TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 653X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s liable to be interfered with in these appeals. The learned Judges are not right in quashing the appointment of the appellant as Managing Director on the misconception that he has been re- appointed to the said office, whereas it was a fresh appointment under the provisions of the Act and in accordance with the prescribed qualification and eligibility under the Act. Further the appointee holds the office during the pleasure of the Government as provided under Section 6(1) of the Act. The learned Judges are not correct in holding that the Government is not affected by allowing the writ of quo warranto against the appointee and observed that the Government ought not have filed the appeal. It is unfortunate that the learned Judges have observed that the Government has filed the appeal at the instance of the appointee. The learned Judges, in our opinion, failed to appreciate that it is the duty of the Government to justify the appointment as such there is no wrong in filing the writ appeal. In the result , we hold: (a) that the appellant was not disqualified for appointment as Managing Director w.e.f. 1.2.2004. (b) There is no bar for appointment to the post in question on c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at case it would be open to the State or the Board to consider the candidature of the appellant (B. Srinivasa Reddy) with others. - HON'BLE AR. LAKSHMANAN AND TARUN CHATTERJEE, JJ. For the Appellant : P.P. Rao, Sr. Adv., P.S. Rajagopal, Lalit Mohini Bhat, Naveen R. Nath, Hetu Arora and Sanjay R. Hegde, Advs. For the Respondents : Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Devashish Bharuka, Hansa Bharuka, Ruchi Kohli, Alok Sangwan and Sushil Balwada, Advs. JUDGMENT A. R. Lakshmanan, J. 1. Leave granted in both the special leave petitions. 2. These appeals have raised substantial questions of law involving interpretation of certain provisions of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973 (for short the Act ) and the Rules made thereunder and also the principles of law governing the Writ of quo warranto and the power of the Government to make a contractual appointment under Section 4(2) of the Act. 3. Civil Appeal No. _______ of 2006 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 9393 of 2006) This appeal was filed by Mr. B. Srinivasa Reddy (hereinafter called Mr. Reddy) seeking leave to appeal against the final judgment and order dated 04.04.2006 passed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Directors of the Board with immediate effect and until further orders . The Board, after due approval of the State, vide G.O. No. HUD 15 UWE 93 dated 11.12.1997, amended the method of recruitment for the post of Managing Director of the Board in serial No. 1 of the Schedule to the Regulations to the effect that a Managing Director can be selected only from amongst the Chief Engineers of the Board. Other criterias were removed. 7. On 28.01.1998, the Government of Karnataka, through the Urban Development Department, vide Notification No. UDD 4 UWE 98 dated 28.01.1998, pursuant to Section 53 of the Act read with Rule 27 of and serial No. 1 of the Schedule to the Regulations, promoted the appellant on officiating basis and appointed him as the Managing Director of the Board w.e.f. 31.01.1998 afternoon and until further orders since S. Ramamurthy, the then Managing Director of the Board took voluntary retirement. The Employees' Union filed an amended version of the writ petition before the High Court also challenging the above- mentioned amendment to the Regulation which relates to making of a provision of appointing the Chief Engineer of the Board as its Managing Direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... complaint was made to the Lokayukta against the Chairman and the appellant - Mr. Reddy by Mr. Halakatte, President of the Employees' Association (R2 herein). By order dated 13.08.2003 Lokayukta held that the allegation against the appellant is baseless. Lokayukta after absolving the appellant of false allegations directed action against the then FA CAO of the Board. The Lokayukta closed the complaint on 01.02.2005 after Government has taken action against FA CAO. 11. We heard Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.S. Rajagopal, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde for the State of Karnataka and Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Devashish Baruka and Mrs. Hansa Baruka, learned Counsel for the contesting respondent the Employees' Union. Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel made elaborate submissions on facts and on law with reference to the pleadings, annexures, judgments and the relevant provisions of the Act. He made submissions on the following issues: 1. Writ petition as framed not maintainable at the instance of an unregistered Trade Union; 2. Locus of the writ petitioners Employees' Union; ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er the Trade Unions Act on 20.01.2005 and that though the employees union was not a registered trade union but was a recognized union by all and, therefore, the association is entitled to maintain the writ petition as framed. He also made elaborate submissions with reference to the records, annexures and the judgments and of the Government orders. 