P.M. HARI KUMARversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                       P.M. HARi KUMAR                                       A
                               v.
                    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

                         SEPTEMBER 4, 1995
                                                                             B
           (S.C. AGRAWAL AND M.K. MUKHERJEE, JJ.]

        Conservatio11 of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggli11g Ac-
tivities Act, 1974 : Sections 3( I), 7 and 9.

      Dete11tion order--Unusual and lo11g delay in execution-Sincere and     c
eamest effmts not taken by authmities to se1ve the orde1~No satisfact01y
explanation given for delayDetention order held vitiated and quashed.

       The question in this petition is° whether the respondents have satis-
factorily explained the delay in executing the detention order passed D
against the petitioner under section 3(1) of the Conservation of }~oreign
Exchange and prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974. The petitioner
was arrested by the customs authorities on March 2, 1990 for smuggling
silver in gots into India.· On March 6, 1990 he was granted bail by
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam
with a specific direction that he should appear before the Assistant Col- E
lector, Preventive Detention, Cochin on any two days within a fortnight.
The High Court rejected the application of Customs Authorities for can-
cellation of bail but directed that the detenu shall not leave Trivandrum
and Ernakulam without permission of the Court. On July 11, 1990 the
Government of Kerala passed the impugned detention order. It also F
passed an order on August 3,1990 under section 7(1)(b) directing the
petitioner to appear before the Commissioner of Police on the ground that
detenu was absconding. A report under section 7(l)(a) was forwarded to
the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum who issued a non-bailable
warrant of arrest and a proclamation under section 82 as well as an order G
attaching the properties of the detenu under section 83 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973. A suit filed by the appellant on November 28,
1992 for resrtraining the State from arresting the detenu was dismissed
by the Subordinate Judge, Attingal, but an order of status quo was passed
which operated from November 30, 1992 to March 5, 1993. On January 11,
1993 the Customs Authorities filed a criminal complaint in the Court of H
                                   301
    302                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) Ernakulam. In
 • this case the petitioner sought exemption from personal appearance on
   many occasions. However, before the next date of hearing the accused was
   arrested at the Sahar International Airport, Bombay on July 3, 1994 and
   detained pursuant to the detention order dated July 11,1990. The validity
   of the impugned order was challenged on the ground that there was
B unreasonable ·and unexplained delay of about four years in executing the
   detention order. Several factors were relied on in support of the contention
   that respondents were not sincere and anxious to serve the detention
   order; (i) no attempt was made by the authorities to approach the Court
   for cancellation of petitioner's bail and thereby enforce his production;
c  and (ii) petitioner's prayer for exemption from personal appearance was
   not opposed by the authorities.

           In this Court it was claimed by the respondents that a communica-
    tion was sent to the residence of detenu which was undelivered. However,
D   no such communication was produced before this Court in support of the
    claim. Though the names and addresses of several persons whom the
    police is supposed to have contacted for ascertaining the whereabouts of
    the petitioner were given in the affidavit, the places where they actually
    searched for him were not disclosed. Further it .was the positive case of the
    respondents that during the entire period in question the petitioner was
E   staying out of India but neither the passport was produced nor an affidavit.
    was filed to substantiate the claim that the detenu had absconded and gone
    out of the country. A scrutiny of the affidavits filed on behalf of the
    detaining authority and the Commissioner of Police who was entrusted
    with the duty of serving the order of detention also revealed that the entire
    endeavour of the respondents was only to comply with the letters of section
F
    7 of the Act-and not its spirit-and even in that attempt they failed miserab-
    ly.

          Allowing the petition, this Court

G         HELD : The detention order is c1uashed. Unquestionably, except
    during the short period from November 30, 1992 to March 5, 1993, when
    the order of status-quo passed by the civil court was in operation, the
    detaining authority was at liberty to apprehend the petitioner and serve
    the order of detention during the period of four years. The respondents
H   did not make sincere and earnest efforts and take any urgent and effective
                          P.M. HARI KR. v. U.O.I.                         303

steps, which were available to them, to serve the order of detention on the      A
petitioner. That necessarily means that the unusual delay in serving the
order of detention has not been properly and satisfactorily explained.
                                                          [306-E-F; 312-C]
    Suhlzash Mu!jimal Gandhi v. Himingliana, [1994] 6 SCC 14 and
Bhawarlal Ganesltmal ji v. State of Tamil Nadu, [1979] 1 SCC 465; referred       B
to.

     CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (CRL.)
No. 149 of 1995.

     (Under Article 32 of the constitution of India for enforcement of           C
Fundamental rights.)

       Kapil Sibal, Manmohan, Girish Chandra and Saundra Rajan for the
Petitioner.

     K.T.S. Tulsi, ASG, V.K. Verma, Dilip Tandon, Vikas Pahwa, Lal               D
George and M.T. George for the respondent.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       M.K. MUKHERJEE, J. Pursuant to an order of detention dated July
11, 1990 made by the Secretary, Home and Vigilance Department, Govern-           E
ment of Kerala under Section 3(1) of the conservation of Foreign Exchange
and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to
as 'the Act') P.M. Hari Kumar, the petitioner herein, has been kept under
detention since July 3, 1994 with a view to preventing him from smuggling
goods. Consequent upon a declaration subsequently made on August 1,
1994, by an Additional Secretary (Ministry of Finance, Department of
                                                                                 F
Revenue), Government of India under Section 9(1) of the Act the
petitioner's detention is to continue for a period of two years. Assailing the
above order and declaration the present petition has been moved on his
behalf by his brother-in-law V. Rajan, for a writ of Habeas Corpus.
                                                                                 G
      Mr. Sibal, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner canvassed
three grounds in support of the petition. He first contended that the
unreasonable and unexplained delay of about four years in executing the
order of detention clearly demonstrated that the detaining authority had
not properly applied his mind and arrived at a real and genuine satisfaction
about the necessity of detaining the petitioner. He next contended that the H
    304                  SUPREME COl JRT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   grounds on which the order had been made were stale as the alleged
    smuggling activity of the petitioner referred to therein took place about
    four months earlier. He lastly submitted that the declaration made under
    Section 9 of the Act was also bad as it does not indicate that the declaring
    authority was aware of the unusual delay in serving the order of detention
    and, for that matter, was satisfied that notwithstanding such lapse of time,
B   the petitioner was required to be kept in continued detention, solely for
    the smuggling activity alleged in the grounds of detention.

          As in our opinion the first contention of Mr. Sibal has got to be
    accepted it will be redundant to deal with the other two. For a proper
    appreciation of that contention it will be necessary to refer to certain
c   relevant and undisputed facts.

    .    The petitioner was arrested by the Customs Authorities on March 2,
   1990 for smuggling silver ingots in india through the port of Cochin-which
   forms the sole basis for the impugned order of detention - and produced
D before the Additional chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences), Er-
   nakulam. On March 5, 1990 an application for bail was moved on his behalf
   and on the following day it was allowed by the learned Magistrate with a
   direction that he would appear before the Assistant Collector (preventive
   Department), Cochin on any two days within a fortnight. Aggrieved by such
E ·grant of bail the Customs Authorities preferred and application before the
   High Court for its cancellation. The High court, however, did not feel
   inclined to cancel the bail but directed, by its order dated March 21, 1990
   that the petitioner shall not leave Trivandrum and Ernakulam without
   permission of the Court and also made it clear that such direction was in
   addition to the condition imposed by the Additional Chief Judicial
F Magistrate.

