M/S Barjatiya Enterprisess vs State Of Raj And Ors
2022 Latest Caselaw 2134 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12856/2009

M/s S N Thakkar Construction Pvt. Ltd., 8-Prince Tower, L.B.S
Marg Ghat Kopar (West) Mumbai-400086
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
1. State of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Water Resources
Department, Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur.
2. Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department, Government of
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3.   Superintendent        Engineer,         Rajasthan            Water   Resources
Department, New Shichai Bhawan, JLN Marg, Opposite MNIT,
Jaipur.
4. Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, Sawai Madhopur.
5. Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division, Jaipur.
                                                                    ----Respondent

Connected With S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5617/2010 M/s Barjatiya Enterprises, 'A' Class Contractor, A proprietary firm having its office at Sadar Bazar, Church Road, Deoli (Tonk), through its proprietor Shri Padam Chand Jain S/o Shri Trilok Chand Jain, aged 50 years, R/o Deoli, Dist. Tonk.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Irrigation Department, Secretariat Jaipur.

2. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur.

3. Executive Engineer, irrigation Department, Dungarpur.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5618/2010 M/s Barjatiya Enterprisess, 'A' Class Contractor, A proprietary firm having its office at Sadar Bazar, Church Road, Deoli (Tonk), through its proprietor Shri Padam Chand Jain S/o Shri Trilok Chand Jain, aged 50 years, R/o Deoli, Dist. Tonk.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State of Rajasthan through Secretary Irrigation Department,

(2 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

Secretariat Jaipur.

2. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur.

3. Executive Engineer, irrigation Department, Jhalawar.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5619/2010 M/s Barjatiya Enterprises, 'A' Class Contractor, A proprietary firm having its office at Sadar Bazar, Church Road, Deoli (Tonk), through its proprietor Shri Padam Chand Jain S/o Shri Trilok Chand Jain, aged 50 years, R/o Deoli, Dist. Tonk.

----Petitioner Versus

1.State of Rajasthan through Secretary Irrigation Department, Secretariat Jaipur.

2. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur.

3. Executive Engineer, irrigation Department, Bundi.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5620/2010 M/s Barjatiya Enterprises, 'A' Class Contractor, A proprietary firm having its office at Sadar Bazar, Church Road, Deoli (Tonk), through its proprietor Shri Padam Chand Jain S/o Shri Trilok Chand Jain, aged 50 years, R/o Deoli, Dist. Tonk.

----Petitioner Versus

1.State of Rajasthan through Secretary Irrigation Department, Secretariat Jaipur.

2. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur.

3. Executive Engineer, irrigation Department, Salumber.

----Respondents S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15297/2018 M/s Laxmi Narayan Agarwal, 1/513, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Through Its Proprietor Mr. L.N. Agarwal

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Irrigation Department, Secretariat, Jaipur

2. Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Jaipur

3. Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department, Dausa

----Respondents

(3 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15585/2018 M/s Envirad Project Private Limited, Avadhpuri Road, 6 Lakhanpur, Kanpur 208 024 Through Its Ashok Kumar Sharma

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Water Resource Department (Erstwhile Irrigation Department) Secretariat, Jaipur.

2. Chief Engineer, Water Resource Department (Erstwhile Irrigation Department), Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Executive Engineer, Water Resource Division (Irrigation Division), Dausa.

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Ravi Chirania, Adv. with Mr.Shahrukh Panwar, Adv.

Mr.S.S. Hora, Adv. with Mr.T.C.

Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr.Vivek Tyagi, Dy. Govt. Counsel.

Mr.Vinod Choudhary, Chief Engineer, Water Resources Department.

(Through VC)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR

Order

10/03/2022

This present bunch of writ petitions has been filed by

the petitioners challenging the action of the respondents, whereby,

demand notices have been issued for recovery of amount, on

account of Excise/Custom Duty on cement and machinery after

exemptions were granted and later on, on the basis of audit

objections raised by the Office of Audit General, impugned notices

have been issued.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

petitioners while undertaking the work in pursuance of tender

(4 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

allotted to them, completed the stipulated work and they were

also granted exemption on certain materials as per notification

issued by Customs Excise Department, vide notification

No.108/1995 dated 28.08.1995 and Excise notification

No.85/1999 dated 06.07.1999.

