Rama Devi. Bola Died vs The State Of Telangana
2021 Latest Caselaw 2766 Tel

     THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
                                      AND
        THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER

                WRIT PETITION No.24635 of 2020
ORDER:      (Per Hon'ble Dr. Justice Shameem Akther)


        This Habeas Corpus Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner

challenging the detention order vide No.52/PD CELL/CCRB/RCKD/

2020,     dated    06.10.2020,      passed      by     the   respondent     No.2,

whereby, the detenue was detained under Section 3(2) of the

Telangana Preventive Detention Act, 1986 (Act 1 of 1986), and the

consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.1957, General

Administration (Spl. (Law & Order)) Department, Government of

Telangana, dated 17.12.2020.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

Assistant Government Pleader for Home appearing for the learned

Additional Advocate General for the respondents and perused the

record.

3. Initially, the mother of the detenue filed this Writ Petition on

behalf of the detenue-Smt. Mudise SuryaKumari @ Anjali @

Pagadala Anjali @ Dasari Anjali @ Chitti @ Kumari @ Rani @

Pallavi @ Rajani @ Lakshmi, W/o Venkat Reddy @ Aditya Naidu @

Yakub, aged 29 years. Subsequently, the mother of the detenue

died and her paternal uncle was brought on record as petitioner

No.2 to prosecute the writ petition, vide order, dated 03.06.2021

passed in I.A.No.1 of 2021. Further, it is also apt to state that this

Court, vide order, dated 03.06.2021, passed in I.A.No.2 of 2021,

was pleased to grant interim bail to the petitioner from 05.06.2021 ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

to 19.06.2021 to perform the last rituals of her mother, who died

on 01.06.2021. While she was on interim bail, she filed another

application in I.A.No.4 of 2021 seeking extension of interim bail on

the ground that she was tested positive for COVID 19.

Accordingly, this Court, vide order, dated 17.06.2021, extended

the interim bail for a period of four weeks and directed her to

surrender before the concerned jail on 17.07.2021.

4. The case of the petitioner is that basing on a recent solitary

crime registered against the detenue viz., Crime No.368/2020 of

Keesara Police Station, the respondent No.2 passed the impugned

detention order, dated 06.10.2020. According to respondent No.2,

the detenue is an 'Immoral Traffic Offender', as she, along with

her associates, has been organizing prostitution by importing girls

from West Bengal State by means of human trafficking through

her agents. The detenue, along with her associates, formed into a

syndicate and have been engaging themselves in unlawful acts of

organizing prostitution clandestinely by acting as a leader/member

of criminal gang to make easy buck in a short period and she has

been running online prostitution racket for pimping and receiving

payments, in the limits of Rachakonda Police Commissionerate and

thereby, acting in a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of

public order and public health at large. Subsequently, the

impugned detention order was confirmed by the Government, vide

G.O.Rt.No.1957, dated 17.12.2020.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended

that the impugned detention order has been passed basing on stale

and irrelevant grounds, in a mechanical manner and without ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

application of mind. The reasons assigned for passing the

impugned detention order are flimsy, untenable and without

material whatsoever. The detenue was falsely implicated in the

solitary crime relied by the detaining authority. Though in the

counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.2 it is mentioned that

the detenue continues to be in judicial custody in view of dismissal

of two bail petitions moved by her in the solitary crime relied by

the detaining authority, but in fact, the detenue was granted bail,

after filing of counter by respondent No.2, in the crime, vide order,

dated 26.03.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2021 by the XVI

Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge at Malkajgiri, Ranga Reddy

District. Further, the entire material relied upon by the detaining

authority for preventively detaining the detenue was not furnished

to the detenue, which is against the mandate given under Article

22(5) of Constitution of India. The detaining authority, in their

counter affidavit, cannot embellish or supplement to what has been

stated in the detention order. The Advisory Board was totally

influenced with the respondent No.2 and mechanically confirmed

the detention order, without independently examining the entire

material on record. Already criminal law was set into motion

against the detenue. The alleged crime does not add up to

"disturbing the public order" and it is confined within the ambit and

scope of the word "law and order". Since the offence alleged is

under the Indian Penal Code and The Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956 (for short, 'PITA'), the detenue can certainly be tried and

convicted under the penal code and the said special law. Thus,

there was no need for the detaining authority to invoke the

draconian preventive detention law against the detenue. Hence, ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

the impugned orders tantamount to colourable exercise of power.

