Union of India and Ors v. Mohd. Sami

order of the tribunal & rightly so since without affording opportunityof hearingand callingupon respondentUnion of India for the objectfor which the scheme was introducedand the reason behind it to provide such preferential employment the tribunal interfered in the same and'held to be, unconstitutional certainly Union of India was requiredto be heard and the finding whichhas been recordedregardingpreferentialerrlploymentintroducedby the Union of India by the Tribunalcertainlycannotbe upheld by this Court. We have heard counsel for the parties. As both the parties are aggrievedby the order of the tribunalj in our consideredview the procedure followed bv the tribunal ifi recording the finding in respect of the preferential scheme introduced by the Railways seeking emplovment without affording reasonable opportunity to the UOI cannot be approved by this Court and that is also not in conformitv with the basic tenets of law where the parties to be afforded with the reasonable opportunity of hearing before any adverse order being passed, •indisputably in the Instant case the finding which has been recorded by the tribunal certainly adversely affects rights of Union of India to whom opportunity was not affordedto complywith basic requirenientof law. Before parting with the order we may clarify that what has been observed by us is only for disposal of the writ petitions and the Tribunalmay not be influencedfinhibitedby the observationsmade and decide the O.A.' afresh in accordafice with law. The order of the tribunalimpugnedinfhe petitions dt.24.09.2013is not legally sustainableand accordinglyquashed & set aside. The OriginalApplicationstands restoredand the parties are directedto appearbeforethe tribunalon 12.05.2014and it is expectedfrom the IKp.(C). No.11155/2015 etc. Page 9 of IS tiibunalto decidethe OA afterthe replybeingfiled expeditiousiyin accordance with law. Boththe petitionsstandsdisposedof. No costs."

¶12Learnedcounsel for the parties submitthat aftef noticingthe observations of the Division Bench of Jaipur Lligh Court, ithe Tribunal has failed to complywith the observationsand to the contraryfailed to give any reason why the same would not be binding on the Tribunaland simply observed that "We do not find any reason to disagree o;f the finding of the Jaipur Bench of this. Tribunal that LARSGESS is unconstitutional and ultra vires. Learned counsel further submit that reading of the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, would give an impression as if a scheme for back door entry of the employees, has been created, i Learned counsel contends that this scheme was in fact launched as far as, back in the year 2004 and has been strictly implemented. Counsel further contends that Tribunal has I failed to appreciate the aim, objective and purpose of the scheme and in the absenceof any opportunityto the partiesof hearing, it couldnot be brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the purpose why the scheme was formulated.

¶13Learned counselfor the parties contendthat firstly it was not in the domain of the Tribunal to opine whether the scheme was ultra, vires or not and secondly, in the absence of any pleading, the Tribunal could not have returnedsuch a finding. Reliancehas been pJaced on MallikarjunaRao and Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. •: (1990) 2 SCC 707, wherein it has been held ;

¶11The observations'of the liigh Coiirt which have been made as the basis for its judgmentby the Tribunal were only of advisory nature. The Lligh Court was aware of its limitations under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India and 'as such the learned Judge deliberately used the word "advisable" while making the observations.It is neither legal nor proper for the High Courts or W.P.(C).No.I1155/2015eic. ' Page 10 of18 ir| • fr-ir-vn •••t-'n.tn'rTriTr'"PITTI'-ln";i the Administrative Tribunals to issue directions or advisory-sermons to the executive in respect: of the sphere which is exclusively within the domain of the executive .under the constitution. Imagine the execu-tive :advising the judiciary in respect of its power of judicialreview under the constitution.We aie boundto reactscowlinglyto any such advice. 12: XXXXXXXXXX

¶13The SpecialRules have been framedunderArticle309 ofthe Constitution of India. The power underArticle 309 of the Constitutionof India to frame rules is the legislativepower. This powerunderthe constitutionhas to be eiiercisedby the Presidentor the Governorofa State as the case may be. The High Courtsor the AdministrativeTribunals carmot issuej a mandate to the State Governmentto legislate underArticle $09 of the Constitutionof India. The Courts cannot usuip the functions assigned to the executiveunderthe constitutionand canlnoteven indirectlyrequire the executiveto exerciseits rule makingpowerin any manner.The Courts cannot assume to itself a supervisoryrole over the rule making power of the executive underAiticle .309 of the Constitution of India."