14. Mr. Raju Ramachandran also submitted that the civil appeal has now become infructuous in view of the developments which have taken place subsequent to the orders of this Court dated 08.05.2006 by which notice was issued to the respondents in view of the fact that the Government of Karnataka has now appointed one Mr. P.B. Ramamurthy as the Managing Director of the Board with immediate effect by an order contained in the notification dated 17.05.2006 and pursuant to the above order the appellant Mr.Reddy has already made over the charge of the office of Managing Director of the Board to the said P.B. Ramamurthy who had received charge of the said office on 19.05.2006. It was submitted that the appellant has no substantive right left qua the post of Managing Director of the Board since even as per his appointment order dated 31.01.200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act read with the above official memorandum would make it clear that retired employees cannot be appointed the post of Managing Director of the Board. The purpose of Section 7(1)(d) and the office memorandum dated 23.12.1994 has to be looked into while deciding the legality of the appointment of the appellant to the post of Managing Director of the Board. According to Mr. Raju Ramachandran it has nowhere come on record that the appellant possessed such exceptional and high qualifications as to warrant the Government to deviate from its own policy and appointed the appellant. In fact any experience gained by the appellant during his tenure as the Managing Director prior to his retirement is of no consequence since such appointment was held to be illegal and invalid by the High Court. No exceptional circumstances has been shown that the appointment of the appellant to the post of Managing Director in deviation to regular mode of appointment of IAS officers on deputation. 17. In regard to the maintainability of the writ petition Mr. Raju Ramachandran submitted that the High Court did not rely upon the status of the writ petitioners as registered trade union but rather accep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for permission to file special leave petition. The said permission was granted. After the matter was heard, this Court found that the appellant was neither party in the case before the Forum nor before the High Court. It was also not shown before this Court in what manner the appellant was aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court. This Court held that the appellant has no locus standi and cannot be permitted to challenge the judgment of the High Court. 19. Our attention was also drawn to the proceedings of the Deputy Registrar of the Trade Union Dharwad (Division) Hubli dated 02.11.1992 Government of Karnataka (Department of Labour). The said proceedings reads thus: Subject: Cancellation of registration of Trade Unions, under Trade Union Act, 1926. Reference: This office notice No. TUA/AR.1991 dated 30.7.1992 ***** WHEREAS a notice was issued from this office to the General Secretary/Secretary, Karnataka Urban Water Supply Drainage Board Employees Association, Hubli, cause as to why the registration of trade union should not be cancelled owing to the violation of the provisions of Section 28 of the Trade Union Act, 1925, by not submitting the Annual Return o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Association is competent to file the writ petition on behalf of the students. In our view, the above reason cannot be considered as a valid reason for maintaining the writ petition. It is not in dispute that the Association is not a registered body and recognised Association. Thus, after examining this point of law in detail and placing reliance on various judgments delivered by the Apex Court from time to time, the Full Bench of this Court in the case of RSEB Accountant's Association (supra) held as under: It may also be observed that an unregistered association has no fundamental right to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution and this point is concluded by the decision in the case of Shri Maninder Kumar Gupta v. Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas (1995)1SCC85 . A decision in the case of Akhil Bharatiya Soshit Karamchari Sangh v. Union of India and Ors. (1981)ILLJ209SC was relied where the non-registered Association was held to apply under Article 32 of the Constitution. We may observe that there had been number of the instances of public interest litigation where large body of persons is having the grievance against inaction of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926 (16 of 1926). Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 says that the workman who is a party to dispute shall be entitled to be represented in any proceedings under this Act by any member of the executive or other office bearer of a registered trade union of which he is a member or by any member of the executive or other office bearer of a federation of trade unions to which the trade unions referred to in Clause A is affiliated. The writ petitioner union made a false averment that it is a registered trade union that itself, in our opinion, is a ground to dismiss the writ petition. The writ petitioner has made an averment to the following effect in its writ petition which is also reflected in the order passed by the High Court in the writ petition which runs thus: The petitioner is a registered Trade Union of employees of 2nd respondent Karnataka Urban Water Supply Drainage Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') constituted under the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). In the writ petition filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y to those trade unions which are registered under the Trade Unions Act 1926 by insertion of Clause 2 (q)(q) in the I.D. Act w.e.f. 21.08.1984 defining a trade union to mean a trade union registered under the Trade Unions Act. 1926. The High Court, in our opinion, miserably failed and gravely erred in holding that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 have locus standi to question the appointment of the appellant in the light of the change of law that has been brought about by insertion of Section 2(q)(q) of the I.D. Act and having regard to the provisions of Chapter-III of the Trade Unions Act, 1926. This Court, in many judgments, held that the Union has locus standi in the facts and circumstances of that case, however, cautioning that if a citizen is no more than a wayfarer or officious intervener without any interest or concern that what belongs to anyone of the 660 million people of this country. Fertilizer Corporation Kamgar Union (Regd.) Sindri and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1981)ILLJ193SC . The doors of the Court will not ajar for him. In the instant case, the employees association approached the High Court with unclean hands. The employees who approaches the Court for suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Director