The detenue is a law abiding citizen and eking out her livelihood by

doing private job and she is the sole breadwinner for the entire

family. The impugned orders are legally unsustainable and

ultimately, prayed to allow the Writ Petition, as prayed for. In

support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner

relied on the following decisions:

1. Kamsani Sanjeeva Vs. State of Telangana1

2. Gorre Laxmi Vs. State of Telangana and others2

3. Abdul Latif Abdul Wahab Sheikh Vs. B.K.Jha and another3

4. Jai Singh and others Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir4

5. Ajay Dixit Vs. State of U.P.5

6. Ram Baochan Dubey Vs. State of Maharashtra6

7. Devi Lal Mahto Vs. State of Bihar7

8. Anant Sakharam Raut Vs. State of Maharashtra8

9. Ramveer Jatav Vs. State of U.P.9

10.Makhan Singh Tarsikka Vs. State of Punjab10

6. On the other hand, the learned Assistant Government

Pleader for Home appearing for the respondents supported the

impugned orders and submitted that the detenue is an 'Immoral

Traffic Offender'. She, along with her associates, formed into a

syndicate and had been indulging in the acts of organizing

prostitution clandestinely by acting as a leader/member of criminal

gang to make easy buck in a short period and she had been

running online prostitution racket for pimping and receiving

payment and thereby acting in a manner prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order and public health at large. She is

habituated of making easy bucks and living luxurious life on

earnings of prostitution. The detenue was involved in as many as

LAWS (TLNG)-2019-4-56

Decided on 10.11.2020 in W.P.No.14432 of 2020 by the High Court for the State of Telangana

(1987) 2 Supreme Court Cases 22

(1985) 1 Supreme Court Cases 561

(1984) 4 Supreme Court Cases 400

(1982) 3 Supreme Court Cases 383

(1982) 3 Supreme Court Cases 328

(1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 771

(1986) 4 Supreme Court Cases 762

AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1120 ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

fourteen cases of immoral trafficking between 2013 and 2015 in

the limits of various police stations situated in the erstwhile

Cyberabad Commissionerate. With a view to prevent her from

further indulging in illegal activities, an order of detention was

passed against her on earlier occasion, vide order, 23.11.2015,

passed in Proc No.54/PD/CCRB/CYB/2015 and she was detained in

Special Prison for Women at Chanchalguda, Hyderabad.

Challenging the said detention order, the detenue filed W.P.No.157

of 2016 before the erstwhile High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad

for the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. The said Writ

Petition was allowed on the condition that the detenue shall leave

Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Area and live

outside the said area at least for a period of one year and shall

submit a written undertaking to that effect to the Superintendent,

Central Prison for Women, Chanchalguda, Hyderabad, before she is

released from the prison. Despite the said direction of High Court,

the detenue again involved in human trafficking offence within one

year from her release from prison, vide Crime No.319 of 2017 of

Medipally Police Station and she was remanded to judicial custody.

She was granted bail by the Court concerned in the said offence

and she came out of prison. During the year 2020, the detenue

again involved in the similar offence, which is relied by the

detaining authority for preventively detaining her. The continuous

criminal activities of the detenue not only endanger the family

system but also create social unrest causing widespread health

hazards to the general public. Therefore, the detaining authority

was legally justified in passing the impugned detention order.

Further, the Advisory Board rendered its opinion that there is ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

sufficient cause for detention of the detenue and on considering the

same along with the entire material, the Government confirmed

the impugned detention order vide G.O.Rt.No.1957, dated

17.12.2020. All the mandatory requirements were strictly followed

by the detaining authority while passing the impugned detention

order. The impugned orders are legally sustainable and ultimately,

prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.

