Holding

The admission committee’s procedure of filling the Chandigarh pool first and then the All India pool was valid, and a vacant Scheduled Caste seat in the All India pool must be offered to a Scheduled Caste candidate from the Chandigarh pool.

Summary

The case concerned admission to the MBBS course at Government Medical College, Chandigarh for 1998‑99, where 85% of seats were reserved for the Chandigarh pool and 15% for the All India pool. The petitioners challenged the administration’s method of first filling the Chandigarh pool and then the All India pool, arguing it violated the spirit of the notification and prospectus, and also contested the allocation of a Scheduled Caste seat. The Supreme Court held that neither the notification nor the prospectus prescribed the order of filling seats, allowing the admission committee to invoke its overriding‑conditions clause and fill the Chandigarh pool first, a method deemed fair and reasonable. The Court also clarified that a vacant Scheduled Caste seat in the All India pool must be offered to a Scheduled Caste candidate from the Chandigarh pool, not to a general‑category candidate. Consequently, the High Court’s directions were set aside and the appeals were allowed.

Issues considered

The order of filling seats between the Chandigarh pool and the All India pool under the 1998 notification and prospectus
Whether the admission committee could invoke the overriding‑conditions clause in the prospectus
Allocation of a vacant Scheduled Caste seat in the All India pool

Subjects

MBBS admissionAll India quotaChandigarh poolReservationScheduled Caste seatOverriding conditionsMedical college admission

Judgment

+

A PREETI MITTAL ETC. ETC.
v.
GAGANJOT KAUR SAIRA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.
-
APRIL 5, 1999
,
B [K. VENKATASWAMI AND S.S. MOHAMMED QUADRI, JJ.]

1·
Education :

Admission to MBBS Course-Chandigarh Pool and All India Poo/-
C Notification dated 19.9.1998-85% seats kept open for Chandigarh Pool
and remaining 15% seats reserved for candidates from All India Pao/-
Admission Committee's decision to fill up Chandigarh Pool first and thereafter
All India Pool-On challenge, High Court holding that procedure adopted
not in accordance with the Instructions/Prospectus-On appeal, held, neither
D the Notification nor the prospectus contain any indication for filling up All
India Pool first and thereafter Chandigarh Pool-Procedure adopted by
Admission Committee fair and reasonable as it made the selection meaning/U/-
HigfJ Court not justified in interfering with the matter.

Admission to MBBS Course-Seat reserved for Scheduled Caste
E candidate from All India Pool-Non-availability of candidqte from the said
Pool-Held, the reserved seat must go to Scheduled caste candidate from
Chandigarh Pool-High Court erred in directing the seat to be given to
general category candidate from All India Pool.

In Government Medical College, Chandigarh for MBBS Course, 85%
F seats were kept open for Chandigarh Pool and remaining 15% seats were
reserved for Students from All India quota. Notification dated 19.9.1998 was
issued by the College administration for filling up 15% seats from All India
quota. Clause (d) of the said notification stated that a candidate clearing in
All India Pool though belonging to Chandigarh, shall have the right to be
G considered and admitted in All India Pool. Similar clauses were also found
in the prospectus of the College. The respondents challenged the select list
on the ground that the procedure adopted by the administration by filling up
85% of Chandigarh Pool first and subsequently filling up of remaining
15% All India Pool was against the spirit of the Notification and clarification
in the prospectus. High Court allowed the writ petition holding that the
H procedure adopted by the Administration .was not in accordance with the
420
+
PREETI MITT AL v. G.K. SAIRA 421

instructions/prospectus. The High Court also set aside the selection of A
scheduled caste candidate from Chandigarh Pool and directed that the seat
should be given to general category candidate from All India Pool. Aggrieved
by the order of the High Court, the present appeals are preferred.

Allowing the appeal, this Court
B
HELD : 1. Neither the notification nor the prospectus issued frr
admission to MBBS Course for the session 1998-99 did contain any indication
that the seats for All India Pool would be filled up first and thereafter the
seats reserved for Chandigarh Pool would be filled up. This necessitated the
Admission Committee to invoke clause 1 of the 'overriding conditions' in the C
prospectus. The High Court was, therefore, not right in holding that there
was no room for the Admission Committee to invoke clause 1 of the
'overriding conditions'. (426-E-F; 427-E]

2. The manner in which the seats were filled up by the Chandigarh
Administration is quite in accordance with the view expressed by this Court D
in Minoo Noazer Kavarana.