¶14Reliance is also placed upon Bharat AmrailalKothari Vs. Dosukhan SamadkhanSindhi:AIR (2010)SC47, whereihithas beenheldthat:

¶14The approachofthe High Courtin grantingreliefnot prayed foi cannotbe approvedoy this Court. Every petitionunderArticle 226 ofthe Constitution'mustcontaina reliefclause. Wheneverthe petitionei is entitledor is claimingmore than one relief, he must pray for all the reliefs. Under the provisionsofthe Codeof Civil Piocedure,1908, ifthe plaintiffomits, exceptwith the leave ofthe court,to sue for any particularreliefwhich he is entitledto get, he will not afterwardsbe allowedto sue in respectof the portion so omittedor relinquished.Thoughthe provisionsofthe Code are not made applicable to the proceedings mnderArticle 226 of the Coristltution,the general principles made in the Civil Procedure Code will applyevento writpetitions.It is, therefore,incumbenton the petitionerto claimall reliefshe seeks!from the court.-Normally, the^ court will grant only those reliefs specificallyprayed by, the petitioner. Phough the court has very vide discretionin granting W.P.(C). No.11155/2015 eic. ' Page 11 of IS lelief, the court, however, cannot, ignoringand keeping aside the ..onus and pimciplesgoverninggrant :of relief, grant a reliefnot evenprayedfor by the petitioner.In ICidshnaPriyavs. Universityof Liiclmow[(1984)1see 307],overlookingthe rulerelatingto grant