shall hold office at the pleasure of the Government the High Court could not have fettered the discretion of the Government by holding that Section 4(2) of the Act does not expressly give the power to the State Government to make ad hoc or contract appointment when the Act and the statutory rules have not prescribed any definite term and any particular mode, the High Court could not have read into the statute a restriction or prohibition that is not expressly prohibited by the Act and the Rules. It is well settled that when the statute does not lay down the method of appointment or term of appointment and when the Act specifies that the appointment is one of sure tenure, the Appointing Authority who has power to appoint has absolute discretion in the matter and it cannot be said that discretion to appoint does not include power to appoint on contract basis. An appointment which is temporary remains temporary and does not become a permanent with passage of time. The finding records by the learned Single Judge that the appointment is bad for the reason that the appointment which was made on temporary basis has continued for nearly 2 years is wholly contrary to law partic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d on it by Section 4(2) of the Act. The High Court does not dispute the power of the Government to make the appointment. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel for the Union does not dispute that the power of the Government to make contractual appointment. A perusal of the judgment of the High Court would only go to show that the High Court did not record any finding that the appellant does not possess the qualification prescribed by the acts and rules. The disqualification for appointment as a Director of the Board are set out in Section 7 of the Act. The only disqualification that the appellant suffered was under Section 7(1)(d) of the Act. He being an employee of the Board and this disqualification disappeared on 31.01.2004 when the appellant retired from service of the Board on superannuation. The High Court having regard to the technical nature of quo warranto proceedings could not have ousted the appellant from the office on the ground of an inapplicable qualification prescribed by administrative instruction dated 23.12.1994 which had no manner of application for appointment to the post of Managing Director of the Board. 28. The law is well settled. The High Court i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aw by a catena of decisions that Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the Government in the choice of the person to be appointed so long as the person chosen possesses prescribed qualification and is otherwise eligible for appointment. This Court in R.K. Jain v. Union of India1993(65)ELT305(SC) was pleased to hold that the evaluation of the comparative merits of the candidates would not be gone into a public interest litigation and only in a proceeding initiated by an aggrieved person, it may be open to be considered. It was also held that in service jurisprudence it is settled law that it is for the aggrieved person that is the non- appointee to assail the legality or correctness of the action and that third party has no locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action. Further, it was declared that only public law declaration would be made at the behest of public spirited person coming before the Court as a petitioner having regard to the fact that the neither of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were or could have been candidates for the post of Managing Director of the Board and the High Court could not have gone beyond the limits of Quo Warranto so very well ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings. Nonetheless an imposture coming before the Court invoking public law remedy at the hands of a Constitutional Court suppressing material facts has to be dealt with firmly. 31. This Court in Dr. B. Singh v. Union of India and Ors. AIR2004SC1923 held that only a person who comes to the Court with bonafides and public interest can have locus. Coming down heavily on busybodies, meddlesome interlopers, wayfarers or officious interveners having absolutely no public interest except for personal gain or private profit either of themselves or as a proxy of others or for any other extraneous motivation or for glare of publicity, this Court at para 14 of the report held as under: The court has to be satisfied about: (a) the credentials of the applicant; (b) the prima facie correctness or nature of information given by him; and (c) the information being vague and indefinite. The information should show gravity and seriousness involved. Court has to strike a balance between two conflicting interests: (i) nobody should be allowed to indulge in wild and reckless allegations besmirching the character of others; and (ii) avoidance of public mischief and to avoid mischievous petitions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Ghulam Qadir v. Special Tribunal and Ors. (2002)1SCC33 which reads thus: There is no dispute regarding the legal proposition that the rights under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be enforced only by an aggrieved person except in the case where the writ prayed is for habeas corpus or quo warranto. Another exception in the general rule is the filing of a writ petition in public interest. The existence of the legal right of the petitioner which is alleged to have been violated is the foundation for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under the aforesaid Article. The orthodox rule of interpretation regarding the locus standi of a person to reach the court has undergone a sea-change with the development of constitutional law in our country and the constitutional courts have been adopting a liberal approach in dealing with the cases or dislodging the claim of a litigant merely on hyper-technical grounds. If a person approaching the court can satisfy that the impugned action is likely to adversely affect his right which is shown to be having source in some statutory provision, the petition filed by such a person cannot be rejected on the ground of his having not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emorandum of 1994 dated 23.12.1994 of the Government of Karnataka reads thus: GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA OFFICIAL MEMORANDUM Sub: Regarding re-appointment of retired Government Employee and extension of their services after Retirement. Ref : i) O.M. No. DPAR 42 SSR 77 dated 15.12.1977 ii) O.M. No. DPAR No. 2 SDE 90 dated 22.02.1990 1. In the O.M. referred at (1) above in respect of the teaching staff viz., Teachers, Lecturers, Professors who are working in educational institutions of the Education Department retiring in the middle of the academic year, it was permitted to continue their services till the end of the educational year with the permission of the concerned officer. 