Thus the High Court was not justified in interfering with the decision
of the Chandigarh Administration in the matter of filling up of seats for the
MBBS course. (428-C-; 429-A-B]
E
*State of Maharashtra v. Minoo Noazer Kavarana & Ors. etc., (1989]
2 sec 626, relied on.

Neetika Bansal v. Chandigarh Admn. & Ors., CWP No. 11653/98
decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court, held inapplicable.
F
3. The Admission Committee decided to fill up Chandigarh Pool first
and thereafter to fill up the All India Pool, for the reason that as such a
course will benefit the All India Pool candidates and the Chandigarh Pool·
candidates were eligible to be considered for both Pools and they were in a
large number. It was also considered' that the meritorious candidates of
Chandigarh Pool were accommodated in the 43 seats set apart for Union G
Territory and the Chandigarh students did not encroach upon the seats.set
apart from the All India Pool for which also they (Chandigarh Pool) were
eligible to be considered. Thus the reasons for filling up Chandigarh Pool
first appears to be fair and reasonable for it made the selection of candidates
from All India Pool meaningful. The observations of the High Court that the H
+
422 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A decision of the Admission Committee to CUI up the Chandigarh Pool seats
fit;st had the effect of denying admission to some of the Chandigarh Pool
candidates who would have othei;wise secured admission in the All India Pool
is also n~t sustainable as the meritorious students ·from the Chandigarh
Pool were permitted to compete with the All India Pool candidates. In fact in
B the All India Pool list published, candidate from Chandigarh Pool were
selected. [427-F-H; 428-A-B]

4. The High Court erred in directing that the seat belonging to
Scheduled Caste category in All India Pool to be given to-general category
in the same pool. As per clause (d) of the Notification, the candidates from
C Chandigarh Pool are entitled to compete both for Chandiga.rh Pool as well
as All India Pool. That being the position, when a Schedul~d Caste candidate
was not available in .the All India Pool and such candidate is available in
• Pool that must go to a 'Scheduled Caste candidate in Chandigarh
Chandigarh
Pool. The reason given by the Hig\1 Court that on a reading of clause 3 of
the clarifications the seat should go to general candidate in All India Pool,
D is based on wrong appreciation of that clause 3. There is no indication that
.the seat belonging to Scheduled Caste category in a particular Pool should
go to general category of that Pool. Clause 3. generally says that if a
Scheduled Caste candidate is not available !he seat must go to general
category. This clause read with clause 4 of the clarifications corresponding
E to clause (d) of the Notification, will clearly sh~w that if a Scheduled Caste
candidate is JIOt available in All India Pool that must go to Scheduled Caste
~andidate in Chandigarh Pool, if available. (429-H; 430-A-E]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2142of1999
Etc.
p From the Judgment and Order dated 26:11.98 of the Punjab & Haryana
High Court in C.W.P. No. 12304of1998.
M.P. Verma, Mrs. Sheela Goel, Subrat Birla, S.C. Birla, Ms . Indu Malhotra, ....
Rao Ranjit, Manohar Lal, Dinesh Verma, R.D. Upadhyay, lli. Ramesh K. Haritash,
C.S. Ashri, Shailendra Bhardwaj, S.L. Gupta. K.P. Singh, K.K. Misra, J.S. Atri
d and Krishan Pal Singh for the Appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

K. VENKA T ASW AMI, J. Special leave granted.

All these eight appeals arise out of a common order dated 26.11.98 of
H the Punjab and Haryana High Court made in CWP Nos. 12304, 12350, 13775,
PREETI MITTAL v. G.K. SAIRA [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 423

13296, 12350of1998. The Chandigarh Administration & Another (hereinafter A
called the 'appellants') have preferred four appeals and the individuals affected
by the order under appeal have filed separately four appeals. The common
issue relates to the admission of the candidates to the MBBS course for the
year 1998-99 in the Govern~ent Medical college, Chandigarh (hereinafter
called the 'College').
B
Brief facts leading to the fili?g of the Writ Petitions are as under.

