Omkar Sinha vs Sahadat Khan

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3504 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 13668 of 2015)

OMKAR SINHA & ANR. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

SAHADAT KHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3505 OF 2022 (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 13684 of 2015)

J U D G M E N T

K. M. JOSEPH, J.

(1) Leave granted.

(2) Both the appeals raise common questions. We take

civil appeal arising from SLP (C)No. 13668 of 2015 as the

leading case.

(3) Respondent No. 1 was appointed as a Forest Guard on

03.05.1980. He completed his training as Forest Guard in

the year 1987. Appellant No. 1 came to be appointed as

Signature Not VerifiedForest Guard on 15.11.2007. The second appellant was also Digitally signed by Nidhi Ahuja Date: 2022.05.12 16:48:34 IST Reason: appointed as Forest Guard on the same day. The appellants

were originally part of undivided State of Madhya Pradesh.

1 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

Upon the enactment of the State Reorganisation Act, 2000, a

new State viz., State of Chhattisgarh was born on

01.11.2000. While the State of Madhya Pradesh was

undivided, State of Madhya Pradesh, on 17.10.1977 issued the

following circular:

“Copy letter No. 13/10474/1977/1/x dated 17.10.77 from the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Department of Forest, Bhopal to the Principal Forest Conservator, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal.

Sub: - For giving entry in the Ranger’s Training to the candidate who stood first in the Forest Guard Training School without entrance examination as well as for fixation of height of 163 c.m.

Ref: - Your memo/copy/153/5737 dated 18.7.77.

The State Government grants approval for keeping the height of 163 cm (one hundred sixty three c.m.) for the entire forest schools as well as Forest Guard’s training schools and those Forest Guard who passes the examination of the Training schools in first class is granted approval for sending in the Ranger’s Training session without entrance examination.

By the name and order of the Governor of Madhya Pradesh.

Sd/-

(4) Based on a proposed strike, a letter dated 14.05.2009

was issued by the Secretary to the Principal Chief

Conservator of Forests:

CHHATTISGARH ADMINISTRATION FOREST DEPARTMENT MANTRALAYA, DAU KALYAN SINGH BHAWAN, RAIPUR no./f 1-18/2007/10-1/Forest Raipur, Dt.14.05.2009 To Principal Chief Forest Conservator, Chhattisgarh, Raipur.

Sub: - Information regarding indefinite strike

2 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

w.e.f.18.5.2009 for 21 point demands by the Chhattisgarh Forest Employees Sangh, Raipur (the provision of promotion to the candidates standing first in the training of Ranger and Forest Guard. (demand No. 13).

It has been decided by the State Government that the proposal regarding grant of 02 additional increments to the candidates who stood first and 01 additional increment to the candidates who stood second in the training of Forest Guard/Ranger be approved and the previous practice be rescinded. In this regard, please submit the necessary proposal at the earliest.

Sd/-

(Kaushlendra Singh) Secretary Chhattisgarh Administration, Forest Department

No.F-1-18/2008/10-1 Raipur, Dated 05/2009

Copy to:

Shri Faiyaj Ahmad Khan, State President, Chhattisgarh Forest Employees Sangh, Forest Colony Complex, Raipur-for information.

Sd/-

Secretary Chhattisgarh Administration, Forest Department

(5) Next, we must notice communication dated 14.12.2009.

It reads:

OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF FOREST CONSERVATOR CHHATTISGARH ARANYA BHAWAN, MEDICAL COLLEGE ROAD, RAIPUR BRANCH- ADMINISTRATION / NON-GAZETTED

No./Admn.Non-Gazetted.1/2009-7579 Raipur,Dt.14/12/2009

To Chief Forest Conservator (Ma. San Vi/Su.Pau.) Chhattisgarh, Raipur

Sub: -Sending Forest Ranger training to the Forest Guards stood first in the Forest Guard Training School.

