Holding

The High Court was not justified in quashing the COFEPOSA detention order; the order stands and the appeal is allowed.

Summary

The Union of India appealed against a Punjab and Haryana High Court order that quashed a COFEPOSA detention order passed on 31‑10‑2001 against Amrit Lal Manchanda. The respondent had obtained a stay of the detention order and later argued that the long lapse of time made the order untenable, relying on Sunil Fulchand Shah. The Supreme Court held that preventive detention is a preventive, not punitive, measure and that the executive’s discretion under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA is paramount. The Court found that the High Court had not considered the pre‑execution context and misapplied Sunil Fulchand Shah, and therefore could not set aside the detention order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court order set aside and the writ petition dismissed.

Issues considered

The effect of a stay of a preventive detention order and the passage of time on the validity of the order under COFEPOSA.
Whether the High Court was justified in quashing the COFEPOSA detention order.
The scope of judicial review of preventive detention orders before execution.
The applicability of the principle laid down in Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India to the present case.

Legislation cited

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974s. 3(1)

Subjects

preventive detentionCOFEPOSAexecutive discretionjudicial reviewstay of orderpassage of timefundamental rightsArticle 22Article 226Article 32

Judgment

A UNION OF INDIA
v.
AMRIT LAL MANCHANDA AND ANR.

FEBRUARY 16, 2004

B [DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ARIJIT PASAYAT, JJ.]

Preventive Detention- Nature of-Held, it is a preventive action and
not punitive-Preservation of public order and security of state and society
C paramount considerations-Decision based on discretion of executive-
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act, 1974-Section 3 (1).

Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974-Section 3 (1)-Preventive detention-Necessity for-Order
D of detention not executed for several months due to stay order of court-
Proposed detenu contending that there was no necessity for detention after
Such lapse of time-Held, detenu cannot fake unfair advantage of his own
acts.

Constitution ofIndia-Article 141-Judgment-Binding nature of-Held,
E judgments are not statute-Factual background in which judgment has been
passed should be looked into.

An order of detention of the respondent was passed under Section 3
(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling
Activities Act, 1974 on 31.10.2001. The respondent filed a writ petition
F challenging the dletention order and the sllid order was stayed by the High
Court. The respondent was therefore, not detained. Finally, on 31.5.2002,
the High Court dismissed the writ petition of the respondent.

The respondent filed review petition before the High Court. The
respondent contended that his detention was not desirable in view of the
G long passage of time that had elapsed between the order of the detention
and the date on which the writ petition was taken up for hearing by the
High Court. High Court allowed the review petition relying upon Sunil
Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Ors,, [2000) 3 SCC 409.

The appellant filed an appeal before the Court. Allowing the appeal,
H 422
- the Court.
UNION OF INDIA v.. AMRIT LAL MANCHANDA 423

A
HELD: 1.1. Preventive detention is an anticipatory measure and does
not relate to an offence, while the criminal proceedings are to punish a
person for an offence committed by him. They are not parallel proceedings.
The object of the law of preventive detention is not punitive but only
preventive. It is resorted to when the executive is convinced that such B
detention is necessary in order to prevent the person detained from acting
in a manner prejudicial to ce1·tain objects which are specified by the
concerned law. (426-G-H)

1.2. The action of executive in detaining a person being only
precautionary, normally the matter has necessarily to be left to the C
discretion of the executive authority. It is not practicable to lay down
objective rules of conduct in an exhaustive manner, the failure to conform
to which should lead to detention. The satisfaction of the ~etaining
Authority, therefore, is considered to be of primary importance, with great
latitude in the exercise of its discretion. The Detaining Authority may act D
on any material and on any information that it may have before it. Such
material and information may merely afford basis for a sufficiently strong
suspicion to take action, but may not satisfy the test of legal proof on which
alone a conviction for offence will be tenable. (427-A-B)