Learned counsel submitted that it was stipulated in the

work orders/contracts that for availing the excise duty exemption

under these notifications, the Contractors/petitioners were to

obtain certificate from the Executive Head of the Project

Implementing Authority and same was to be countersigned by the

Principal Secretary or the Secretary of the Finance Department of

the concerned State.

The petitioners have alleged that they completed the

work allotted to them under the contract and submitted the

requisite declarations for procuring the Excise Exemption

Certificates in the prescribed format and the Competent Authority

recommended issuance of certificate of exemption for specified

items and said certificate was duly signed.

Learned counsel submitted that after availing the

exemption, the petitioner received different letters informing them

that the excise duty availed by them on cement bags was treated

as an irregularity and as such, recovery were proposed to be

made.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that issue

of such notices being issued to different contractors and further

entitlement of exemptions, as per notification, was a subject

matter of challenge before the Principal Seat at Jodhpur.

Learned counsel submitted that the issue involved in

the present writ petitions is similar to the case of M/s.Manda

(5 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

Developers and Builders P. Ltd. Vs. State of Rajasthan &

Ors. and other connected writ petitions, (S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.5106/2013), decided by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur by a

common judgment dated 14.09.2018. Learned counsel on the

strength of said judgment submitted that the Court has

considered Clause 13.3 of the Instructions to Bidders (ITB) and

the notifications, which have been issued by the Customs Excise

Department for granting exemption.

Learned counsel submitted that the Principal Seat at

Jodhpur has found that once the notifications were issued by the

Central Government then only on the basis of CAG's Audit report,

recovery could not have been made.

Learned counsel submitted that this Court has laid

down the law that the entire exercise of Department was against

the principles of natural justice. The relevant portion of the order

passed by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur in the case of

M/s.Manda Developers and Builders P. Ltd. (supra) is quoted

hereasunder:-

"I have heard and considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the parties and have gone through the material available on record.

The relevant Clause No.13.3 of the ITB around which the entire controversy revolves and so also, the objections raised and the recommendations made by the CAG, are reproduced herein below for the sake of ready reference:

" Clause 13.3 of the ITB:- Bidder may like to ascertain availability of excise/custom duty exemption benefits available in India to the contracts financed under World Bank loan/credits.

They are solely responsible for obtaining

(6 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

such benefits, which they have considered in their bid and in case of failure to receive such benefits for reasons whatsoever, the employer will not compensate the bidder (contractor). Where the bidder has quoted taking into account such benefits, he must give all information required for issue of certificates in terms of such notifications as per form attached to the Qualification Information in the bid. The extent the employer determines the quantity indicated therein are reasonable keeping in view of the bill of quantities, construction programme and methodology, the certificates will be issued and no subsequent changes will be permitted. The bids which do not confirm to the above provisions will be treated as non responsive and rejected. Any delay in procurement of the construction equipment/ machinery/ goods as a result of the above shall not be a cause for granting any extension of time."

It is admitted by the respondents in their replies that certificates duly verified and countersigned by all the concerned officers including the Finance Secretary were issued in favour of the concerned contractor whereafter, the excise duty exemption was duly availed. The thrust of the respondents RWSRP and the Water Resources Department in their reply was that the concerned officials issued the exemption certificates wrongly and irregularly. Nevertheless, the precise nature of the so-called irregularity in issuance of the exemption certificates has neither been mentioned in the relevant clause of the CAG's report nor have the respondents discussed/elaborated the same in their pleading. The so called objection raised from the office of the CAG on the strength whereof, the recovery notices were issued and the response of the Water Resources Department, is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