3 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

Ref.: Your letter No./Ma.Sun.Vi./Su./Pau./1133 dated 09.12.2009

By the letter under reference on the captioned subject, Shrilal Netam, Forest Guard has been mentioned for sending in the Forest Ranger Training. It is written in this regard that by considering on the demand No. 13 out of 21 point demands of the Chhattisgarh Forest Employees Sangh by the Chhattisgarh Administration, Forest Department, decision has been taken to grant 02 additional increments to the trainees who stood first in the Forest Guard/Ranger training and 01 additional increment to the trainees who stood second in the said training. Therefore, there is no need to send the candidate who stood first in the Forest Guard training for the training of the Rangers. As per direction of the Chhattisgarh Government, Forest Department, the trainees who stood first is entitled for only 02 additional increments. Copy of the letter No.F-1-18/2007/10-1 (part-13) of the Chhattisgarh Administration, Forest Department; Mantralaya Raipur is enclosed.

Enclosure: - As aforesaid

Sd/- illegible 14.12.09 Chief Forest Conservator (Admn. Non-Gazetted) Chhattisgarh (Raipur)”

(6) In the meantime, it would appear that appellant No. 1,

who was undergoing training as Forest Guard stood first in

the training. He felt entitled to be selected for training

as Forester, on the basis of the order dated 17.10.1977. A

writ petition came to be filed as WP 45/2010 seeking

direction that the appellant No. 1 be sent for Forester

training. Judgment was rendered on 11.01.2012 noting that

there was some proposal to abolish the practice of sending

the Forest Guard who stood first; noting that this is a

policy matter, a decision was directed to be taken on the

4 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

said representation.

There was correspondence dated 23.04.2012, which reads

as follows:

GOVERNMENT OF CHHATTISGARH

FOREST DEPARTMENT

DAU KALYAN SINGH BHAWAN, MANTRALAYA, RAIPUR

NO./1266/539/2012/10-1/FOREST RAIPUR Dt. 23.4.2012

To Principal Chief Forest Conservator, Chhattisgarh, Raipur

Sub: - WP (C)No. 45/2012 Shri Omkar Sinha, Forest Guard Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Ref: - Your letter No. / Admn. Non-

gazetted.1/Nyaya./1380 dated 02.03.2012.

Kindly peruse the captioned letter under reference. In this regard it is relevant to mention that after receipt of the amendment proposal from the General Administration Department in Three Class (non-clerical) Forest Service Recruitment Rules the same has been sent to the Law Department for vetting/modification. Till the time the new recruitment rule is not framed and enforced, the action may kindly be taken as per the existing recruitment rules.

2. It is relevant to mention that in the case of Shri Sinha, the Hon’ble High Court vide its order dated 11.01.2012 has directed to take decision within 04 months, which shall be expired / lapsed on 11.05.2012.

3. As per direction, in the aforesaid case the action may be taken according to the existing recruitment rules.

Sd/-

(M.L. Tamrakar) Under Secretary Chhattisgarh Government, Forest Department

5 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

No./ /539/2012/10-1/Forest Raipur, Dt. / / 2012

Copy to:

Shri Omkar Sinha, Forest Guard, Singpur Enclave Dhamtari, Dhamtari Forest Division, Dhamtari for information.

Sd/-

Under Secretary Chhattisgarh Government, Forest Department

(7) We have referred to correspondence dated 23.04.2012.

Then there is order dated 11.06.2012. It reads:

CHHATTISGARH ADMINISTRATION FOREST DEPARTMENT

MANTRALAYA, DAU KALYAN SINGH BHAWAN, RAIPUR

No./1783/2900/2012/10-1/Forest Raipur, Dt.11/6/2012

To

Principal Chief Forest Conservator, Chhattisgarh, Raipur.

Sub: - For immediate recalling of Shri Onkar Sinha, Forest Guard from the Ranger’s training.

Ref: - Your letter No./Admn./Non-Gazetted/2012/3154, dated 01.05.2012.

Kindly peruse the captioned letter under reference.

2. The order No.13/10474/1977/1/X dated 17.10.1977 of the Government of Madhya Pradesh, Forest Department is hereby revoked.

3. In respect of recalling Shri Onkar Sinha, Forest Guard from the training of the Ranger, may kindly take necessary action as per rule.

By the name and order of the Governor of Chhattisgarh

Sd/-

(M.L. Tamrakar) Under Secretary

6 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

Government of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department

No. 1784/2900/2012/10-1/Forest Raipur,Dated 11.6.2012

Copy to:

State president, Chhattisgarh Forest Employees Sangh, Raipur, Head Office, Forest Colony Complex, Pandri, Raipur for information in reference to his letter No. 24 dated 02.06.2012.