The Government Medical College, Chandigarh, was started in the year
1991 with an annual intake of 50 MBBS seats. 15% of the seats (7 seats) were
being filled by the CoUege from the All India Quota seats in accordance with C
the decision of this Court from the year 1991 upto 1994 by admitting students
selected through the Combined Entrance Test conducted by the CBSE, New
Delhi. It appears that from the year 1994-1995 onwards the Directorate of
Health Services, Ministry of Health & Family Welfare, Government of India,
did not send any students against the 7 seats on account of an order of the
Punjab & Haryana High Court holding that the College was not a recognised D
one. Consequently, all the 50 seats were filled exclusively from the Chandigarh
Pool. While so, on 27.3.1998 the Punjab & Haryana High Court CWP No. 2731
of 1998 held that 100% reservations for the students of Chandigarh Pool was
against the settled principles of law on the point. In view of the said judgment
dated 27.3.98 of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, it was decided by the
Administration to fill up 15% seats from All India Pool and the remaining 85% E
from Chandigarh Pool. Accordingly, a Notification was issued on 19.9.98. In
the said Notification, clause (d) reads as follows :-

"If candidate clears in All India Pool, even though belonging to
Chandigarh, he/she would have the right to be considered and admitted
in that pool subject to his/her merit. Other conditions would remain F
the same."

Similar clause identically worded bearing No. 4 finds a place under the
heading 'Clarifications' in the Prospectus issued for the year 1998 by the
M• G
After the select list was published, the contesting respondents in these
appeals challenged the same by filing the separate Writ Petitions.

The question that fell for consideration of the Punjab & Haryana High
Court was whether the Administration was right in first filling up 85% of H
_.+.
'

424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A Chandigarh Pool out of merit list and then filling up the remaining 15% of All
India Pool. According to the Writ Petitioners beforethe High Court (hereinafter
referred to as 'Writ Petitioners'), the Administration was not right and it has
acted against the spirit of clause (d) of the Notification corresponding to
clause 4 of the 'Clarifications' given in the Prospectus. The contention of the
Writ Petitioners was that 15% of the All India Pool must have been filled in
B first and the remaining 85% of Chandigarh Pool must have been filled up
subsequently. The reason for taking such a stand by the Writ Petitioners was
that by filling up Chandigarh Pool first, the meritorious students hailing from
Chandigarh lost their seats/claims, which had been given to candidates from
All India Pool. Factually speaking, according to the Writ Petitioners the first
C seven numbers from the merit list were all candidates from the Chandigarh
Pool. But for the impugr.ed procedure followed by the Administration by
filling up Chandigarh Pool in the first instance, no single seat could have
gone to candidates from All India Pool. In th<tt way, according to the Writ
Petitioners, the Chandigarh Pool candidates are affected. On the other hand,
the reason for filling up the Chandigarh Pool first followed by All India Pool,
D according to the Administration, was to safeguard the interests of All India
Pool candidates and to make the order of the High Court meaningful and
purposeful.

It was the claim of the Administration that neither the Notification nor
E the Prospectus gives any specific direction regarding the filling up of
candidates in the first instance from either Pool. Therefore, the Adrrinistration
by invoking clause-I of the 'Overriding Conditions' given in the Prospectus,
devised the method as noticed above.

The High Court, after considering the rival submission and interpreting
F clause (d) of the Notification equivalent to clause 4 of the 'Clarifications', was
of the view that the procedure followed by the Administration was not in
accordance with the said instructions/Prospectus. The High Court also was
of the view that there was no occasion for the Administration to invoke·
clause-I of the overriding conditions as there was no ambiguity. It is seen
G from the judgment that the High Court proceeded on the basis that the
Notification dated 19.5.98 explicitly made a provision that the All India Pool
candidates would be filled in first and the Chandigarh Pool thereafter according
to the merit. This assumption appears to be not correct. In view of what is
stated above, the High Court allowed the Writ Petitions and directed the
appellants to reframe the merit list of the eligible candidates for the admission
H to MBBS course by filling up All India Pool in the first instance and then the
PREETI MITT AL"· G.K. SAIRA [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 425
candidates from the Chandigarh Pool. The High Court ~!so set aside the seat A
given to a Scheduled Caste candidate from Chandigarh Pool on the ground
that no Scheduled Caste candidate from All India Pool was available and
directed that the seat should be given to the general candidate from All India
Pool.

