Federation Of Tata ... vs Union Of India And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 2458 Del

*           IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 8934/2008

%                         Date of Decision: 03 July, 2009


# Federation of Tata Communications Employees Unions
                                                       ..... Petitioner
!         Through: Mr. Uday Lalit, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amit
                     Mahajan and Mr.Manik Dogra, Advocates.

                                   Versus

$ Union of India & Ors.
                                                                 .....Respondents

^ Through: Mr. R.V. Sinha for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Rajiv Nayar and Mr. Chetan Sharma, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Rishi Aggarwal and Ms. Shikha Saran for respondents No. 2 & 3.

CORAM:

Hon'ble MR. JUSTICE S.N. AGGARWAL

1. Whether reporters of Local paper may be allowed to see the judgment? YES

2. To be referred to the reporter or not?YES

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?YES

S.N.AGGARWAL, J (ORAL) The petitioner is a federation of employees who were originally

employees of Government of India, working in the Overseas

Communication Services (OCS) under the Ministry of

Telecommunications, Government of India. On 01.04.1986, when OCS

was converted into VSNL as a 100% owned Public Sector Undertaking

(PSU), the members of the petitioner federation were transferred to VSNL

on deputation and later on were absorbed as employees of VSNL. The

disinvestment of VSNL took place and it was privatized w.e.f. 13.02.2002.

The management and control of VSNL was taken over by M/s Panatone

Finvest Limited (Respondent no. 3 herein), a company owned by Tata

Group of Companies. As a consequence of privatization of VSNL w.e.f.

13.02.2002, the Government of India ceased to have control and

management over the affairs of respondent No. 2. However, the

Government of India, even after privatization, continued to hold 26%

shareholding in VSNL. In 2007, the name of VSNL was changed to M/s.

Tata Communications Ltd. (Respondent no. 2 herein). Pre-privatization,

employees of the petitioner federation were the employees of

respondent No. 2, control of which vested with respondent No. 3.

2 The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to enforce the

Office Memorandum dated 18.07.1989 issued by the Government of India

and the Office Memorandum dated 11.12.1989 issued by the VSNL with

regard to the service conditions insofar as it relates to dismissal/removal

of employees (members of the petitioner federation) from respondent No.

2 organization. The prayer made by the petitioner in this writ petition is

extracted below:

"In the premises aforesaid, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

(a) issue appropriate writs, orders or directions in the nature of Mandamus directing the Respondents, their servants and agents to follow the procedure set forth in OCS Office Memorandum No. HQ/01-01/89-PE.1 dated 11.12.1989 and Office Memorandum No. 1/61/89- P & PW (C) dated 18.071989;

(b) direct the Respondent No. 2 not to terminate the services of any members of the Petitioner federation without adhering to the procedure set forth in Office memorandum dated 11.12.1989 and Office Memorandum No. 1/61/89-P & PW (C) dated 18.07.1989."

3 The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that they

apprehend termination of the service of their members by respondents

No. 2 & 3 without adhering to the procedure set forth in OM dated

11.12.1989/18.07.1989 referred above. When this writ petition came up

for admission hearing, this Court vide its order dated 17.12.2008 directed

the petitioner to file list of its members within three days and also

directed respondents No. 2 & 3 to maintain status-quo in relation to

employment of the members of the petitioner federation till the next date

of hearing.

4 On receipt of notice of this writ petition, the respondent No. 2 filed

an application being CM No. 120/2009 for vacation of the interim order

dated 17.12.2008 and dismissal of the writ petition. The hearing on this

application was adjourned from one date to another and in fact, the said

application was heard partly on two occasions by Justice V.K. Shali on

03.03.2009 and again on 26.05.2009. However, the respondent No. 2 in

the meanwhile approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing a Special

Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 13935-36/2009 which was disposed of by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 10.06.2009. The order

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 10.06.2009 is extracted

below:

"These special leave petitions are directed against the impugned interim order dated 17th December, 2008, whereunder the High Court issued the following directions, "The petitioner is directed to file list of its members within three days from today. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are in the meanwhile directed to maintain status quo in relation to employment of the members of the petitioner association."