Sd/-

Under Secretary Government of Chhattisgarh, Forest Department”

(8) Since the second appellant was not sent for training,

he filed WP 4076 of 2012 in which an order similar to the

order passed in the case of the first appellant came to be

passed on 03.10.2012. After reconsideration of the entire

matter, it is found by order dated 22.1.2013 by Under

Secretary that it was decided to send the appellants for

training and that there was no contempt involved.

(9) The Chief Conservator of Forest sent communication to

the Director on 01.12.2013 asking for list of Forest Guards

who stood first during that period 14.05.2009 till the date

of session.

The first respondent filed WP (S)No. 1100/2013

challenging the orders dated 22.01.2013 and 01.12.2013 on

the basis that circular dated 17.10.1977 stood withdrawn by

circular dated 14.12.2009 and therefore, no Forest Guard

could be sent out of turn for training as Forester after

withdrawal of the circular dated 17.10.1977. In the

meantime, on 17.02.2014, the appellants completed their

7 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

training as Forester. The learned Single Judge dismissed

the Writ Petition No. 1100 /2013 out of which one appeal

arises and also Writ Petition (S) No. 188/2012 which is the

subject matter of the other appeal. Writ appeals came to be

filed by the aggrieved writ petitioners in both the cases

viz., Writ Appeal No. 1/2015 and Writ Appeal No. 2 /2015.

By the impugned judgment, the Division Bench set aside the

judgment of the learned Single Judge. Findings of the

Division Bench to be noted are as follows:

“14. The State Respondent did not act fairly, reasonably and responsibly in the matter. A decision had already been taken at the highest level of the Government on 14.5.2009. It was understood in clear terms by the Principal Chief Conservator of Forest who issued consequential orders on 14.12.2009. The Under Secretary then issued an order at variance. There is no pleading in the counter-affidavit of the State that the Secretary had allowed his own order dated 14.5.2009 to be recalled much less did the order of the Under Secretary make any reference to the order of the Secretary. An advantage was taken of the order of the Court in Writ Petition (S) 45 of 2012 filed by the private Respondent to create an aura of fear that the wrath of the Court would be invited in contempt jurisdiction rather than to have decided the representation in accordance with law. The respondent authorities in the counter affidavit virtually challenge their own order dated 14.5.2009 which is clearly impermissible in the law. The Sub-

divisional Forest Officer who has sworn the counter affidavit virtually challenges the order of the Secretary, Department of Forests of the State government dated 14.5.2009 which is impermissible as held in (1988) 3 SCC 570 (Commr. of Commercial Taxes (Asstt.) v. Dharmendra Trading Co) observing as follows: -

“5. …… We totally fail to see how an Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner of Sales Tax who are functionaries of a State can say that a concession granted by the State itself was beyond the powers of the State or how the State can say

8 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

so either……….”

15. The standards by which the Government will act has to be very different from the manner in which a private authority or individual will act. The order dated 14.5.2009 did not emanate in the void. It was the result of a proper thought process in view of certain demands raised by the Forest Workers Union who had threatened to go on strike. We were informed at the bar during hearing by the parties that eventually the strike was called off because of the assurances given by the Government.

16. It is apparent that this decision was taken after consultation with the Union or the Government suo-moto took the decision to avoid the possibility of any strike. The counter-affidavit confronts the Court with a conclusion rather than informing that whether any negotiations were held with the Union or not. Under what circumstances the decision dated 14.5.2009 was taken. The question that arises for our consideration is that if the State Government in the Department of Forest at the highest level gave assurance to its employees because of which they called off their strike, was it only a guise by the officials of the State to fraudulently have the strike called off without any intention to implement their decision and assurance given. If that was so, it was a fraud on the Constitution, impermissible under Article 14 of the Constitution. Conversely, if the State took a conscious decision to do away with the circular dated 17.10.1977 in view of the strike call given by the Union and thereby prevented the strike, the State certainly stood to gain an advantage and is bound to stick by its promise. The authorities of the State Government cannot vacillate in decision making according to their convenience seeking shoulders of the Court when in fact, the Court never gave them its shoulder. We do not approve of the conduct of the State authorities in reading more into the order in Writ Petition (S)No. 45 of 2012 than it actually contained.