2. In the O.M. referred at (2) above, it was instructed not to re- appoint the retired Government servants and not to give them extension of service. 3. It has come to the notice of Government that retired Government officers/officials have been re-appointed on contact basis. Hence it is ordered that the officers/officials who have been re-appointed on contract basis and continuing in service shall be removed from service forthwith. 4. If the teaching staff working in educatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... They and the other directors shall be appointed by the Government. Rule 3 of the Rules deals with Qualification for appointment of the Chairman and the Managing Director. Rule 3 reads thus: The Chairman shall be a person having experience in matters concerning public welfare. The Managing Director shall be a person having experience in Administration and capacity in commercial matters. In this context, it is useful to peruse the original file produced by Mr. Sanjay R. Hegde, learned Counsel appearing for the State, before us. A note was prepared by the Secretary to Government, Urban Development Department, in regard to the appointment of M.D. of the Board: Subject : Appointment of Managing Director of KUWSDB 1. Shri B. Srinivasa Reddy, Managing Director of KUWSD will retire from service on 31.1.2004. 2. As per Section 4(2) of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act, 1973, the Managing Director shall be appointed by the government as per Section 6(1). He shall hold office during the pleasure of the government. As per Rule 3 of the KUWSDB Rules 1974, the Managing Director shall be a person having experience in administration and capacity in commercia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Secretary to Government and appointed a retired official to the post of M.D. Ample reasons are given for considering the name of the appellant and the consequential appointment made by the Government. In the instant case, there is no violation of statutory provision and, therefore, in our view, a writ of quo warranto does not lie. If there be any doubt, it has to be resolved in favour of upholding the appointment. 38. In Statesman (Private) Ltd. v. H.R. Deb [1968]3SCR614 , Hidyatullah, C.J., speaking for the Constitution Bench indicated: The High Court in a quo warranto proceeding should be slow to pronounce upon the matter unless there is a clear infringement of the law. In the circumstances which we have narrated above in paragraphs supra, it is indeed difficult to hold that the appellant did not have the requisite qualification. The above ruling was followed in A.N. Shashtri v. State of Punjab and Ors. [1988]2SCR363 . We are of the view that in the facts of this case, the reasonable conclusion to reach should have been that the writ petitioners had failed to establish that the appellant did not possess requisite qualification and the appeals are, therefore, be al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on, duties and powers must be defined, directly or impliedly, by legislature or through legislative authority, duties must be performed independently without control or superior power other than law, and position must have some permanency and continuity, State ex rel. E.li Lilly Co. v. Gaertner, Mo. App 619 S.W. 2d 6761, 764. Carrying out sovereign function by the Board and delegation of a portion of sovereign power of Government to the Managing director of the Board and some permanency and continuity in the appointment are quintessential features of public office. Every one of these ingredients are absent in the appointment of the appellant as Managing Director of the Board. This aspect of the matter was completely lost sight of by the High Court. 41. The High Court, in the instant case, was not exercising certiorari jurisdiction. Certiorari jurisdiction can be exercised only at the instance of a person who is qualified to the post and who is a candidate for the post. This Court in Dr. Umakant Saran v. State of Bihar (1972)IILLJ580SC held that the appointment cannot be challenged by one who is himself not qualified to be appointed. In Kumari Chitra Ghose v. Union of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent which was being terminated by notice under one of its clauses, this Court held that Articles 14 16 had no application as the petitioner therein was not denied equal opportunity in a matter relating to appointment or employment who had been treated just like any other person to whom an offer of temporary employment under these conditions was made. This Court further held as under: The State can enter into contracts of temporary employment and impose special terms in each case, provided they are not inconsistent with the Constitution, and those who choose to accept those terms and enter into the contract are bound by them, even as the State is bound. 