Order Dasti.

This order has been extended from time to time and now the matter is listed on 3rd July, 2009.

Shri Rajiv Nayar, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the matter underwent several adjournments on account of which the stay application could not be disposed of on its merits causing irreparable damage and loss to the interest of the petitioner. It is submitted, it is under these facts and circumstances, the petitioner is constrained to file petitions under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Shri Nayar made an attempt to address us on merits of the case.

In our considered opinion, interest of justice will be met by requesting the High Court to hear the matter on 3rd July, 2009 and without granting any further adjournment of whatsoever to

either parties. Both the parties undertake to file and exchange the written submission before 3rd July, 2009. The High Court is requested to complete the oral hearing of the matter on 3rd July, 2009 and thereafter pass appropriate orders.

With the observations above, the special leave petitions are dismissed as withdrawn.

Interim order passed by this Court stand vacated."

5 As Justice V.K. Shali was on leave today, this case was assigned by

Hon'ble the Chief Justice to this Bench for hearing as per the directions of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred above. I have heard learned senior

counsel for both the parties at length.

6 Mr. Chetan Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

respondents No 2 & 3 has vehemently argued that the petitioner has

procured the interim order dated 17.12.2008 from this Court by

suppressing material facts. He has relied upon three judgments in S.J.S.

Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2004

(7) SCC 166; Poorvanchal Caterers & Anr. Vs. Indian Railway Catering

and Tourism Corporation Ltd. reported in 127 (2006) DLT 41 and M/s

Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. reported in

AIR 1992 Delhi 197. On the strength of these three judgments, Mr.

Sharma has argued that since the petitioner has suppressed material

facts from this Court, the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary

relief in exercise of writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the

Constitution.

7 Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents No. 2 & 3 has brought to the notice of the Court that the

petitioner federation had earlier filed a writ petition being WP (C) No.

4343/2003 against the same respondents which was dismissed as not

maintainable vide order dated 27.10.2004 passed by the Single Judge of

this Court. It has further been brought to the notice of the Court that the

petitioner being aggrieved by the order dated 27.10.2004 in WP(C) No.

4343/2003 had filed a review application seeking review of order dated

27.10.2004 (Review Petition No. 432/2004 in WP(C) No. 4343/2003)

which was also dismissed by this Court vide its order dated 03.12.2004.

Aggrieved by the dismissal of the Review Petition, the petitioner filed a

Letters Patent Appeal being LPA No. 389-96/2005 which was withdrawn

by the petitioner with permission to file appropriate proceedings and

permission as prayed for was granted by the Division Bench in the LPA

filed by the petitioner.

8 Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel has further submitted that the

petitioner had filed two more batches of writ petitions, one being WP(C)

No. 4349/2003 and other batch of WP(C) No. 2975-2981/2005 which

were all withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 17.02.2005 passed

by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen. These two batches of writ petitions

were withdrawn by the petitioner in view of judgment dated 27.10 2004

passed by this Court in earlier writ petition of the petitioner being W.P.

(C) No. 4343/2003.

9 The argument of Mr. Chetan Sharma is that the petitioner has

suppressed all the above earlier orders from this Court while filing the

present writ petition. Mr. Sharma has further contended that the

petitioner has also withheld and suppressed from this Court the

settlement arrived at between the petitioner federation and the

respondent No. 2 organization on 31.01.2008. According to Mr. Sharma,

this settlement has finally settled all the disputes relating to terms and

conditions of service of the erstwhile employees of VSNL who after

privatization became employees of respondent No. 2 organization. The

settlement relied upon by the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf

of the respondents No. 2 & 3 is admitted by Mr. Uday Lalit, learned senior

counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner on instructions from his

client. The said settlement is at pages 641-653 in Volume-III of the Paper

Book. Mr. Sharma has referred to the various clauses of the said

settlement to show that the petitioner federation had entered into a final

settlement with regard to the terms and conditions of service of its

members with the respondent No. 2 organization on 31.01.2008. It is

submitted that had this settlement been brought to the notice of the

Court by the petitioner at the time of admission hearing, this Court would

not have granted the ex-parte interim relief to the petitioner. It is,

therefore, submitted that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of

material facts from this Court in procuring the ex-parte order.