17. In (2013) 3 SCC 559 (State of Bihar v. Sunny Prakash) the challenge was to the direction of the High Court in a Public Interest Litigation to ensure that the commitment given by the State Government to the Bihar State University and College Employees Federation is honoured and implemented. The strike was called off following an agreement after the State Government issued a letter for implementation

9 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

of the agreement. Later the State government sought to rescile that it was not a decision taken according to Rules to Executive business. It was held as follows:

“22. Inasmuch as all the persons who were competent to represent were the parties to the said agreement referred to above and after making such commitment by the State Government, as rightly observed by the High Court, we are also of the view that the same has to be honoured without any exception. By the impugned order, the High Court has not only directed the State Government to implement the commitment given by it having been reduced into writing on 18-7-2007, honoured by the State Government itself in subsequent letters/correspondences but also directed the Federation to call off the strike immediately in the interest of the student community.”

(10) We have heard the learned senior counsel appearing for

the appellants as also the learned counsel appearing for the

respondents/writ petitioners and the learned counsel for the

State.

(11) Learned senior counsel for the appellants would point

out that the High Court was wrong in deciding that by

communication dated 14.05.2009, the Government circular

dated 17.10.1977 was withdrawn. Actually, in law, the

earlier circular made by Governor is withdrawn only on

11.06.2012. He would rely on Bachhittar Singh v. State of

Punjab and Another AIR 1963 SC 395:

“8. What we have now to consider is the effect of the note recorded by the Revenue Minister of PEPSU upon the file. We will assume for the purpose of this case that it is an order. Even so, the question is whether it can be regarded as the order of the State Government which alone, as admitted by the appellant, was competent to hear and decide an appeal from the

10 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

order of the Revenue Secretary. Article 166(1) of the Constitution requires that all executive action of the Government of a State shall be expressed in the name of the Governor. Clause (2) of Article 166 provides for the authentication of orders and other instruments made and executed in the name of the Governor. Clause (3) of that article enables the Governor to make rules for the more convenient transaction of the business of the Government and for the allocation among the Ministers of the said business. What the appellant calls an order of the State Government is admittedly not expressed to be in the name of the Governor. But with that point we shall deal later. What we must first ascertain is whether the order of the Revenue Minister is an order of the State Government i.e. of the Governor. In this connection we may refer to Rule 25 of the Rules of Business of the Government of PEPSU which reads thus:

“Except as otherwise provided by any other Rule, cases shall ordinarily be disposed of by or under the authority of the Minister in charge who may by means of standing orders give such directions as he thinks fit for the disposal of cases in the Department. Copies of such standing orders shall be sent to the Rajpramukh and the Chief Minister.”

According to learned counsel for the appellant his appeal pertains to the department which was in charge of the Revenue Minister and, therefore, he could deal with it. His decision and order would, according to him, be the decision and order of the State Government. On behalf of the State reliance was, however, placed on Rule 34 which required certain classes of cases to be submitted to the Rajpramukh and the Chief Minister before the issue of orders. But it was conceded during the course of the argument that a case of the kind before us does not fall within that rule. No other provision bearing on the point having been brought to our notice we would, therefore, hold that the Revenue Minister could make an order on behalf of the State Government.

9. The question, therefore, is whether he did in fact make such an order. Merely writing something on the file does not amount to an order. Before something amounts to an order of the State Government two things are necessary. The order has to be expressed in the name of the Governor as required by clause (1) of Article 166 and then it has to be communicated. As

11 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

already indicated, no formal order modifying the decision of the Revenue Secretary was ever made.

Until such an order is drawn up the State Government cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as bound by what was stated in the file. As long as the matter rested with him the Revenue Minister could well score out his remarks or minutes on the file and write fresh ones.

This judgment, he would point out was followed in

K.S.B. Ali v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (2018) 11

SCC 277 and Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves

Limited (2019) 20 SCC 1.