43. In P.K. Sandhu (Mrs.) v. Shiv Raj V. Patil [1997]3SCR352 , it was held by this Court as under: The power to make an appointment includes the power to make an appointment on substantive basis, temporary or officiating basis, ad hoc basis, on daily wages or contractual basis. Legal Malice: 44. It was argued by Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents, that there was no reason for the State to re-appoint the appellant on the post of M.D., specially in view of the following facts: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duled for 9.2.2004. The writ petition, in our opinion, was motivated as respondent No. 1 had lodged a false complaint to the Lokayukta against the appellant which was found to be baseless by the Lokayukta (Annexure P-9). A petition praying for a Writ of quo warranto being in the nature of public interest litigation, it is not maintainable at the instance of a person who is not unbiased. The second respondent is the President of the first respondent- Union. He has chosen this forum to settle personal scores against his erstwhile superior officer after his retirement. The proceedings, in our view, is not meant to settle personal scores by an employee of the department. The High Court, in our view, ought to have dismissed the writ petition filed by respondent No. 1 at the threshold. In any event, respondent No. 1 failed to discharge the heavy burden to substantiate the plea of mala fides (E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974)ILLJ172SC ) The finding of the High Court that the appointments from legal mala fides is wrong. The Court relied on the judgment in center for Public Interest Litigation and Anr. v. Union of India and Anr. AIR2005SC4413 . It was a case of appointment of an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f establishing mala fides is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The allegations of mala fides are often more easily made than proved, and the very seriousness of such allegations demands proof of a higher order of credibility. Here respondents 1 2 have flung a series of charges of oblique conduct against the then Chief Minister through their advocate. The anxiety of the Court should be all the greater to insist on a high decree of proof. The Court would, therefore, be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of an office which has a high responsibility in the administration. This Court, in the above judgment, held that such is the judicial perspective in evaluating charges of unworthy conduct against ministers and other high authorities, not because of any special status which they are supposed to enjoy, nor because they are highly placed in social life or administrative set up, these considerations are wholly irrelevant in judicial approach but because otherwise, functioning effectively would become difficult in a democracy. 49. Two important con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ork was not satisfactory. 50. It was argued by Mr. P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel, appearing for the appellant that the Division Bench while answering Point No. 2 in paragraph 25 that the order of appointment passed by the State Government is not a regular appointment. It has further been observed that Section 4(2) of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules framed do not permit the Government to appoint the Managing Director on contractual basis. It was submitted that the finding of the Division Bench as well as the single Judge are legally unsustainable. The Act makes clear distinction between appointments to the Board and appointment of Officers and servants of the Board. All appointments of Directors are appointments at the pleasure of the Government . He drew our attention to Section 6(1) of the Act which reads thus: 6(1) All directors including the Chairman and the Managing Director shall hold office during the pleasure of the Government. The expression 'contract basis' is only to indicate that the appointment was to subsist till the withdrawal of the pleasure of the Government. It could not be said that the contractual appointment is made contrary to the Rules that c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... offence by which she stood disqualified under the provisions of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. Moreover, the Writ of quo warranto in that case was issued in the light of several provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 and various other enactments which clearly prohibited the appointment of a convicted person to a public office. There is no legal postulation in the said judgment which seeks to restrain any interested party from challenging a judgment. In the instant case, the appellant did not solicit or engineer his appointment. His appointment was at the instance of the State Government in accordance with provisions of the Act and the Rules. The State Government has power to take its own decision for deciding on a suitable candidate for appointment as long as the eligibility criteria was satisfied. The appointment in the instant case is not one of recruitment, but of a different species of appointment for rendering services. It is more in the nature of a contract for service. This is specially required considering fact that the functions of the Board are essentially technical in nature as would be evident from a perusal of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sis, daily wages or contractual basis. (f) Writ filed by respondents 1 2 is motivated. (g) The petitioners in the writ petition, respondent No. 1 herein which is an unregistered Association under the Trade Unions Act cannot maintain the writ petition. (h) The findings of legal mala fides is unsustainable and has no basis. The finding of legal mala fides suffers from other infirmities as far as placing reliance on the complaints against the appellant without adverting to the orders of the Lokyukta detail examination, the appellant is unequivocal terms in both the cases. 54. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed and the order impugned in this appeal passed by the Division Bench of the High Court in W.A. No. 86/2006 affirming the judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside. The Division Bench of the High Court ordered cost in the writ appeal. There is no justification in ordering cost in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the appellant, State Government and respondent No. 4 are entitled to refund the cost, if it has already been paid. However, we are not ordering cost against respondent Nos. 1 2 taking into consideration of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