7. In view of the submissions made by both the sides, the point

that arises for determination in this Writ Petition is:

"Whether the impugned detention order vide No.52/PD CELL/CCRB/RCKD/2020, dated 06.10.2020, passed by the respondent No.2, and the consequential confirmation order vide G.O.Rt.No.1957, General Administration (Spl.

(Law & Order)) Department, Government of Telangana, dated 17.12.2020, are liable to be set aside?"

POINT:

8. Briefly, the facts of the case are that by relying on a solitary

crime registered against the detenue in the year 2020, i.e., Crime

No.368/2020 of Keesara Police Station, the respondent No.2-

Commissioner of Police, Rachakonda Commissionerate, passed the

impugned detention order, dated 06.10.2020. According to

respondent No.2, the detenue, along with her associates, formed

into a syndicate and had been engaging herself in unlawful illegal

activities of organizing prostitution clandestinely by acting as a

leader/member of criminal gang to make easy buck in a short

period and she had been running online prostitution racket for

pimping and receiving payment and thereby, acting in a manner ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and public health at

large. Earlier, the detenue was involved in as many as fourteen

criminal cases of immoral trafficking in the limits of erstwhile

Cyberabad Commissionerate during the years 2013 and 2015. In

order to prevent the detenue from further indulging in such illegal

activities, which are detrimental to the public order, the impugned

detention order, dated 06.10.2020, was passed, which was

confirmed by the Government by order, dated 17.12.2020.

9. In the present case, the detenue is allegedly involved in a

criminal case, i.e., Crime No.368/2020. We shall present it in a

tabular column the date of occurrence, the date of registration of

FIR, the offences complained of and their nature, such as

bailable/non-bailable and cognizable/non-cognizable.

Date of Date of Crime No. Occurrence registration Offences Nature of FIR Section 370(A)(ii) of IPC and 3, 4 & 368/2020 of 5 of Immoral Cognizable/ Keesara Police 28.07.2020 28.07.2020 Traffic Non-Bailable Station (Prevention) Act, 1956.

10. The material placed on record reveals the detaining authority

placed reliance on a single case, i.e., Crime No.368/2020

registered on 28.07.2020. The facts of the said case are that the

Special Operations Team of Malkajgiri Zone received credible

information about online brothel business being run and soliciting

customers in the limits of Keesara. The police decided to conduct

decoy operation to fish out the accused, secured the phone number

of brothel organizer, called him posing as clients and told him the

requirement of women. A male person responded to the said call ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

and said that four women are available at that moment and that

each girl would cost Rs.10,000/- and asked to send Rs.1,000/-

through Google Pay as advance and confirmation of booking.

Acting as a tipoff, the decoy constable sent an amount of

Rs.1,000/- to the given mobile number and asked to bring the girls

to Rampally X Roads. At about 1830 hours, one male person

brought four women in a car to Rampally X Road. During the

course of discussion with the said person, the police rounded them

and took them to custody. On being questioned, the said person

pleaded ignorance, but later confessed that he along with the

detenue are running organized brothel business by soliciting

customers through social media for making each buck. Initially,

the detenue was absconding, but later, she was arrested in

connection with the said crime relied by the detaining authority and

remanded to judicial custody. Police recorded her confessional

statement and seized one Renault Kwid Car bearing registration

No.TS-08-GQ-0028 used for transportation of victims to the

customers and four cell phones used for communication purpose,

under a cover of panchanama. The police rescued three West

Bengal state origin women and sent them to Rescue Home after

recording their statements under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. Later, the

police addressed a letter to the Manager, HDFC Bank, Sainikpuri

Branch, to furnish the details of Google Pay transaction, who in

turn furnished the account details stating that the said account was

opened in the name of Surya Kumari Kongarapu, R/o.H.No.1-1-

29/2/12, Maruthinagar, Jai Jawan Colony, Kapra-62, where the

detenue used to reside long back. The detenue moved two bail

petitions before the Courts concerned and the same were ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the

detenue was granted bail in the said crime by the Court concerned

vide order, dated 26.03.2021, passed in Crl.M.P.No.56 of 2021 and

produced a copy of the said order before this Court. A perusal of

the said order reveals that it was passed subsequent to the filing of

counter affidavit by respondent No.2 on 02.02.2021 and hence,

there is no mention of the same in the counter affidavit. Thus, it is

clear that as on the date of passing of the impunged detention

order, its confirmation and filing of counter affidavit by respondent

No.2, the detenue continued to be in judicial custody.