¶0a missionto Postgraduatecourse in medical college,the High eouit^ in the^ exercise of, powers ;underArticle 226 of the onstitution directed the Medical eduncil to grant provisional admissionto the petitioner.This eourtset asidethe orderpassedby the High Court observingthat "in his: own petition in the ITigh Court, the respondenthas merely prayed for awrit directingthe State 01 the Collegeto considerhis case for admissionyetthe High Court went a step further and straightway issued a writ of mandamusdirectingthe College to admit him to M.S. course and thus giantedreliefto tlie respondentwhichhe himselfneverprayed for and couldnot have been prayedfor". Again, in Om Prakashvs. Ram Kumai [(1991) 1 SCC 441], this Court observed, "A party cannotbe gianted areuefwhichis not claimed,ifthe circumstances ofthe case aie such that the grantingofsuch reliefwould resultin serious prejudiceto the interestedparty and deprive him of the valuablelightsunderthe statute".ThoughaHigh Courthas power to mouldreliefsto meetthe requirementsofeach case,thatdoes not meanthatthe draftsmanofawritpetitionshouldnot applyhis mind to the pioperreliefwhich shouldbe asked for and throw the entire burden of it upon the court. It is relevantto notice that the Pligh Court^was not exercising powers iunderArticle 226 of the Constitutionsuo motu but was examining the validity of order passedby the AdditionalChief.ludicialMagistraterefusingto grant custody of goats and sheep to the respondentNos. 1to 6, in the Special Criminal Application, which was filed by them under Article 226 of the Constitutionthrough awere representedby a senior counsel practicingin the Gujarat High Court and having legaidto the facts ofthe case, the learnedlawyerwasJustifiedOnly' in claimingthose reliefs to which referenceis made earlier. The respondent Nos. 1 to 6 were seeking a writ of certiorari or mandamusto declarethat order dated July 5, 2009, passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,Dedsa, refusing to hand over CListodyofthe goats and sheep seizedto them, was illegaland were also seeking quashing of the said order. At no point of time, the learned advocate for the respondentNos. 1to 6had moved'any applicationseeking permissionof the Court to amend the prayer clausecontainedin the petitionso as to enablethe respondentNos. 1 to 6 to claim compensationfrom the appellant No. 1. A fair f'KP.(C). No.11155/2015 etc. mLaZHDHEE readingofthe petitionmaltesit more than.rlearthat no factualdata latsoeverwas laid by the respondeiitNos. 1to 6for claiming to°Tn wWernf" mentionedas 0mwhich manner they or any of them had suffereddamage or ss becauseofthe handingover ofcustodyof goats and sheep to Ae appel ant No. 1 and ultimately;ho the respondent No 8 Panjaiapolesituatedat Patannor the appellantNo. 1was permitted to conta-overtthat in fact no damage dr loss was suffered by the 1espondentNos^1to 6or any ofthem. Thereis no mattnerofdoubt thai tire High Comt was too indulgentdn this matter. After all it was not a petition from a person languishingin jaii or from a bonded labourer or a party in person or public spirited citizen seekingto bring agross injusticeto the-notice ofthe court. Here, the High Court had before it the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 as petitioneis. The question whether the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 suffereddamageor loss becauseofhandiingoverofgoatsand sheep to the appellantNo. 1and/orto the respondentNo. 8, dependsupon facts to be proved. Normally, such an exercise cannot be undertaken in a writ tiled underArticle 226 of the Constitution. This Courtfurtherfinds thatthe appellantNo. 1is not only directed to pay, by way ofcompensationand cost,to eachofthe respondent Nos. 1to 6asum of Rs.75,000/-but is; flirtherdirectedto pay on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 6 the' cost of maintenance and treatment of the animals in question' to respondent No. 8 in accordancewith the provisionsof sub-Section(4) ofSection35 of the Act. To mentionthe least, it is evidentthatthe respondentNos. to 6 are not parties to CriminalInquiry Case No. 237 of 2008 which is pending before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate' alanpur.As observedearlier,the said inquiryhas been initiatedat the instanceofone of.the aides ofthe accused.In the said inquiiw the questionposed for determinationof the learnedChiefJudicial Magistrate,Palanpur,,would be whether the appellantNo. 1 and others with police personnel had committed loot of trucks with pats and sheep and also cash amount of Rs.1,11,000. The said on today nor any finding is rendered iiatthe appellantNo. 1and otherswith the aid ofpolicepersonnel ad committedloot of the articlesmentionedin the complaintof that case, fherefore, the appellant Not 1 could not have been directed to pay compensationand costlto 6without prejudice to leirrightsand contentionsin the criminalproceedingsinitiatedby way ofCriminalInquiryCaseNo. 237 of2008.Moreover,no claim was advancedby the respondentNo. 8hereinthatthe appellantNo. f'V.P.(C).No.ll 155/2015etc. Page 13of 18 :ir"!n n • |Tnri-ir-ntT'^;n utr.ry;' 1 should be directed to pay, on behalf of the owners le the respondentNos. 1to 6, the costof maintenanceand tretoeMof me animals in questionmaccordancewith the provisionsof sub-Section(4) ofSection35 ofthe Act. Normally,cLtofmamtena"e and heahnentofthe animalsin suchcaseswouldbe payableby one who claimscustodyor who are the ownersofthe live stockbut not by the complainant.In the instantcase the assertionmade by the ppellmitNo. 1IS that he was handed,over custody of goats and sheep by the police after registrationof FIRseems to be that the appel ant No. 1had taken possessionof the live stock and trucks 1legallybeforethe FIR was lodgedand|hadactedin ahighhanded manner. Ihe dispute whether appellantNo. 1 was handed over custodyofgoats and sheep after filing ofthe complaintor whether he had obtained custody of goats and; sheep illegallybefore the complaintwas lodged,will have to be adjudicatedupon evideneeto be lead by the parties.Suchahighlycoiitentiousdisputecannotand could not be resolved in a petition' underArticle 226 of the Constitution. Having regard to the totality of the facts and ciicumstancesemergingfrom the record;ofthe case,this Courtis of the firm opmionthattherewas no justifibationat all in directingthe appellantNo. 1to pay asum ofRs.75,000/-towardscompensation and cost to each of the respondentNos.-1 to 6and to pay to the lespondentNo. 8 hereinthe cost ofmaintenanceand treatmentof ftie animals in question on behalfof the respondentNos. 1to 6. xheiefoie,this diiectionis also liableto be set aside."