"dk;kZy; vf/k'kk"kh vfHk;Urk ty lalk/ku [k.M f}rh; guqekux<+ egkys[kkdkj fujh{k.k izfrosnu vof/k [email protected] ls [email protected] ds vuq0 la[;k 1 Hkkx & II ^v^ dh vuqikyuk

vuqPNsn dk laf{kIr dk;kZy; }kjk izLrqr v/kh- eq-v- ys[kk

(7 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

fooj.k vuqikyuk vfHk- dh ijh{kk dh fVIi dh fVIi.k .kh fVIi.kh h mRikn 'kqYd NwV dk ¼1½ DykWt 13-3 esa ftu djksa izek.k i= vkSj izHkkjksa dk mYys[k fd;k vfu;fer :i ls tkjh x;k gS] ftudks lfEefyr djus esa foQy jgus ls djrs gq, nj izLrkfor dh ifj;kstuk dh ykxr esa tkuh Fkh ds dj ,oa izHkkj deh dk vHkko lkekU;r% fuekZ.k dk;ksaZ ij jkf'k :i;s 70-09 tks fuft [email protected] ls yk[kA djok;s tkrs gSA mu ij vkj-MCY;w-,l-vkj-ih- yxus okys dj ,oa izHkkj gS ls lEcfU/kr dk;ksaZ u fd mRikn 'kqYd dh chds&6 o chds&7 dh NwVA vfHkys[kksa dh tkap esa ¼2½ 13-3 ds uhps vafdr uksV ik;k fd fcM ds Hkkx ds vuq:i ftl NwV dk lh ds vkbVe 13-3 esa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS] og vafdr mYys[kkuqlkj dj ds :i esa izkfIr u gksdj fcMj }kjk izLrqr dh dsUnz }kjk jkT; dks nh tkuhs tkus okyh njksa esa lHkh okyh NwV gS] tks vizR;{k :i VsDl] M~;wVht ,oe~ ls izkIr dh tk ldrh gS ysoht lfEefyr ekuh rFkk ;g NwV fo'o cSad ds tkosxhA blh Ø[email protected]_.k ls gksus okys vuqlkj ,LVhesV cuk, leLr dk;ksaZ ij Lor% ykxw x,A gSA vr% ;g NwV bl dk;Z blds vfrfjDr fo'ks"k ds fy, ugha gS rFkk vkbVe 13-3 ds uhps bl NwV dh fujarj fn;s x;s uksV esa miyC/krk Hkh fuf'pr ugha gS mYys[k fd;k x;k Fkk D;ksafd uksV esa laosnd fd ;ksX;rk lwpuk ds dks ;g funsZ'k fn;k x;k gS lkFk layXu izi= esa] fd og ,slh miyC/k NwV ij fcM ds lkFk gh lHkh fopkj dj ldsxk ,oa NwV oLrqvksa dk uke o ugha miyC/k gksusa ij jkT; ek=k dk mYys[k fcMj ljdkj {kfriwfrZ ugha djsxh }kjk fd;k tkosxk] rFkk og O;fDrxr :i ls ftu oLrqvksa ij mRrjnk;h gksxkA vr% NwV fcMj }kjk NwV dk dk ykHk vizR;{k :i ls ykHk izkIr fd;k tkuk fy;k tkuk Fkk tks fd fy;k gksA ysfdu nksuksa dk;ksaZ x;k gS] D;ksafd nj Lohd`r ds fcMj }kjk bl gksrs gh QeZ }kjk izek.k i= fooj.k ds fcuk gh gsrq vkosnu fd;k x;kA fufonk vfHkys[k foHkkx mYys[kuh; gS fd dsUnz dks izLrqr fd,A ljdkj dk ;g Notification ftlls fl) gksrk gS la0 [email protected] lh-bZ- fnukad fd laosndksa }kjk lHkh 28-05-95] ftlds vuqlkj VsDl ,oe M~;wVh dks fo'o cSad ls foRr iksf"kr lfEefyr djrs gq, njsa ifj;kstukvksa esa fuekZ.k ds izLrkfor dh xbZa vkSj dke vkus okyh oLrqvksa] tks mRikn 'kqYd dk ykHk fd dsUnzh; mRikn VsjhQ dh ugha ysuk pkgrs FksA ch lwph esa lfEefyr gS] bu ysfdu fufonk Lohd`fr oLrqvksa dks mRikn 'kqYd ls mijkUr lhesaV o LVhy eqDr fd;k x;kA ;g ij mRikn NwV izkIr uksfVfQds'ku loZfofnr ,oa djus ds fy, vkosnu izdkf'kr gS ftldk fd bl izLrqr fd;k x;k] ftl Js.kh ds [email protected] dks ij funs'kd¼rduhfd½ fuf'pr :i ls bldk Kku