          After the order of detention was made on July 11, 1990, the Govern-
    ment of Kerala issued an order on August 3, 1990 under Section 7 (1) (b)
    of the Act directing the Petitioner to appear before the Conunissioner of
    Police, Trivandrum City within 30 days as, according to it, he was abscond-
G   ing. On the same day, the Government also made a report in writing to the
    Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum in accordance with Section 7 (1) (a)
    of the Act. On receipt of the report, the Magistrate issued a non- bailable
    warrant of arrest and a proclamation in accordance with Section 82 Cr.
    P.C. requiring the appearance of the petitioner before him on October 31,
H   1990 and also ordered the attachment of his properties in terms of Section
              P.M. HARi KR. v. U.0.1. [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.]                305

83 Cr. P.C.                                                                      A

      On November 28, 1992 the petitioner filed a suit in the court of the
Subordinate Judge, Attingal Challenging the order of detention and, along
with the suit, filed an application for a temporary injunction restraining the
State of Kerala from arresting the detenu under the Act. On that applica-
tion the learned Judge passed an order on December 1, 1992 for main-
                                                                                 B
tenance of status- quo. However, the suit was dismissed on Feb. 26, 1993,
but the interim order was allowed to continue for a week more.

       On January 11, 1993 the Customs Authorities filed a complaint in the
Court of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Economic Offences) C
Ernakulam against the petitioner and two others for smuggling the silver
ingots referred in the grounds of detention, being Case No. C.C.M. 2/93
and they were summoned to appear on March 5, 1993. On the date so fixed
the ·petitioner made a prayer for exemption from personal appearance
which was allowed. As the correct addresses of the other two accused were D
not furnished by the prosecution the case was adjourned from time to time.
The petitioner however did not appear on any of the adjourned dates and
his application for exemption from appearance on each such occasion was
allowed. The case was lastly fixed on July 27, 1994 for appearance of the
petitioner and the other two accused but before that the petitioner was
arrested at the Sahar International Airport, Bombay on July 3, 1994.        E

      To explain away the delay.in serving the order of detention Mr. Tulsi,
the learned Additional Solicitor General,, took us through the counter
affidavits filed on behalf of the detaining authority and the Commissioner
of Police, Trivandrum, who was entrusted with the duty of serving the order      F
of detention, and contended that all possible steps were taken to ap-
prehend the petitioner since the order of detention was passed but he
could not be found at any of his known addresses. According to Mr. Tulsi,
in view of the averments made in those affidavits it must be held that the
delay had been satisfactorily and adequately explained. In support of his        G
contention he relied upon the judgment of this Court in Subhash Muljimal
Gandhi v. Himingliana, [1994] 6 SCC 14 wherein it was held that from an
unusual and long delay in execution of an order of detention an inference
that the detention was punitive and not preventive could be legitimately
drawn unless the detaining authority satisfied the Court that such delay was
occasioned not by an omission or commission on its part but owing to the H
    '306                 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   abscondance of the detenu.

           In responding to the above contentions of Mr. Tulsi, Mr. Sibal
    submitted that if the concerned authorities were really anxious to serve the
    impugned order of detention but could not do so as the petitioner was
    absconding they could-and was expected to - move an application in the
B   Court, which granted bail to the petitioner, or the High Court for cancel-
    lation of the bail on the ground that the conditions imposed thereto were
    violated by the petitioner. He further submitted that there was also nothing
    on record to show that the concerned Authorities approached the Court,
    in which the complaint had been filed against the petitioner and others in
c   January, 1993 and was pending trial at the material time to ensure personal
    appearance of the petitioner so as to enable them to serve the order of
    detention. On the contrary, the Customs Authorities, who lodged the
    complaint did not raise any objection to the petitioner's prayer for exemp-
    tion from personal appearance on any of the dates fixed for appearance of
    the accused, argued Mr. Sibal. He lastly contended that the claim of the
D   respondents in their affidavits that attempts at regular intervals were made
    to serve the d~tention order by going to the house of the petitioner was
    patently untrue for there could not be any occasion to visit his house at
    least after he was treated as an absconder and recourse was taken to
    section 7 of the Act on August 3, 1990.
E
          Unquestionably, except during the short period from November 30,
    1992 to March 5, 1993, when the order of status-quo passed by the Civil
    Court was in operation, the detaining authority was at liberty to apprehend
    the petitioner and serve the order of detention during the period of four
    years. The only question therefore, that falls for our determination is
F   whether the explanation of the respondents that they made sincere at-
    tempts and took all effective steps to apprehend the petitioner but failed
    as he was absconding is satisfactory or not.