11. The material placed on record further reveals that the

detenue was earlier involved in as many as 14 offences of immoral

trafficking and running prostitution business. In order to curb the

illegal activities of the detenue, an order of detention was passed

against her on 23.11.2015, vide Proc No.54/PD/CCRB/CYB/2015

and she was detained in Special Prison for Women at

Chanchalguda, Hyderabad. Challenging the said detention order,

the detenue filed W.P.No.157 of 2016 before the erstwhile High

Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the States of Telangana and

Andhra Pradesh. A perusal of the order, dated 21.06.2016, passed

by a Division Bench of this Court in the said writ petition reveals

that the Division Bench of this Court, during the hearing of the

case, suggested the detenue to leave Hyderabad for a period of

one year. Counsel for the detenue informed the Court that the

detenue is prepared to leave the Telangana State itself for a period

of one year as she is the native of Guntur District and that the

detenue was prepared to give an undertaking to that effect.

ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

Accordingly, the Division Bench was pleased to set aside the said

detention order on some conditions, which are extracted

hereunder:

"(i) The detenue shall leave the Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Area and live outside the said area at least for a period of one year; and

(ii) The detenue shall submit a written undertaking to the above mentioned effect addressed to the respondent No.3 and handover the same to the Superintendent, Central Prison for Women, Chenchalguda, Hyderabad, before she is released from the jail."

12. With utter disregard to the above directions of this Court, the

detenue again involved in similar immoral trafficking offence within

a period of one year from the date of her release from prison, vide

Crime No.319 of 2017, dated 20.04.2017, registered for the

offences punishable under Sections 370, 370(A)(2) of IPC and

Sections 4, 5 & 6 of PITA, which is referred to as her antecedent

criminal history, and she was remanded to judicial custody. She

moved bail petition in the said crime and she was released from

prison on bail. She further indulged in commission of offence in

Crime No.368/2020, as detailed above, which shows that despite

arrest by police several times on the charges of running

prostitution business and facing trial before the Courts in the

criminal cases, the detenue could not mend her ways and

repeatedly resorted to similar criminal activities, as soon as her

release from prison in each case. Basing on the above facts and

circumstances and in view of the inclination, propensity and

potentiality of the detenue to indulge in immoral trafficking

activities, the detaining authoritiy passed the impugned detention

order, with a view to prevent the detenue from further indulging in

such criminal activities, which are detrimental to maintenance of ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

public order. Under these circumstances, it cannot be held that

there was non-application of mind by the detaining authority in

passing the impugned detention order or that the impugned

detention order tantamounts to colourable exercise of power.

Further, there is no bar to pass a detention order even against a

person who is in prison.

13. It is apt to state that preventive detention is different from

punitive detention. While punitive detention could be enforced

under ordinary criminal law, the law of preventive detention can be

enforced against habitual offenders to prevent them from

committing further offences. The legal parameters for testing the

validity of 'preventive detention' fundamentally vary from that of

'punitive detention'. Also, 'Public order' is distinct from 'law and

order'. While individual offences without affecting public at large

could be considered as violating 'law and order', the offences that

affect larger public and disturbs the even tempo of public life fall

under the category of disturbance to public order and only in the

latter category of cases, the law of preventive detention must be

enforced.

14. In the case of Madhu Limaye Vs. Sub-Divisional

Magistrate11, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"The acts which disturb public tranquility or are breaches of the peace should not be given a narrow meaning, but should be given a liberal interpretation. For the expression 'in the interest of public order' is very wide amplitude."