¶15In the case ofSumangalaNaganath Vs. Union ofIndia and Ors. : 1999 see (L&S)1318,it has beenheldthat:

¶5_ This Rule clearly sets out that 50% of the vacanciesin the SeniorScale will have to'befilledby transferofofficersbelonging to Class I services under the Ministry:ofRailways. However it excludes the Indian Railway Medical Service-. The class of the serviceswhichare intendedto be excludedare clearlyspeltout and It is the IndianRailwayMedicalServiceand not any other service under the control of Ministry of Railway, when the fact that the appellantwas servingin the MinistryofRailwaysis not in dispute. It IS hardly open to anyone to state that she is not eligibleto be considered for appointmentto IRPS under the Rule referred to • above. It was not open to the Tribunalto examinethe wisdom of making such a Rule v/hich enables them to make such lateral W.P.(C).No.lll55/20]5eic. Page 14 of18 inductioninto IRPS. Such a questionis a matter ofpolicy and not debatablein ajudicialforum. When appointmentofthe appellantis in terms of that Rule' and falfils all conditionsof eligibility,the Tiibunalcould not state whethershe is suitableto be appointedor not. Wliat baffles us most is that in spite of the Rule clearly enabling appointmentof the appellant, the Tribunal should have been persuadedby the view ofthe UPSG expressedearlier. When UPSC acceptedrecommendationon the presentoccasion,it is not laiown as to whetherthe Tribunal could imaginethat the opinion expiessedearlierwas not Icnown to it.' The assumptionappears to be wholly incorrect.

¶16Also in the case ofStateojPunjaband Ors. Vs. Ram LubhayaBagga : AIR 1998 SC1703, it has been held that : •29. No State of any country can have unlimited resources to spendon any ofits project.Thatis whyjit only approvesits projects to the extent it is feasible. The same holds good for providing medmalfacilitiesto its citizenincludingits employees.Provisionof facilities cannot be unlimited. It has to be to the extent finance peimit. If no scale or rate is fixed then in case private clinics or hospitalsincreasetheirrate to exorbitantscales,the State wouldbe boundto reimbursethe same. Hencewe cometo the conclusionthat piinciple of fixation Pf rate and scale under this new policy is justifiedand cannotbe held to be violativeofArticle 21 or Article 47 of the Constitution of India. j5.^ ^Learned Counsel for the appellantsubmits that in the Writ petitionfiled, the respondentdid not specificallychallengethe new policy of 1995. If that was done the State would have placed all such material in detail to show the financial strain. We having consideredthe submissionofboth the parties,on the aforesaidfacts an ^ciicumstances,hold that the appellant'sdecisionto excludethe designated hospital cannot be said be such as to be violative ofArticle 21 of the Constitution.No right could be absolute in a welfareState.Aman is asocial animal: He cannot-livewithoutthe cooperationof large number of persons. Every article one uses is the contributionofmany. Hence everyindividualrighthas to give way to the right of public at large. Not-everyfindamentalright under-PartIII of the.Constitutionis not absolute and it is o be within permissible reasonable restriction. This principle equally W.P.(C). NO.111S5/2015etc. Page 15 Of18

17.

¶18J-LZJLDlliimr applieswhenthereis any constrainton the healthbudgeton account offinancialstringencies.But we do hojle that governmentwill give due considerationand priorityto the health budget in future and renderwhatis bestpossible. We have heard counsel for the parties and considered their rival contentions. Counselfor all partiespraythatthe orderpassddby the Tribunalby which it has been held that the LARSGESS Scheme is ultro. vires of the Constitutionbe set aside. Commonsubmissionshave been made by the counsel lor all the parties that parties were iiot granted'opportunityto address argumentswith respectto the vires ofthe scheme. Counselalso uniformly.submitthat no pleading exists on the record of the Tribunal with respectto the vires of the Scheme. Coiinselflirthersubmittedthat boththe CategoriesI&II supportthe schemeand submitsthatit is for the safetyofthe passengersand also for the staffofthe Railway. Counselfor the parties strongly urged before the Coilrt that the scheme was formulatedhaving regard to the workingof Driver and Gangmen, who play a crucial role with regard to the safe:runningof the train and maintenanceofthe tracks. The scheme was thereafterextendedto three categoriesall of which are concernedwith the safety of the run of the tiain. Counsel ftirther submittedthat acompletereading of the scheme would show that stringentsafeguardshave been worked out and only theieafterthe schemewouldbe implemented.