           In dealing with the delay in execution of the order the detaining
G authority has stated, mter alia, in the counter affidavit (paragraph 3) as
    under:

             "He did not appear before the investigating officers as directed by
             Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Eranakulam in the
             Order dated 7.3.1990 in Cr!. M.P. NO. 692/90 in SD/JNTL2!90. He
H            was not available in his residence; communication sent to his
              P.M. HARi KR. v. U.0.1. (M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.]               307

        residence was returned undelivered. He did not appear for personal A
        heming nor did he appear in person before the additional Chief
        Judicial Magistrate, Eranalatlam in CC 211993."

                                                        (emphasis supplied)

      In reiteration of his above statement, he has further stated therein :    B

        "It is submitted that all possible steps have been taken to ap-
        prehend the detenu. The delay in executing the detention order
        .occurred solely due to the recalcitrant and refractory conduct of
        the detenu. It is submitted that the detenu was absconding and
        concealing himself to avoid the execution of the detention order.
                                                                                c
        It may kindly be noticed that bail was granted to de_tenu on 6.3.1990
        With a specific direction that he should appear before the Assistant
        Collect01; Preventive Depmtment, Cochin on any 2 days within a
        fortnight. In Oiminal M.C. 241190, the Honourable High Court of
        Kera/a has stipulated that the detenu should not leave 77tiTUvanan-     D
         thapuram without pennission of the Honourable Cowt. It is sub-
        mitted that the detenu has not satisfied the conditions mentioned in
        the bail order."

                                                       (emphasis supplied)
                                                                                E
       If the respondents were really sincere and anxious to serve the order
of detention without any delay it was expected of them, in the fitness of
things, to approach the High Court or, at least, the Court which initially
granted the bail for its cancellation as, according to their own showing, the
petitioner had violated the conditions imposed, and thereby enforce his         F
appearance or production as the case might be. Surprisingly, however, no
such steps were taken and instead thereof it is now claimed that a com-
munication was sent to his residence which was returned undelivered.
Apart from the fact that no such communication has been produced before
us in support of such claim, it has not been stated that any follow up action   G
was takentill 3.8.90 when Section 7 of the Act was invoked. Similarly_
inexplicable is the respondents' failure to insist upon the personal presence
of the petitioner in the criminal case (C.C. No. 2/93) filed at the instance
of the Custom Authorities, more so when the carriage of its proceeding
was with them and the order of detention was passed at their instance. On
the contrary, he was allowed to remain absent, which necessarily raises the     H
    308                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A    inference that the Customs Authorities did not oppose his prayer, much
    ·less bring to the notice of the Court about the order of detention passed
     against the detenu.

           So far as the steps taken before initiating the proceeding under
    Section 7 (l)(a) of the Act are concerned the Commissioner of Police had
B   this to say in his counter affidavit (paragraph 3) :

                 "The detention order is issued on 11.7.1990. Thereafter it was
             forwarded to the office of the Commissioner of Police. Thiruvanan-
             thapuram City and the same was received at the office of the
c            Commissioner of Police on 12.7.1990. It is submitted that various
             enquiries were made during the period between 12.7.1990 and
             30.7.1990 regarding the whereabouts of the warrantee. The police
             has visited the residence of the detenu, native place and neigh-
             bouring places in search of the detenu. Several persons were
             contacted for getting the whereabouts of the detenu but he was
D            found absconding. The persons contacted by the police as well as
             the informants set up for this purpose informed police that he had
             gone to Gulf countries and he was not available in his native place.
             Accordingly a Report No. 589/GI/90-C dated 30.7.1990 was sent
             to the State Government."
E
          It is interesting to note that though the names and addresses of
    several persons whom the police is supposed to have contacted for ascer-
                                                                                       ..
    taining the whereabouts of the petitioner have been given in the affidavit,
    the places where they actually searched for him had not been disclosed.