Aggrieved by the above decision of the High Court, these appeals are B
preferred by special leave.

The leading argument was advanced by Ms. Indu Malhotra, learned
counsel appearing for the Administration. According to the learned counsel,
the common issue raised in these cases is a one time issue in the sense that C
the seats belonging to the All India Pool were being filled up, upto the year
1994, by accepting the students whose names were given by the Central
Board of Secondary Education. Thereafter, between the year 1995-1998 no
students were accepted from the All India Quota due to lack of recongnition
of Government Medical College, Chandigarh, by the Medical Council of India.
It is only for the year 1998-1999 the students were sought to be accepted from D
the All India Pool in compliance with the directions given by the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana. With effect from the academic year commencing 1999,
the Central Board of Secondary Education would recommend names of
candidates to be given admission to the seats set apart for the All India Pool
and , therefore, the present arrangement was only for the academic year 1998-
99 and will not recur hereafter. E
Apart from the above submission, it is the contention of the learned
counsel for the appellants that this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Minoo
Noazer Kavarana & Ors., etc., [1989] 2 SCC 626 has categorically held that
filling up of seats by the Administration is the exclusive jurisdictior. of the
Administration and the Courts shall not interfere with that unless the course F
adopted by the Administration was arbitrary. According to the learned counsel,
the Administration has to resort to the method' adopted in these cases to
safeguard the interests of the candidates from All India Pool and if the
dire~tion given b~ the High Court is to be followed, it will be not only
d~tnmental to the interests of students applying under All India Pool, but also G
will be contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Minoo Noazer Kavarana 's
case (supra).

. On_ ~he other hand, counsel appearing for the contesting respondents
(wnt pet1t1oners before the High Court) contended that the High c rt
"gh . . . ou was
rt t m mterpretmg the scope of clause (d) of the Notification corresponding H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A to clause 4 of the 'Clarifications'. It was also the contention of thP. learned
counsel appearing for the contesting respondents that it is not open to the
Administration to go against a judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
rendered in CWP No. 11653/98 Neetika Bansal v. Chandigarh Admn. & Ors.,
just before the release of the list, dismissing a writ petition moved by a
B candidate from All India Pool praying for a direction to the Administration to
fill up first the candidates from Chandigarh Pool and then the candidates from
All India Pool.

Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Shishir Gupta ·(Writ
Petitioner in W.P. No. 13775/98) submitted that his name (Shishir Gupta) was
C found in the merit list at Serial No. 50 and in spite of that, he was not selected
whereas Serial Numbers below him were found in the Select List. To this, the
answer of learned counsel for the appellant-Administration is that Shishir
Gupta did not apply for a seat ih the Government Medical College, Chandigarh,
and therefore he cannot find fault with the Select List.

D We have considered the rival submissions.

We have already seen that from 1994-1995 to 1997-1998 no students
were selected from the All India quota on the ground that the Government
Medical College, Chandigarh had no recognition from Medical Council of
India. It is only by reason of the judgment of the High Court in C. W.P. No.
E 2731/98 the Chandigarh Administration decided to fill up 7 seats by candidates
from All India Pool. It is important to bear in mind that neither the Notification
nor the Prospectus issued for admission to MBBS Course for the Session
1998-99 did contain any indication that the seats for All India Pool would be
filled up first and thereafter the seats reserved for Chandigarh/U.T. Pool
would be filled up. The High Court at one place wrongly stated as follows:-
F
"Administration in its Notification dated 19.05.1998 explicitly made a
provision that the All India Pool candidates would be filled in the first
and the Chandigarh Pool. thereafter according to merit."

G Learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents also could
not sustain the above assumption of the High Court as there was no such
direction in the Notification/Prospectus.