(8 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

O;; vks-,l-Mh-] flapkbZ gksxkA jktLFkku t;iqj }kjk pwafd fuekZ.k dk;Z Through nksuksa iSdstksa ds fy,] Rate ls djok;s tk jgs gSA NwV izkIr djus gsrq vr% fuekZ.k lkexzh foHkkx } izek.k i= tkjh fd, kjk vkiwfrZ ugha dh tkrh gSA x,A bl NwV dk ykHk bl fLFkfr esa mRikn 'kqYd jkT; ljdkj dks izR;{k :i ls dVkSfr laHko LFkkukarfjr ugha fd;k ugha gS] D;ksafd QeZ }kjk x;kA tkjh izek.k&i= fuekZ.k lkexzh [kqys cktkj ls vuqlkj nksuksa dk;ksaZ ds Ø; dh tkosxh vko';d fu"iknu gsrq 17180 ugha gS fd mlesa bldks NwV eSfVªd Vu ¼3]43]606 izkIr gqbZ gks ,slh fLFkfr esa cSx½ lhesaV dh foHkkx lkexzh dh xq.koRrk vko';drk FkhA ftl dh tkap dj ldrk gS] u ij [email protected]& :i;s izfr fd mRikn 'kqYd dh NwV eSfVªd Vu mRikn dhA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa 'kqYd] bl ij 2 lkexzh ij mRikn 'kqYd dh izfr'kr dh nj ls NwV dh izkfIr lqfuf'pr f'k{kk vf/kHkkj ls dqy djuk laHko ugha gSA jkf'k vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa DykWt 70]09][email protected]& :i;s 13-3 ds mn~ns'; ds vuq:i dk ykHk nksuksa QeksaZ dks QeksaZ }kjk nj bl NwV dk izkIr gksxkA fopkjkFkZ j[krsa gq, gh dh foHkkx }kjk bl xbZ Fkh] ftldk vizR;{k :i izek.k&i= dks ls dk;Z dh ykxr ij izHkko vuko';d tkjh iM+k gSA djus ,oa NwV ds ykHk fcM MkD;wesaV ds izk:i esa] dks jkT; ljdkj dks laosnd }kjk lkexzh dh ek=k LFkkukarfjr ugha djus dk mYys[k ugha fd;k x;k dk izko/kku vuqc/a k esa tks fd NwV ugha izkIr djus lfEefyr ugha fd;k dk izek.k ugha gS] blds x;kA vfrfjDr ek=k dk vfUre bl izdkj Vs.Mj fu/kkZj.k ,Eiyks;j }kjk gh Lohd`fr ds ckn izkIr fd;k tkuk Fkk rFkk uksV ds vkosnu ds vk/kkj ij funsZ'kkuqlkj ,slh ek=k dk NwV dk izek.k&i= mYys[k] nj izLrkoksa ds izkIr djus ls laosndksa [email protected]; djus dk dks jkf'k 70-09 mYys[k u gksdj ;g funsZf'kr yk[k :i;s dk vns; fd;k x;k gS fd vko';d ykHk nsdj] jkT; izek.k i= tkjh djokus gsrq dks"k dks gkfu fu/kkZfjr izi= esa lwpuk,a igqapkbZA izLrqr djsxkA rn~ukuqlkj [email protected] }kjk i`Fkd ls fn;s x;s vkosnu ij jkT;