F          As regards the proceeding initiated and. steps taken by the Chief
    Judicial Magistrate, Trivendrum under Section 7(1)(a) of the Act, the
    detaining authority has filed a supplementary affidavit in obedience to a
    d.irection of this Court. To indicate the cursory manner in which the matter
    was dealt with even at this stage, it will be necessary to extrac.t the relevant
G   passages from that affidavit; which read as under :

                  "3. It is submitted that the report contemplated under Section
             7(1) (a) of the COFEPOSA Act was forwarded to the Chief
             Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum for necessary action on 3.8.1990.
             It is seen from the proceedings of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Cowt.
H            Trivand1Um that non-bailable wanwzt was issued on 8.8.1990,
      P.M. HARI KR. v. U.0.1. [M.K. MUKHERJEE,J.)                      309

authmising the Asst. Commissioner of Police, Cantenment Sub-                  A
division T1ivandTUm to wrest and produce the wanwitee, Slui Hali
Kumar and the case was posted to 31.10.1990 for hewing. The
  certified copy of the non-bailable warrant issued from the Chief
  Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum is produced herewith and marked
  as Annexure IV. After conducting detailed enqui1ies, regarding the
                                                                              B
. whereabouts of the wanwitee, police filed a rep01t on 31.10. 90 stating
thai the wa1rantee was not available at his native place and that his
whereabouts c_ould not be located. The report submitted to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate Court is incorporated on the reverse side of
Annexure IV.
                                                                              c
  4. It is fwther submitted that after aniving at the satisfaction that the
  wan·antee was absconding, the proclamation has been made by the
, Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8.8.90. A certified copy of the said
 prodamation issued in Calend~r Case No. CMP No. 3650/90 on
 the files of Chief Judicial Magistrate court, Trivandrum is D
 produced herewith and marked as Annexure V. The facts con-
 tained in the proclamation was publically read to the inhabitants
 of the neighbourhood of the warrantee and a copy of the same was
 affixed on 21.9.90 at the conspicuous part of the house, where the
 warrantee was residing. A report to that effect was forwarded to
 the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Trivandrum by the police on E
 30.10.90 and the same is incorporated on the reverse page of the
 certified copy of the proclamation.

 5. It is fwther submitted that as per proceedings date 8.8.90 in CMP
 No. 3650/90, the leamed Chief Judicial Magistrate ordered attach-            F
 ment of the prope1ties of the w01rantee available in TlivandTUm
 Distlict, ce1tified copy of the said proceedings is produced herewith,
 marked as Annexure VI. On receipt of the said attachment order,
 the police conducted detailed enquiries and reported to the Chief
 Judicial Magistrate Court that the warrantee did not possess any
 properties liable to be attached. The report dt. 23.10.90 send by            G
 the police is incorporated on the reverse page of Annexure VI.

 6. In this context, it is submitted that the Government have ob-
 tained a report from the Chief Judicial· Magistrate Court,
 Trivandrum explaining the various steps taken against the warran- . H
    310                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A           tee (detenu), pursuant to the receipt of the report under Section
            7(1) (a) of the COFEPOSA Act. A true copy of the said report
            dated 16.8.95 of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Trivandrum is'
            produced herewith and marked as Annexure VII. Thus it mn.,t
            respectfully submitted that all the steps contemplated under law were
            taken to execute the detention order."
B
                                                            [emphasis supplied]