While rejecting the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the
Administration about the invoking clause 1 of the overriding conditions, the
H High Court observed thus :-
_.-

PREETI MITTAL v. G.K. SAIRA [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 427
"Clause I of the "Overriding conditions" given at page 6 of the A
Brochure is reproduced below :-

I. Admissions are made according to the less and regulations as
mentioned in this prospectus. However, in all matters which
either need interpref~tion or for which no provision exists in
the prospectus, the decision of the Admission Committee shall B
be final, no correspondence will be entertained regarding
rejection or disqualification of any candidate."

It will be seen that this clause authorised the Admission Committee
to operate in two fields in case of doubt : firstly, in matters which
needed interpretation and secondly, in such matters where no provision C
existed in the prospectus. To our mind, the conditions for exercise of
this power did not exist in the present case as_ tJ:-.ere was no ambiguity,
flaw or any gap in the provisions of the prospectus or the brochure
with regard to the manner of method to be followed in the making of
admissions as it had repeatedly been set out by implication in both D
these documents that admissions were to be madt! first against the All
India Pool and thereafter against the Chandigarh Pool seats."

The above observations also do not appear to be correct because as
noticed earlier neither the Notification nor the Prospectus give any guideline
as to the manner of filling up of the seats which necessitated the Admission E
committee to invoke Clause I of the 'Overriding Conditions' in the Prospectus.
The High Court was, therefore, not right in holding that there was no room
for the Admission Committee to invoke Clause I of the 'Overriding Conditions'.

It is seen from the papers that on 3.8.1998, a day before the publication
of the results, the Admission Committee decided to fill up Chandigarh Pool F
first and thereafter to fill up the All India Pool. The reasons for doing so,
according to Chandigarh Administration, were that such a course will benefit
the All India Pool candidates and the Chandigarh Pool candidates were
eligible to be considered for both Pools and they were in a large number. It
was also considered that the meritorious candidates of Chandigarh Pool were G
accommodated in the 43 seats set apart for Union Territory and the Chandigarh
students did not encroach upon the seats set apart from the All India Pool
for which also they (Chandigarh Pool) were eligible to be considered. The
reasons for filling up Chandigarh Pool first do appear to us as fair and
!"easonable for it made the selection of candidates from All India Pool
meaningful. The observations o( the High Court that the decision of the H
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999) 2 S.C.R.

A Admission Committee to fill up the Chandigarh Pool seats first had the effect
of denying admission to some of the Chandigarh Pool candidates who would
have otherwise secured admission in the All India Pool is also not sustainable
as the meritorious students from the Chandigarh Pool were permitted to I
~

compete with the All India Pool candidates. As a matter of fact in the All India
B Pool list published, candidate from Chandigarh Pool was selected.

It is in these circumstances that the judgment of this Court in State of
Maharashra v. Minoo Moazer Kavarana & Ors. etc., [1989] 2 SCC 626 was
pressed into service by the Chandigarh Administration before the High Court.
The learned Judges however were of the view that the judgment was rendered
C on the peculiar facts of that case and, therefore, reliance cannot be placed.
On the other hand, we find that the judgment of this Court in the said case
squarely covers the issue. This Court in the said judgment, while dealing with
more or less similar situation, observed as follows :-

"It may be stated at this stage that by virtue of the Judgment in the
D case of Nidamarti Maheshkumar v. State of Maharashtra, relating to
admission in Medical Colleges in Maharashtra, the State of
Maharashtra laid down the policy ofregional reservation of 70 percent
of seats for the region of Bombay and the remaining 30 percent of
seats for the candidates outside Bombay but within the State of
Maharashtra. It has already been noticed that the High Court is of the
E
view that the 30 percent of seats should have been filled up first and,
therefore, 70 percent of regional seats should have been filled up. We
have not been able to understand the reason for this view of the High
Court. If 30 per cent of seats are filled up, the candidates who are
residing outside Bombay will have to compete with the local Bombay
F students who are also eligible for admission in the said seats. It may
so happen that most of the seats meant for candidates outside Bombay
may be filled up by the local Bombay candidates if however, 70
percent of seats are filled up first, the more meritorious Bombay
students would be admitted and those, who would not be admitted,
would obviously be candidates obtaining lesser marks and it will not
G be difficult for the outside candidates to compete with them for the
said 30 per cent of seats. The question whether 70 per cent of seats
or 30 per cent of seats should be filled up first is a question which
should be left to the discretion of the government. In our opinion, this
aspect is not within the purview or the jurisdiction of the court. We
H do not find any unreasonableness or impropriety in the State
PREETI MITT AL v. G.K. SAIRA [K. VENKATASWAMI, J.] 429