¶19In the case of MalUkarjunaSao and Ons.(supra),the Apex Court has frowned upon the observationsof the High Court and observedthat it is neither legal iror proper for tire High Courts or the Administrative Tribunals to issue directions.or advisory-serihonsto the executive in lespectof the sphere which is exclusivelywithin their domain. Similar ^y-P-(C).No.11155/2015etc. ; Page16of18

¶1view has been expressed in the case of SiimangalaNaganath{sivgr2i), wheiein it was held that a matter of policy is not debatable in judicial foium. In the case of BharatAmratlaliro/^/7.an(supra),the Supreme Couitof India aftei observingthat althoughthe provisionsofthe Code of Civil Procedureare not applicableto proceedingsunderArticle226 ofthe Constitutionof Indiabut the generalprinciplesof the Code would apply. The Apex Courtalso observedthatthe Courtwouldalso grantthosereliefs specificallyprayed by the petitioner,although;the High Court had wide powers under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India and would be empoweredto mould rehefto meetthe ends ofjusticebut grantingarelief not prayed for would result in seriousprejudiceto the rights of interested party.

¶20Havingregardto the submissionmade and the Settledpositionofthe law, we find thatthe Tribunalhas exceededitsjurisdictionand decidedan issue whichwas neitherurgedbeforethe Tribunalnor the partieswere heardon this issue. We are rather sui-prised that once the observationsof the DivisionBench of JaipurHigh Court was availablewith the Tribunaland lepioducedby the Jribunalin para 13 ofthe impugnedorder,therewas no reason as to why the Tribunal decided to ignore those directions,even otherwise, in the absence of the observations;in our view the Tribunal couldnot have decidedan issue on whichtherewere no pleadingsand no opportunityofhearinggranted. Resultantly,w6 allowthese writ petitions and remandthe mattersback for fresh hearing. Impugnedordersin all the writpetitionsare set aside. All writpetitionsand pendingapplicationsare disposed of.

¶21These matters will be talfen up before the! Joint Registrar, Central AdministrativeTribunal on 12"' January, 2016 t>, fix a date before the appropriateBenchofCentralAdministrativeTribunal. yv.p.(C). No.11155/2015 etc. Page 17of 18 r-y' W. P. (C) Nos. 1434/2015,1436/2015 and 1452/2015

¶22It is agreedthatthe interimorderwill continuetill the hearingofthe OAs. W. P. (Q 7222/2015 '

¶23Petitioners are permitted to file amended memo of parties. Amended memo of parties with correet OA number has been filed. Same be taken on record. DECEMBER 11, 2015 gr fr.P.(C),No.IIl55/20I5etc. . G.S.SISTANI, J !/ SANGim^HMfeR/VSEHGAL,J PmUo/n