10 Mr. Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

respondents No. 2 & 3 has further argued that since this Court has

already held in its order dated 27.10.2004 in WP(C) No. 4343/2003, which

is a judgment inter-parties, that the writ petition by the petitioner

federation against respondents No. 2 & 3 is not maintainable because

these respondents are not 'State' within the meaning of Article 12 of the

Constitution and, therefore, according to him, since this decision has

attained finality inter-parties, the petitioner could not have filed the

present writ petition for enforcement of right of its members, if any,

flowing from Office Memoranda dated 11.12.1989 / 18.07.1989.

11 Per contra, Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of

the petitioner has argued that the petitioner cannot be held guilty of

suppression of any material fact because according to him the

determination by this Court in the earlier litigation (WP(C) No. 4343/2003)

is per se illegal in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Zee Telefilms Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2005 (4) SCC

649 and he has placed reliance on paras 27, 30 and 31 of the said

judgment to contend that a writ under Article 226 is maintainable even

against a private party or even against an individual. Mr. Lalit has also

relied upon one more judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in support

of his said contention, i.e., Binny Ltd. & Anr. Vs. V. Sadasivan & Others

reported in 2005 (6) SCC 657. In view of these two judgments of the

Supreme Court relied upon by Mr. Lalit, he contends that it was not

necessary for the petitioner to have disclosed about the earlier decisions

of this Court referred above as they were determinations per se illegal.

Mr. Lalit has further contended that the petitioner was not required to

disclose the earlier decisions of this Court referred above as the scope of

the earlier litigation was different from the present writ petition. The

learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has also

contended that the petitioner was also not required to disclose the

settlement arrived at between the petitioner federation and the

respondents No. 2 & 3 organization on 31.01.2008 because according to

him the said settlement relates only to financial aspects, re-training and

deployment of the erstwhile employees of VSNL whose control now vests

with respondents No. 2 & 3. The argument of Mr. Lalit is that this writ

petition cannot be dismissed as not maintainable for alleged suppression

of above-mentioned facts or for the view taken by this Court in the earlier

litigation on the point of maintainability of writ petition under Article 226

observing that respondents No. 2 & 3 do not fall within the ambit of

'State' as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. He has further

submitted that this writ petition is maintainable against respondents No.

2 & 3 because according to him respondents No. 2 & 3 continue to

discharge the same public functions as were hitherto exercised by the

erstwhile VSNL. He has submitted that there is an element of public

service in the functioning of the respondents No. 2 & 3 organization and,

therefore, according to him, this writ petition is maintainable and cannot

be dismissed on the grounds taken by the other side.

12 On merits, Mr. Lalit has submitted that the members of the

petitioner federation were not parties to the agreement of privatization

entered into between the Government of India through VSNL, on the one

hand, and respondents No. 2 & 3 on the other hand, and for that reason,

according to him, in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in BCPP Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. Vs. NTPC & Ors. reported in AIR 2008

SC 336, the terms and conditions of service of the members of the

petitioner federation cannot be altered to their disadvantage. Mr. Lalit

has also submitted that the respondents No. 2 & 3 organization are

bound by the terms and conditions contained in the Office Memoranda

dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 particularly relating to termination of the

employees of erstwhile VSNL, the control of which has been taken over

by respondents No. 2 & 3 w.e.f. 13.02.2002.