(1970) 3 SCC 746 ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

15. In Commissioner of Police & Others Vs. C.Anita

(Smt.)12, the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the issue of "public

order" and "law and order" and observed as follows:

"The crucial issue is whether the activities of the detenu were prejudicial to public order. While the expression "law and order" is wider in scope inasmuch as contravention of law always affects order, "public order" has a narrower ambit, and public order could be affected by only such contravention which affects the community or the public at large. Public order is the even tempo of life of the community taking the country as a whole or even a specified locality. The distinction between the areas of "law and order" and "public order" is one of the degree and extent of the reach of the act in question on society. It is the potentiality of the act to disturb the even tempo of life of the community which makes it prejudicial to the maintenance of the public order. If a contravention in its effect is confined only to a few individuals directly involved as distinct from a wide spectrum of the public, it could raise problem of law and order only. It is the length, magnitude and intensity of the terror wave unleashed by a particular eruption of disorder that helps to distinguish it as an act affecting "public order" from that concerning "law and order". The question to ask is: "Does it lead to disturbance of the current life of the community so as to amount to a disturbance of the public order or does it affect merely an individual leaving the tranquility of the society undisturbed?" This question has to be faced in every case on its facts."

16. I have gone through the citations relied by the learned

counsel for the petitioner. In Kamsani Sanjeeva's case (1

supra), a Division Bench of this Court held that this Court cannot

go into the subjective satisfaction arrived by the detaining

authority, but when once the detaining authority passed the

detention order without application of mind and without furnishing

copies of documents, which form basis for passing of detention

order, vitiates the detention order and the detention order is liable

to be set aside. In the instant case, as stated above, there is no

non-application of mind by the detaining authority and the detenue

(2004) 7 SCC 467 ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

was supplied with order of detention along with the grounds of

detention and the material referred and relied upon in the grounds

of detention. Hence, the said citation is not helpful to the

petitioner. In Gorre Lakshmi's case (2 supra), the detention

order was passed apprehending that the detenu therein would be

released on statutory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., in the

crimes relied therein, since the mandatory period of remand was

completed. Under those circumstances, this Court held that

detention order was unwarranted on the premise that the detenu

would be released on mandatory bail under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C.,

as the very purpose of mandatory bail is to ensure that the

accused is not kept under prolonged custody. That is not the case

in this writ petition. In Abdul Latif's case (3 supra), the Hon'ble

Apex Court held that in a Habeas Corpus proceeding, it is not a

sufficient answer to say that the procedural requirements of the

Constitution and the statute have been complied with before the

date of hearing and therefore, the detention should be upheld. The

procedural requirements are the only safeguards available to a

detenu since the court is not expected to go behind the subjective

satisfaction of the detaining authority. The procedural requirements

are, therefore, to be strictly complied with, if any value is to be

attached to the liberty of the subject and the constitutional rights

guaranteed to him in that regard. In Jai Singh's case (4 supra),

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the liberty of a subject is a

serious matter and it is not to be trifled with in casual, indifferent

and routine manner. In Ajay Dixit's case (5 supra), the Hon'ble

Apex Court held that when a challenge is made to a detention on

the ground that stale and irrelevant grounds were the basis for ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

detention, then the detenu is entitled to be released and to that

extent, the order is subject to judicial review on the ground of

sufficiency of grounds. In Ram Baochan Dubey's case (6 supra),

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that mere service of grounds of

detention is not a compliance of the mandatory provisions of Article

22(5) of the Constitution of India, unless the grounds are

accompanied with the documents which are referred to or relied on

in the grounds of detention. In Devi Lal Mahto's case (7 supra),

the Hon'ble Apex Court, relying on earlier judgments, held that one

can envisage a hypothetical case in which a preventive detention

order may have to be made against a person already deprived of

his personal liberty by being confined or detained in jail, but in

such a situation the detaining authority must show awareness of

this fact that the person against whom the detention order is

proposed to be made is already in jail and is incapable of acting in

a manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order and yet for

the reasons which may appeal to the District Magistrate on which

his subjective satisfaction is grounded, a preventive detention

order is required to be made. It is further held that this awareness

must appear either in the order or in the affidavit justifying the

impugned detention order when challenged. In Anant Sakharam

Raut's case (8 supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the

detention order therein holding that there was clear non-

application of mind on the part of the detaining authority about the

fact that the petitioner therein was granted bail when the order of

detention was passed. In Ramveer Jatav's case (9 supra), the

Hon'ble Apex Court held that the detaining authority cannot, by an

affidavit filed in Court, supplement what is stated in the grounds of ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