           From the annexures referred to in the above quoted passages we find
    that on one and the same day i.e. August 8, 1990 non- bailable warrant and
c   written proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr. P.C. were issued and
    order of attachment under section 83 Cr. P.C. made. The manner in which
    the executing authority dealt with the above three orders of the Magistrate
    as can be culled from the above quoted passages of the affidavit also makes
    an interesting reading. According to the affidavit after conducting detailed
D   enquiries regarding the whereabouts of the warrantee (the petitioner) the
    police sent a report on 31.10.90 stating that the warrantee was not avail-
    able at his native place (annexure IV). It is also stated therein that it was
    only after arriving at the satisfaction on the basis of the above report that
    the warrantee (petitioner) was absconding the proclaimation was made by
    the Chief Judicial Magistrate on 8.8.1990. As has been earlier noticed both
E   these steps were taken by the learned Magistrate on August 8, 1990' and it
    must be said therefore that the Affidavit does not depict the corre~t state
    of things available on record. As regards the proclaimation dated August
    8, 1990 (annexure V), the detaining authority states in his affidavit that the
    same was affixed on September 21, 1990 at the conspicuous part of the
F   house where the warrantee was residing and a report to that effect was
    forwarded to the Magistrate. The assertion of the executing authority in
    the affidavit that the police conducted detailed enquiries about properties
    of the petitioner is belied by endorsement of the police in Annexure VI as
    it only shows that the police had gone to the address appearing thereon.
    While on this point it is pertinent to mention that annexures IV, V and VI
G   refer to one and the same address even though in the affidavit it is stated
    that the warrant was attempted to the executed at the 'native place' of the
    petitioner, and the others at the address appearing therein. Coming now
    to the report of the Chief Judicial Magistrate dated August 16, 1995
    (Annexure VII) we get that the proclamation was affixed on the Court's
H   Notice Board on August 8, 1990, but no contemporaneous record in
              P.M. HARi KR. v. U.0.1. [M.K. MUKHERJEE, J.]               311

support thereof has been produced. Before we close our discussion on this       A
aspect of the matter, we wish to point that if really the respondents were
zealous in executing the order promptly it was expected of them to per-
suade the Court to get the proclamation published in accordance with
Section 82 (2) (ii) Cr. P.C. For the foregoing discussion, we are constrained
to say that the entire endeavour of the respondents was only to comply with
                                                                                B
the letters of Section 7 of the Act - and not its spirit - and even in that
attempt they have failed miserably.

      Now that we have dealt with the steps taken by the respondents to
apprehend the petitioner prior to and in course of the proceeding initiated
under Section 7 of the Act it will be necessary to advert to the steps taken    C
by them subsequent thereto.

        In their affidavits the respondents have asserted that in regular and
frequent intervals the police 0fficers had gone to the residence of the
petitioner and nearby places to apprehend the petitioner. The date of such· D
visits-till the date the Civil Court passed the order of st<.:~us quo - have all
been detailed therein. It has then been averred by the Executing authority
in its affidavit that the enquiries held by the police officers who had gone
to apprehend him revealed that the petitioner who had gone to apprehend
him revealed that the petitioner had gone to Gulf countries and he was
absconding throughout the entire peliod. Similar averments have been made E
in respect of the period following the dismissal of the suit till the execution
of the order. If the enquiries had revealed that the detenu had already left
for the Gulf countries, the attempt to arrest the petitioner from his house
in regular intervals must be said to be an empty formality to which, as it
appears, recourse was taken only to keep the record straight and for no F
other purpose. It will be pertinent to mention here that,· according to the
respondents, the petitioner was arrested while he was going out of India
(and not coming to India) with an international passport which was issued
at Bombay on 12.4.1990, that is prior to the date of the passing of the order
of detention. If that be so, the entries in the passport would have unam-
biguously answered the question whether the petitioner was absconding G
and, if so, during which period. We hasten to add that a person may also
abscond without going out of his country but here, it is the positive case of
the respondents that during the entire period in question the petitioner was
staying out of India. If the above assertion of the respondents was correct
they could have produced the passport or an affidavit on the basis thereof H
    312                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A   to substantiate their claim and avail of the observation made by this Court
    in Bhawarlal Ganehsmalji v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1979] 1 SCC 465 that it
    the delay was found to be the result of the recalcitrant or refractory        ,..
    conduct of the detenu in evading arrest, there was warrant to c_onsider the
    'link' not snapped but strengthe!}ed.

B          On the conclusions as above we must hold that the respondents did
    not make any sincere and and earnest efforts and take any urgent and
    effective steps, which were available to them, to serve the order of deten-
    tion on the petitioner. That necessarily means that the unusual delay in
    serving the order of detention has not b~en properly . and satisfactorily
C   explained.

          We, therefore, allow this petitioner and quash the impugned order
    of detention. Let the detenu be released forthwith unless wanted in some
    other case.

    T.N.A.                                                    Petition allowed.




                                                                                  -