>-9- $-43, 44 & 59 to 117 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgmentdatedll"' December,2015 + W.P.(C)NOS.9353/2015,9951/2015,6269/2015,1434/2015,1436/2015,1452/2015, 6424/2015, 6425/2015, 6426/2015, 6427/2015, 2275/2015, 2688/2015 & 2753/2015, 3099/2015, 2665/2015, 2668/2015, 2670/2015, 6767/2015, 6781/2015, 6814/2015,' 6951/2015, 6643/2015, 4757/2015, 7726/2015, 8020/2015, 8035/2015, 11375/2015' 11376/2015 & 10960/2015 KISHORI LAL SAINI AND ANR JOGINDER AND ANR SURINDER SINGH & ANR MEWA LAL PAL & ANR BHARAT RAM & ANR SHIV PRASAD & ANR RAFIQ & ORS DHOOM SINGH & ANR ALINOORAND ORS. GHANSHYAM SINGH BHAGWAN DEEN AND ANR. RAMESH KUMAR AND ANR CM PRAKASH AND ANR RAKESH KUMAR DIGPAL SINGH CHAUHAN AND ANR. ASHOK KUMAR AND ANR JAYANTI PRASAD AND ANR ASHOK KUMAR AND ORS. RAM SARAN & ORS. GULJARI & ORS. MANOHAR LAL AND ORS. RIDER SINGH RAJENDER SINGH & ANR DESH RAJ DURYODHAN DAMAN SHET BAHADUR AND ANR. MUNA LAL AND ANR. SHYAM PYARE YADAV versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. Petitioners Petitioners Petitioiiers Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners Petitioner Petitioners Petitioner Petitioners Petitioner Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners Petitioners Petitioner Petitioners Petitioner Petitioner Petitioner Petitioners Petitioners Petitioner Respondents + W.P.(C)NOS.4422/2015, 4796/2015, 6210/2015, 6662/2015, 6691/2015, 4593/2015, 4768/2015, 4891/2015, 6219/2015, 4418/2015, 4932/2015, 6667/2015, 6692/2015, 3679/2015, 6715/2015, 6716/2015, 6718/2015, 6828/2015, 6836/2015, 6838/2015, 6870/2015, 6871/2015, 6873/2015, 7222/2015 & CM APPL. 13253/2015, W.P.(C)7258/2015 & CM APPL.13320/2015, W.P.(C)7281/2015 & CM APPL.13357/2015, W.P.(C)9155/2015 & CM APPL.20860/2015, W.P.(C)9805/2015 & CM APPL.23581/2015, W.P.(C)9831/2015 «& CM APPL.23703/2015, W.P.(C). No.9353/2015 & Ors. Page 1 of3 W.P.(C)9886/2015 & CM APPL.23923/2015, W.P.(C)9895/2015 APPL.23938/2015AND W.P.(C)10685/2015& CM.APPL27432/2015. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR versus MEWA LAL PAL AND ANR. KHUSHI RAM KANCHAN YADAV AND ORS. NAND RAM HARI OM BHARAT RAM AND ANR. RAMJI LAL SATYA PARKASH LALLU RAM SHIV PRASAD AND ANR. HARI SINGH BIR SINGH ALINOOR & ORS. RAM SARAN & ORS. MAHINDER SINGH GULJARI & ORS LOKI RANJIT SINGH AND ANR. YAD RAM AND ORS. ROHTAS RASID DIWAN SINGH & ANR SAGAR SINGH AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS MUNNA LAL AND ANR NAKU AND ORS RAFIQ AND ORS SATRHON ARUN KUMAR AND ANR ABDUL HASSAN AND ANR MOHD. SAMI ANAND SINGH SATYA PRAKASH JAGPAL SINGH , Petitioners Respondents Respondent Respondents Respondent Respondent Respondents Respondent Respondent Respondent Respondents Respondent Respondent Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondents Respondent ,Respondents ,Respondents , Respondent , Respondent , Respondents , Respondent . Respondents ,Respondents ,Respondents , Respondents , Respondent , Respondents . Respondents . Respondent . Respondent .Respondent .Respondent > & CM APPEARANCE Mr.J.K. Singh, Advocate for the petitioner/UOI, in W.P.(C)Nos.4422/2015,10585/2016, 4796/2015, 6210/2015, 6662/2015, 6691/2015, 4593/2015, 4768/2015, 4891/2015, 4418/2015, 4932/2015, 6667/2015, 6692/2015, 3679/2015, 6715/2015, 6716/2015, 6718/2015, 6828/2015, 6836/2015, 6838/2015, 6870/2015, 6871/2015, 6873/2015, 7222/2015, 7258/2015, 7281/2015, 9951/2015, 9155/2015, 9805/2015, 9831/2015, 9886/2015 8c 9895/2015. W.P.(C). No.9353/2015 & Ors. Page 2 of3 Ms.PunamSingh,Adv. for the petitionerin W.P.(C)Nos.9353/2015& 4757/2015. Mr.A.K. Trivedi, Advocate for the petitioner, in W.P.(C) 11375-76/2015,1434-36/2015, 1452/2015, 6424/2015, 6425/2015, 6426/2015, 6427/2015 & 6814/2015. Mr.R.V. Sinha, Adv. for the petitioner, in W.P.(C) Nos. 6781/2015. Mr.V.S.R Krishna, Adv. for the petitioner in W.P.(C)No.6219/2015. Mr.H.P. Chakravorti, Advs. for the petitioner, in W.P.(C)Nos. 2665/2015, 2668/2015, 2688/2015, 2670/2015,2753/2015, 3099/2015 & 6269/2015. Mr.TapasTyagi and Mr.RahulChaudhary,Advs. for the petitioner in W.P.(C)Nos.6767/2015 & 6781/2015. Mr.G