detention or add to it. In Makhan Singh Tarsikka's case (10

supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that service of order of

detention on a person whilst he was in jail custody is invalid. While

there cannot be any dispute with regard to the law laid down in the

cited decisions, the facts of the said decisions are entirely different

from the facts of the case on hand. It is settled principle of law

that each case shall be decided on its own merit. After going

through the cited decisions, we find that in none of the cited

decisions, similar circumstances exist, to accede and act upon the

request of the detenue. Hence, the cited decisions are not helpful

to the detenue.

17. In R. Kalavathi v. State of Tamil Nadu13, the Hon'ble Apex

Court, while dealing with the case affecting the public order,

observed that even a single act which has the propensity of

affecting the even tempo of life and public tranquility would be

sufficient for detention.

18. As per the clause (i) of Section 2 of the P.D.Act, an "immoral

traffic offender" means a person who commits or abets the

commission of any offence under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention)

Act, 1956.

19. It is pertinent to state that the personal liberty of an

individual, which the law preserves and protects, can also be taken

away by following the procedure established by law, when it is

used to jeopardize the public good and not merely private

interests. An order or detention is not a curative or reformative or

(2006) 6 SCC 14 ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

punitive action, but a preventive action, the avowed object of

which is to prevent the anti-social and subversive elements from

imperiling the welfare of the people or the security of the nation or

from disturbing the public tranquility. In the instant case, the

repeated commission of alleged offences by the detenue would

certainly disturb the public peace and tranquility. So, it is

imperative upon the officers concerned to pass the order of

detention, since the acts of the detenue are prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order. The illegal activities of the detenue

were of such a reach and extent, that they would certainly affect

the even tempo of life and were prejudicial to the public order. The

detaining authority had sufficient material to record subjective

satisfaction that the detention of the detenue was necessary to

maintain public order and even tempo of life of the community.

The order of detention does not suffer from any illegality. The

grounds of detention, as indicated in the impugned order, are

found to be relevant and in tune with the provisions of the

Telangana Preventive Detention Act. The material placed on record

further reveals that the order of detention, along with the grounds

of detention and the material referred to and relied upon in the

grounds of detention, were supplied to the detenue in the language

known to her, i.e., English, besides Telugu. The material relied on

and circumstances show that the subjective satisfaction of the

detaining authority is not tainted or illegal on any account. The

facts and circumstances indicate that the acts of the detenue

cannot be effectively dealt with under ordinary criminal law/special

law.

ARR,J & Dr.SA,J

20. Before parting, it is pertinent to state that trafficking of

women is the gravest form of abuse. Thousands of women are

being trafficked everyday and they are forced to lead lives of

slavery in brothel houses, guesthouses etc. Article 23 of the

Constitution of India specifically prohibits traffic in human beings

and begar and other similar forms of forced labour and further

mandates that any contravention of the said provision shall be an

offence punishable in accordance with law. The offenders, right

from the traffickers to the end-users, exploit the vulnerability of

the trafficked person. Consequences of human trafficking have

devastating effect on the society as a whole. The physical abuse,

torture, psychological and emotional trauma of the victims of

human trafficking is clearly destructive and unacceptable in any

civilized society.

21. For the foregoing reasons, we do not see any merit in this

writ petition and as such, it is liable to be dismissed.

22. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. There shall be no

order as to costs.

Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, in this Writ Petition,

shall stand closed.

____________________ A. RAJASHEKER REDDY, J

____________________ Dr. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J 24th September, 2021 Bvv