next
rank is also vitiated as the Selection Board has taken into consideration
the impugned ICR in question while taking into consideration the
profile of the petitioner for such consideration.
28. A writ of certiorari is issued to set aside the impugned ICR as well
as the orders passed by the Central Government on the statutory as
well as the non-statutory complaint of the petitioner. We also issue a
writ of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the case of
the petitioner for promotion to the next rank along with his batch
mates by holding a review selection board without taking into
consideration the impugned ICR. In case he is successful, he would get
his seniority as per the recommendations of the second Selection
Board.
29. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from
the date of pronouncement of this judgment.
30. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with the aforesaid
directions leaving parties to bear their own costs.
MOOL CHAND GARG,J
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL,J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2008
anb/dc