(12) Learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners

in the High Court, however, take us through the order of the

Division Bench and support the order. He would submit that

statutory rules were in place in the undivided State of

Madhya Pradesh. What is more, statutory rules have also

been made for newly governed State of Chhattisgarh on

21.06.2012. He would submit that under the M.P. Class III

(Non-Minstl.) Forest Service Recruitment Rules, 1967

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules’), for promotion for the

post of Forester, certain number of years as experience as

trained Guard is mandatory. Besides, by supporting the

reasoning of the Division Bench, he would also submit that

any attempt to draw support from circular 17.10.1977 as

followed in the State of Chhattisgarh would be in the teeth

of statutory Rules and hence would be ultra vires. At any

rate, the Court should not see any merit in the complaint of

the appellants, he contends.

12 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

(13) Per contra, Mr. Sourav Roy, learned Deputy Advocate

General, would submit that the reasoning of the High Court

in the impugned judgment may not be supportable. He would

also submit with reference to the stand taken by the State

in the counter affidavit that the earlier circular dated

17.10.1977 in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh

continued to hold good and it was revoked finally in the

manner contemplated in law only with the issuance of order

dated 11.06.2012. In other words, he would, in substance,

support the stand of the appellants. He would submit that

while it may be true that there was a strike and a decision

was taken, it was only in principle, as is quite evident

from the communication dated 14.05.2009. It only indicates

that proposal was invited. Thereafter, as is true with any

Government decision, of the nature involved, it is a time

consuming affair. What is relevant is the legality of the

matter and therefore, for the validity of the matter if it

is a Government order, it has to be an order of the

Governor, which he agrees with the learned senior counsel

for the appellants, was passed only with the issuance of

order dated 11.06.2012. He would further point out that the

Court may not overlook the fact that the case of the writ

petitioners in the writ petition was not based essentially

on the withdrawal of the order dated 17.10.1977 by order

dated 14.05.2009. Instead, the case was based on the order

dated 17.10.1977 being completely eclipsed and suffering a

13 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

natural death as a result of the issuance of the

communication which is dated 14.12.2009. He would further

submit that there is also no merit in the complaint that

order dated 17.10.1977 was ultra vires. He would point out

that actually under the Rules which were extant while there

was a certain number of years to roll by as a Forest Guard

before a person could be considered for promotion as

Forester, in accordance with Rule 6(4) of the erstwhile

Rules, however, the Government may prescribe by order,

procedure which may be at variance from the existing rules.

Therefore, the order dated 17.10.1977 was projected to be

one such exercise. What is more, even in the newly enacted

Rules for the State of Chhattisgarh, a provision

corresponding to Rule 6(4) has been enacted. So, there is

no merit in the case of the ultra vires also.

(14) We think it is unnecessary to again burden the

judgment with copious reference to case law as we have

already referred to the paragraphs as contained in the

Constitution Bench of this Court in Bachhittar Singh

(supra).

What is relevant is that under the Rules, Rule 14(1)

provided for promotion from the post of Guard to Forester.

Under the same, we notice Schedule IV. It is provided that

a Forest Guard could be promoted after three years after

training from the Forest Guards Training School or after 12

years or more years of service in the case of untrained

14 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

Forest Guards. However, we must notice Rule 6. Rule 6 of

the said Rules provides for method of recruitment.

Rule 6 inter alia provides that recruitment to the

service after commencement of the Rules which we notice is

in the year 1967, can be made inter alia by promotion of

members of the service mentioned in column 12 of Schedule

IV. Thereafter what is relevant is sub Rule (4):

“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-rule (1), if in the opinion of the Government the exigencies of the service so require, the Government may adopt such methods of recruitment to the service other than those specified in the said sub-rule, as it may, by order issued in this behalf, prescribe.”

Therefore, it would appear to be the case of the State

that it is not as if the 1977 order was in any manner

contrary to the statutory rules and it was very much

premised on the statutory rules.