13 According to the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner, the Office Memoranda dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 are

completely independent of the settlement dated 31.01.2008 on which

reliance is placed by the other side. He, therefore, submits that the

respondents No. 2 & 3 be directed to follow the procedure set forth in

OCS Office Memoranda dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 and not to

terminate the services of any of its members without adhering to the

procedure set forth in these Memoranda.

14 I have given my anxious consideration to the above rival arguments

advanced by the learned senior counsel for both the parties and on

giving my anxious consideration to the same, I could not persuade myself

to agree with any of the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner

for the reasons to follow hereinafter.

15 The settlement dated 31.01.2008 relied upon by the respondents

No. 2 & 3 which is at pages 641-653 in Volume-III of the Paper Book is an

important document and would clinch the entire dispute raised by the

petitioner in this writ petition. Before I discuss the import and purport of

this settlement document, I would like to mention the relief that the

petitioner has asked for in the present writ petition. The petitioner says

that the respondents No 2 & 3 are bound to adhere to the procedure for

dismissal/removal laid down in Office Memoranda dated

11.12.1989/18.07.1989 relevant portion whereof relied upon by the

petitioner's senior counsel is extracted below:

"Dismissal/Removal Dismissal/removal from the service of VSNL after absorption for any subsequent mis-conduct, shall not amount to forfeiture of his retirement benefits for the service rendered in the Central Govt. Also in the event of dismissal/removal of a transferred employee from VSNL, the employee concerned will be allowed protection to the extent that the administrative ministry/department will review such order before taking a final decision."

16 What Mr. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

petitioner has argued is that the respondents No. 2 & 3 before they

terminate the services of any member of the petitioner's Federation, they

are bound to take approval for such termination/dismissal from the

Administrative Ministry/Department of the Government of India or at

least from the highest functionary of respondents No. 2 & 3

organizations.

17 It is not disputed that the members of the petitioner federation

were originally employees of Government of India and they were later on

absorbed in the service of VSNL which was a 100% PSU at the time of

their absorption. It is also not disputed that the members of the petitioner

federation were taken on the rolls of VSNL on option for absorption in

VSNL exercised by them. The VSNL was privatized w.e.f. 13.02.2002.

Even after privatization, the Government of India continued to hold 26%

share holding in VSNL and continues to hold the said share holding even

today. The fact that upon privatization of VSNL, the VSNL ceased to be a

PSU was in the knowledge of the petitioner federation and this fact is

adequately borne out from the document of settlement dated 31.01.2008

(an admitted document). The second recital of this document at page

643 Volume III reads as under:

"And whereas, the terms and conditions relating to salary, allowances and other benefits are implemented in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of Settlements dated 02.12.2000 and 24.07.2001 which was concluded at the time when VSNL was a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU). Though the company ceased to be a PSU with effect from 13th Feb 2002, the benefits under these settlements continued to be implemented since the said Memoranda of Settlement(s) were valid till 31.12.2006.

18 Another recital contained in the settlement document dated

31.01.2008 is equally important and the same reads as under:

"And whereas, during the course of preliminary discussions, the Management informed and the Federation agreed that any discussions on the charter of demands could not be done or the basis followed earlier since the practices which were then followed are not relevant any more with the company ceasing to be a Public Sector Undertaking (PSU) and in the context of loss of monopoly status, it was imperative to restructure the entire operations and adopt practices that are typically followed in the private sector in competitive environment. The Management and the Federation also discussed issues relating to need of the business and of mutual interest for retraining and redeployment of the workforce, identify the redundancies and enhancement in manpower productivity as may be required to remain competitive in the market."

19 Paras 16.5, 18.4 and 18.5 of this settlement document dated

31.01.2008 are relevant and the same are extracted hereinbelow:

"16.5 ISSUES ARISING OUT OF CONVERSION FROM A PSU: It is agreed by the Federation that with the company ceasing to be a PSU with effect from 13.02.2002, the company is no longer governed by the policies, guidelines and directions that may be issued by the government from time to time in respect of wages, allowances and related benefits as applicable to other PSU's or departments / bodies under the government. The management reaffirms its commitment to abide by all statutory provisions as applicable to establishments in the private sector as existing or as may be amended / introduced from time to time. The Federation also agrees that in the context of the changed circumstances of the company, the general rules and regulations that were drafted when the company was a PSU are no longer applicable after the company has ceased to be a PSU. Pending the introduction of the revised rules all workmen will be governed by the provisions of the Model Standing Orders as applicable to private establishments.