Government's decision to fill up 70 per cent of seats first. The High A
Court was not, therefore, justified in directing admission on the basis
of filling up 30% of seats first and, thereafter, 70 per cent of seats and
such direction has created some complications in the matter."

The above passage clearly indicates that the manner in which the seats
were filled up by the Chandigarh Administration is quite in accordance with B
the view expressed by this Court.

As observed in the said judgment of this Court, there was not good
reason for the High Court to interfere with the decision of the Chandigarh
Administration in the matter of filling up of seats for the MBBS Course.
c
The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the contesting
respondents that in view of the decision of the Punjab & Haryana High Court
in Neetika Bansal case (supra) the procedure followed by the Chandigarh
Administration was not correct, is not acceptable. It is seen that in the Neetika
Bansal case (supra) the challenge related to the correctness of the provision D
(clause (d) of the Notification) which enabled the Chandigarh/U.T. Pool
candidates to compete both for the All India Pool and Chandigarh Pool. While
dismissing the writ petition, the High. Court no doubt made certain observations
which are in favour of the contesting respondents. However, having regard
to the scope of the writ petition and in view of the discussion above, we do
not think that the decision in Neetika Bansal case (supra) stood in the way E
of Admission Committee taking the decision, as noted above, on 3.8.1998.

The contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of Shishir Gupta to the effect that though his name did find a place in the
merit list at Sr. No. 50, his name did not find a place in the select list, is also
unsustainable inasmuch as that he did not apply to the Government Medical F
College, Chandigarh.

Incidentally, we have also noticed that the issue on hand, as contended
by the learned counsel appearing for the Chandigarh Administration, is one
time issue as from the year 1999-2000 the candidates for All India Pool will G
be given by the Central Board of Secondary Education and, therefore, the
selection by the Chandigarh Administration for this category will not arise in
future. We also notice that the candidates selected as per the list published
by the Administration had undergone the course nearly for a year and in the
absence of strong reasons for setting aside the selection, the Court will not
interfere with the selection. H
1

430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1999] 2 S.C.R.

A Regarding the seat given to the general candidate in All India Pool by
the High Court on the ground that no Scheduled Caste candidate in that Pool
was available, we are of the view that the High Court was not right in giving
that direction. We have already seen that as per Clause (d) of the Notification,
the candidates from Chandigarh Pool are entitled to compete both for
B Chandigarh Pool as well as All India Pool. That being the position, when a
Scheduled Caste candidate was not available in the All India Pool and such
candidate is available in Chandigarh Pool that must go to a Scheduled Caste
candidate in Chandigarh Pool. The reason given by the High Court that on
a reading of Clause 3 of the Clarifications the seat should go to general
.candidate in All India Pool, is based on wrong appreciation of that Clause 3.
C Clause 3 reads as follows :-

"3. If the requisite number of students belonging to Schedule Caste
category are not available, seats thus remaining vacant will be open
to students of the general. category."

D There is no indication that the seat belonging to Scheduled ~aste
category in a particular Pool should go to general category of t~at Pool.
Clause 3 generally says that if a Scheduled Caste candidate is not available
the seat must go to general category. This clause read with clause 4 of the
Clarifications corresponding to clause (d) of the Notification, will clearly show
that if a Scheduled Caste candidate is not available in All India Pool that must
E go to Scheduled Caste candidate in Chandigarh Pool, if available. Therefore,
the High Court was not right in directing that the seat belonging to Scheduled
caste category in All India Pool to be given to general category in the same
Pool.

For all these reasons, the appeals are allo_\Ved and the Writ Petitions
F filed before the Punjab and Harayana High Court challenging the selection of
candidates for the first year MBBS course for the year 1998-99 shall stand
dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

S.V.K.I. Appeal allowed ,