(15) We have already noticed the factual position. The

appellants undoubtedly stood first in the training programme

during the training as Forest Guards. There was a

reorganisation of the State as we have noticed. The

Government Order which would appear to be a Government Order

in the undivided State of Madhya Pradesh continued in terms

of the Reorganisation Act. Such Government Orders of the

undivided State of Madhya Pradesh would undoubtedly continue

to hold the field till it was revoked in the manner known to

law. The Division Bench in the impugned judgment has

proceeded on the basis that the Order dated 17.10.1977 was

15 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

revoked by order dated 14.05.2009. It is, undoubtedly, true

that in the said communication, it is addressed by the

Secretary to the Principal Chief Forest Conservator. The

proposed strike and the decision taken is referred to. At

the same time, it all ends by requesting that the necessary

proposal be submitted. It is thereafter that communication

dated 14.12.2009 came to be made. Communication dated

14.12.2009 is not an order of the Governor or expressed to

be made in his name. It is a communication, no doubt,

issued by a Chief Forest Conservator. Therein, no doubt,

reference is made to the demands made by the Employees Union

and that the decision had been taken to give two additional

increments to the trainees who stood first in the Forest

Guard training in replacement of the earlier incentive of

sending them for training as Forester. It is also stated

that there is no need to send the candidates who stood first

in the Forest Guard training for training as Forester. It

is reiterated that as per the directions of the Chhattisgarh

Government, the trainees who stood first are entitled for

only 02 additional increments. We must notice that this

communication does not bear the insignia of a Government

Order, which alone would suffice to show that order dated

17.10.1977 stood withdrawn. Whereas we would find that the

communication dated 11.06.2012 contains two specific signs.

Firstly, it is expressly made in the name of the Governor.

Secondly, it specifically revokes the communication dated

16 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

17.10.1977. The Division Bench has proceeded to consider

the case based on the communication dated 14.05.2009 which

we must note is a case which even the writ petitioners did

not have. A perusal of the pleadings of the writ petition

would show that the case of the writ petitioners was

premised on the order dated 14.12.2009 bringing about the

revocation of the order dated 17.10.77. Even the

petitioners did not, in other words, set up a case that

14.05.2009 is an order revoking 14.05.2009. In matters of

this nature, the role of proper pleadings must be emphasised

for the parties join issue on the basis of the case which

has been built up before the Court.

We are of the view, therefore, that the reasoning

which has been employed by the Division Bench cannot be

sustained. The appeals are allowed and the impugned

judgments will stand set aside. There will be no orders as

to costs.

…………………………………………………………………………., J. [ K.M. JOSEPH ]

…………………………………………………………………………., J. [ HRISHIKESH ROY ]

New Delhi;

April 29, 2022.

17 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

ITEM NO.22 COURT NO.10 SECTION IV-C

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No. 3504/2022

(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 13668/2015) (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 13-01-2015 in WA No. 02/2015 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh)

OMKAR SINHA & ANR. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

SAHADAT KHAN & ORS. Respondent(s)

(With IA No. 1/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)

WITH

C.A. No. 3505/2022 (IV-C) (Arising out of SLP (C)No. 13684/2015) (With IA No. 4/2016 - exemption from filing O.T. and IA No. 3/2015

- EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No. 1/2015 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. and IA No. 2/2015 - PERMISSION TO FILE ANNEXURES)

Date : 29-04-2022 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY

For Appellant(s) Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, Sr. Adv. Mr. Navin Prakash, AOR Ms. Garima Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Anshuman Shrivastava, Adv.

Mr. Abhijeet Shrivastava, Adv.

Ms. Harneet Kaur Khanuja, Adv.

Ms. Sukriti Chauhan, Adv.

Mr. Arpit Jain, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Vikrant Singh Bais, AOR Mr. Rakesh S., Adv.

Mr. Sourav Roy, Dy.A.G. Mr. Mahesh Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Kaushal Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Srinivasa Kumar Bogisam, Adv.

18 CA NO. 3504/ 2022 etc.

Ms. Devika Kahanna, Adv.

Ms. V. D. Khanna, Adv.

M/s. VMZ Chamber, AOR

Mr. Niraj Sharma, AOR Mr. Yogesh Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Sumit K. Sharma, Adv. Ms. Mahima Sharma, Adv. Ms. Vaishnavi Paliwal, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Leave granted.

The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed reportable judgment.

Pending applications stand disposed of.

(NIDHI AHUJA) (RENU KAPOOR) AR-cum-PS BRANCH OFFICER

[Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file.]

19