X X X X X X X X X X 18.4 It is agreed by the Federation that this settlement fully settles all issues and grievances against VSNL that may have been taken up by them before any other forum, agency or authority in the past.

18.5 It is agreed that this Settlement fully finally settles all the demands raised in the Charter of Demands submitted by the Federation of VSNL Employees' Unions vide their letter dated 23.02.2007 and all subsequent correspondences and discussions thereon. It is agreed that all the demands raised in the charter of demands dated 23.02.2007 or otherwise and all subsequent correspondences and discussions thereon, which have not been specifically dealt with herein in this Settlement will be deemed to have been raised, discussed, not pressed and therefore dropped by the parties, in terms of this Settlement."

20 A reference to the above referred contents of the settlement

document would clearly show that the management (respondents No. 2 &

3 herein) and the petitioner federation while entering into the settlement

dated 31.01.2008 had discussed issues relating to the need of the

business and of mutual interest including matters relating to

redundancies and enhancement in manpower productivity as may be

required by the management to remain competitive in the market.

21 A reference to para 16.5 of the settlement document referred

above would clearly show that the petitioner federation had expressly

agreed to give a complete go-bye to all the policies, guidelines and

directions that may be issued by the Government from time to time in

respect of wages, allowances and related benefits as applicable to other

PSUs/Departments/Bodies under the Government. The petitioner

federation had further agreed to give a go-bye to the rules and

regulations that were drafted when the respondent No. 2 company was a

PSU and it was mentioned in para 16.5 that pending the introduction of

the revised rules all workmen of respondents No. 2 & 3 organization

would be governed by the provisions of the Model Standing Orders as

applicable to private establishments. Para 18.4 of the settlement dated

31.01.2008 mentions that the petitioner federation had finally settled all

issues and grievances against VSNL that may have been taken up by

them before any other forum, agency or authority in the past. In fact the

petitioner federation by entering into a settlement dated 31.01.2008 with

respondents No. 2 & 3 had agreed that the settlement arrived at between

them will cover all disputes relating to the terms and conditions of

service of their members while they were in the employment of VSNL

prior to its privatization and any dispute, if left over in the settlement, is

deemed to have been dropped and would not be raised in future. For this

reference can be made to para 18.5 of the settlement. I do not find any

merit at all in the argument of Mr. Lalit that the said settlement did not

relate to termination/removal of employees of respondents No. 2 & 3

organization. Since the petitioner federation had settled all its disputes

relating to terms and conditions of service of its members with

respondents No. 2 & 3 by entering into settlement dated 31.01.2008, by

no stretch of imagination it can be said that the said settlement deals

only with the financial aspects relating to service conditions of the

members of the petitioner federation as sought to be alleged by learned

senior counsel appearing on behalf of the said federation. The petitioner

federation was essentially required to disclose the settlement dated

31.01.2008 while filing the present writ petition and withholding of the

said settlement from the Court amounts to suppression of a material fact.