ljdkj }kjk NwV dk izek.k i= tkjh fd;k x;k gSA tks fd mfpr ,oa oS/k gSA uksV ds vuq:i mDr DykWt dh vuqikyuk lqfuf'pr ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa ^^nj izLrko Non Responsive treat djrs gq, Reject dj fn;k tkosxk^^] tcfd mPp Lrjh;

lfefr }kjk bl izdj.kksa dks Lohd`r fd;k x;k gSaA vr % ;g ekuuk mfpr gS fd NqV ij fopkj djusa ds

(9 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

mijkUr gh njsa izkIr gqbZ gSa rFkk rnukuqlkj NwV ds fy, izek.k i= Hkh mPp Lrjh;

lfefr }kjk tkjh fd;k x;k gSA blh ifjis{; esa fu;ekuqlkj gh Bsdsnkj }kjk mRikn 'kqYd dh NwV yh xbZ gSA vr% iSjk fujLr djus dk Je djkosaA

Apparently, the certificates issued in favour of the respective petitioner under Clause 13.3 of the Tender conditions bear signatures of the Secretary, Irrigation Department and Director (Technical) cum OSD, Irrigation, Rajasthan and were countersigned by the Finance Secretary as well. The CAG, whilst drawing up the questioned audit para, cast a grave stigma against the erring officials of the department who were responsible for causing loss to the State Government and undue gain to the contractors. Manifestly, these officials would include the Additional Chief Engineer and all other members of the High Level Committee and so also, the Finance Secretary concerned who countersigned the same.

On the previous date of hearing, a pertinent query was put to the learned AGC Shri Rajpurohit to apprise the Court regarding the details of the departmental or other action if any ever initiated against the officials who while issuing the requisite certificates committed the alleged irregularities as per the CAG's report. However, Shri Rajpurohit candidly conceded that no such action was ever taken nor is contemplated. Manifestly thus, the very foundation of the audit para under which, the recoveries were proposed from the petitioners has been rendered redundant. Furthermore, the highlighted portion of the audit para gives an indication that the CAG was even not satisfied with the non-introduction of a suitable condition in the contracts that the benefit of the excise duty exemption should go to the State Government. Manifestly, as no such condition was incorporated in the contracts, then the bidders would definitely be entitled to claim

(10 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

exemption on basis of the Central Government's notifications. The highlighted portion of the CAG report indicates that the auditors were trying to tweak/modify the conditions of the contracts to the prejudice of the bidders and that too after the works under the contracts had been concluded. Manifestly, this recommendation, apart from being absolutely illegal, unjust and arbitrary, reflects of total lack of application of mind on part of the CAG. Furthermore, as stated above, the CAG shrugged its hands off the controversy and filed an application for deleting its name from the array of the respondents. The other respondents in their reply, have not been able to pin-point or elaborate the nature of the irregularity/misconduct if any, committed by the officials concerned while issuing the excise duty exemption certificates to the respective petitioners in accordance with Clause 13.3 of the Contract. In absence of the alleged irregularity being demonstrated/highlighted, this Court is persuaded to pose a serious question mark on the objectivity/sustainability of the CAG's audit para and the recovery proposed thereunder. Furthermore, manifestly, if the objection was to be carried out to its logical conclusion then, the requisite follow up action was required to be taken against the delinquent officials who issued the exemption certificates. However, as has been stated above, the department seems to have washed its hand off the CAG's objection and no action is proposed to be taken against the officials who issued the certificates and the Secretary/ Additional Secretary of the Finance Department who countersigned the same. In addition to the above fatal infirmities and shortcomings in the impugned action, it is further evident that before proceeding to undertake the questioned recovery of the excise duty exemption which had been sanctioned long back, manifestly no notice or opportunity of hearing was ever provided to the affected parties i.e. the petitioners herein. Thus, the impugned action suffers from gross violation of the principles of natural justice as well and hence, cannot be sustained.