22 Para 16.5 of the settlement dated 31.01.2008 clearly mentions that

pending introduction of the revised rules, all the workmen of respondents

No. 2 & 3 organization will be governed by the provisions of the Model

Standing Orders as applicable to private establishments. The Model

Standing Orders described as the Industrial Employment (Standing

Orders) Central Rules, 1946 is at running page 634 in volume III and the

relevant paras 13 & 14 of the Standing Orders relating to termination and

other penalties are at page 637 in volume III. The Model Standing Orders

applicable to private organizations deals with the procedure to be

followed by a private establishment for terminating or removing its

employees. In this view of the matter, the situation relating to procedure

to be followed by respondents No. 2 & 3 for terminating any of its

employees is not in vacuum. I fail to understand how the petitioner

federation after finally settling their all disputes relating to terms and

conditions of service of their members, could file the present writ

petition. For a moment, even if it is assumed that the Office Memoranda

dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 continue to govern the matter relating to

termination/dismissal of the employees of respondents No. 2 & 3

organization who were earlier employees of VSNL prior to privatization,

still the requirement of obtaining prior approval from the administrative

Ministry/Department of the Government appears to be highly infeasible.

The Government has only 26% shareholding and has no say in the

management of the affairs of respondents No. 2 & 3 organization. Only

because respondents No. 2 & 3 are discharging the same functions as

were earlier exercised by the VSNL, it cannot be said that these

organizations retain the character of public sector undertakings

particularly when the petitioner federation itself has admitted in

settlement dated 31.01.2008 that respondents No. 2 & 3 ceased to be

PSU on privatization of VSNL w.e.f. 13.02.2002. In that view of the

matter, the judgment of BCPP Mazdoor Sangh's case (Supra) has no

applicability to the facts of this case. The settlement dated 31.01.2008

referred above was arrived at between the petitioner federation and

respondents No. 2 & 3 organizations under Section 2 (p) read with

Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In view of provisions

contained in Section 18 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the said

settlement arrived at between the parties was binding on the petitioner

federation and also its members. In case, the petitioner federation had

any grievance emanating from the settlement dated 31.01.2008 or even

otherwise, the appropriate course available to them was to have

approached the appropriate forum under the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 instead of invoking the remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India.

23 It shall be significant to mention that Mr. V. Joseph Manoharan,

Secretary General of the petitioner federation was a signatory to the

settlement dated 31.01.2008 and he has filed his own affidavit in support

of the present writ petition suppressing the fact of settlement referred

above. The argument of Mr. Lalit appearing on behalf of the petitioner

that there is no suppression on the part of the petitioner is misconceived

and cannot be accepted. Had the orders passed by this Court in the

earlier litigation referred above and also the fact about the settlement

dated 31.01.2008 were brought to the notice of the Court by the

petitioner at the time of admission hearing of this writ petition, I would

not have passed the interim order dated 17.12.2008. I am, therefore, of

the opinion that the petitioner is guilty of suppression of vital information

comprising of orders passed by this Court in the earlier litigation and also

the factum of settlement arrived at between the parties on 31.01.2008

while procuring the interim order.

24 In S.J.S. Business Enterprises (P) Ltd. Vs. State of Bihar' case

(supra), it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that as a general rule,

suppression of a material fact by a litigant disqualifies him from obtaining

any relief particularly the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the

Constitution. Similar view was taken by this Court in two other judgments

in Poorvanchal Caterers & Anr. Vs. Indian Railway Catering and Tourism

(Supra) and M/s Seemax Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. State Bank of India &

Anr. (Supra).

25 Since the petitioner has suppressed material information from this

Court while filing the present writ petition, the petitioner is not entitled to

any relief. The petitioner, even otherwise, is not entitled to the relief

prayed for in the present writ petition for the reason that the Office

Memoranda dated 11.12.1989/18.07.1989 were subsumed in the

subsequent memoranda of 2000, 2001 and lastly, of 2008.

26 As the petitioner federation is held not entitled to the relief prayed

for by it in the present writ petition for the reasons delineated

hereinabove, I need not go into the argument advanced by the learned

senior counsel for the parties on the point of maintainability of this writ

petition on the ground that the respondents No. 2 & 3 are not 'State'

within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.

27 For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ

petition which fails and is hereby dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 1

lac.

28 The interim order dated 17.12.2008 is vacated.

29 In view of the above, all pending miscellaneous applications stand

disposed of in terms referred above.

July 03, 2009                                    S.N.AGGARWAL
bsr/a                                               [JUDGE]