(11 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

In this background, the endeavour of the department to effect recovery from the petitioners who were rightfully granted excise duty exemption under Clause 13.3 of the terms of contract, Instructions to Bidders and the Central Government circulars referred to supra, can be termed as nothing short of an exercise in arbitrariness and highhandedness and deserves to be deprecated and struck down.

Hence, these writ petitions deserve to be and are hereby allowed. The impugned action of recoveries proposed to be made from the petitioners towards the excise exemption claimed by them against the subject works is hereby quashed and struck down. The pending bills of the petitioners, if any, with the admissible excise exemption shall be cleared by the respondents within a period of four weeks from today. Stay applications are disposed of."

Learned counsel submitted that the present writ

petitions may also be disposed of in terms of the order passed

by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur.

Learned Dy. Govt. Counsel Mr.Vivek Tyagi submitted

that an additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the

respondents as per directions given to him by this Court on

14.02.2022.

Learned Dy. Govt. Counsel submitted that the

Officers called by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, are also

present before the Court and Chief Engineer is also present

through Video Conferencing.

Learned Dy. Govt. Counsel submitted that though

controversy has been decided by the Single Bench at Principal

Seat, Jodhpur, however, the Department has preferred Special

Appeal and the same is still pending.

(12 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

Learned Dy. Govt. Counsel Mr.Vivek Tyagi submitted

that the steps which were taken by the respondents were

justified as has been explained in the additional affidavit and

Special Investigation Report was prepared by A.G. (Audit

General) Office, which comes under the Central Government

and recovery was done in pursuance of Special Investigation

Report.

Learned Dy. Govt. Counsel further submitted that the

specific query put by this Court about recovery of the amount

from the petitioner and whether the same has been deposited

with the Department concerned, counsel informed this Court

that in the present writ petition i.e. S.B. Civil Writ Petition

No.12856/2009 the recovery amount was deposited in PD

Account II on 09.10.2009 and same was cleared on 13.10.2009

and this Court had passed the stay order of recovery on

14.10.2009 and as such, recovery amount could not be

transferred to the Department and stay is still operating in the

petition.

Learned Dy. Govt. Counsel Mr.Vivek Tyagi has also

raised objection with regard to entitlement of certain

petitioners for exemption and he submitted that as per terms of

the contract and turn over, certain persons/petitioners, were

not eligible to get exemptions.

Learned Dy. Govt. Counsel submitted that there is no

fault on the part of the respondents to take action.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

This Court finds that the issue with regard to

exemption certificate to the different firms/contractors has

(13 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

already been examined by the Principal Seat at Jodhpur and

Clause 13.3 of the ITB has also been discussed.

The Court further finds that the impugned action of

the respondents of giving notices to the different contractors to

recover the amount was also against the principles of natural

justice and accordingly, the petitions were allowed.

This Court is afraid to accept the submission of

learned Dy. Govt. Counsel regarding entitlement of certain

petitioners for exemption, as the impugned notices have been

issued only on the basis of audit objections which have been

raised.

The submission of learned counsel for the

respondents that Special Appeal against the Single Bench's

order, is still pending and as such, this Court may not pass the

final order, this Court finds that once Single Bench of this Court

has already decided the writ petitions, the present writ petition

also needs to be decided on the same terms.

It goes without saying that if any order is passed by

the Division Bench in Special Appeal, the parties will be bound

by the same and accordingly their cases will be governed.

This Court, accordingly, disposes of the present writ

petitions in terms of the order passed by the Principal Seat at

Jodhpur in the case of M/s.Manda Developers and Builders

P. Ltd. (supra) and direction/observations given in the said

order, will apply mutatis mutandis to the case of the present

petitioners.

(14 of 14) [CW-12856/2009]

This Court also makes it very clear that the parties

will be bound by any decision which will be rendered by the

Division Bench.

A copy of this order be placed in each petition.

(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR), J

Himanshu Soni/78-84

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)