1.3 The compulsions of the primordial need to maintain order in E
society without which the enjoyment of all rights, including the right to
personal liberty of citizens, would loose all their meanings provide the
•
justification for the laws of preventive detention. Laws that provide for
preventive detention posit that an individual's conduct prejudicial to the
maintenance of public order or to the security of the State or corroding F
financial base provides grounds for satisfaction for a reasonable
prognostication of possible future manifestations of similar propensities
on the part of the offender. The law has to be justified by striking the right
balance between individual liberty on the one hand and the needs of an
orderly society on the other. (427-B-F)
G
2. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing
as to how the factmd situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision
on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read
as Euclid's theorems not as provisions of the statute and that too taken
out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in
H
424 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be
construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a
statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy
discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges
interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgements. They interpret words
B of statutes: their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. (431-E-FJ
London Graving Dock Co. Ltd v. Horton, (1951) AC 737; Home Office
v. Dorset Yacht Co., (1970) 2 All E. R. 294 and Herrington v. British Railway
Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537, referred to.

3.1. The High Court was not justified in quashing the order of
C detention. The High Court does not appear to have considered the case in
the background of whether any relief was available to the writ petitioner
even before the order of detention was ex~cuted. Cases involving challenges
to orders of detention before and after execution of the order stand on
different footings. The decision in Sunil Fulchand Shah 's case relied upon
D by it was not strictly applicable. (433-A, 432-G; 431-E)
3.2. Merely because the High Court had granted stay of the order
of detention, the respondent cannot take advantage of the order of stay
passed by the High Court to content that there is a passage of time. The
respondent cannot be allowed to have an unfair advantage and double
E benefit of his own action, which delayed the execution of the detention
order. (432-Hl

Additional Secretary to the Government of India and Ors. v. Smt. Alka
Subhash Gadia and Anr., (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 496; Sayed Tahar Bawamiya
v. Joint Secretary to the Government of India and Ors., (2000) 8 SCC 630;
F Union of India and Ors. v. Parasmal Rampuria, (1998) 8 SCC 402 and Hare
Ram Pandey v. State of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 10 JT 114, referred to.

Sunil Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Ors., [2000) 3 SCC 409,
distinguished.
G Union of India and Ors. v. Muneesh Suneja, (2001) 3 SCC 92, cited.

CRIMINAL APPEL LA TE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No.
223 of 2004.

From the Judgment and Order dated 10.1.2003 of the Punjab and
H Haryana High Court in Cr!. M.No. 249 of 2003 in Cr!. W.P. No. 1472/01.
UNION OF INDIA v. AMRIT LAL MANCHANDA [PASA YAT, J.] 425

WITH A
Crl. A. No. 224 of 2004.

L. Nageswara Rao, Additional Solictior General, Manish Singhvi, Raj iv
Nanda and B. Krishna Prasad for the Appellant.
B
Gopal Subramaniam, Vikram Chaudhari, Rakesh Dahiya, Sunil Verma
and Mahabir Singh for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Leave granted. C
In both these two appeals the Union of India questions legality of the
judgment rendered by the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing the order
of detention passed by the concerned authority under Section 3( 1) of the
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities
Act, 1974 (in short the 'COFEPOSA'). D
A brief reference to the factual aspects which is almost undisputed
would suffice.

Since the points for adjudication are common to both the appeals the
factual position in SLP(Crl.)No.3901/2003 is noted for convenience as the E
only difference between this case and the other case relates to the dates. The
order of detention was passed under Section 3(1) of COFEPOSA on
31.10.2001. The respondent filed a writ petition before the Punjab and Haryana
High Court on 20.12.2001 and on 21.12.2001 an order staying operation of
the detention order was passed. On 31.5.2002 the High Court decided that it
had territorial jurisdiction to deal with the matter, but dismissed the writ F
petition. An application for review was filed on the ground that though it was
noted that the writ petition was dismissed, in fact the various points urged in
support of the writ application were not considered. The High Court issued
notice on the review petition and pending consideration stayed the operation
of detention order. When the matter was heard afresh before the High Court G
it appears that only one point was urged i.e. passage of time between the date
of the detention order and the date on which the High Court had taken up the
writ petition for consideration. Relying on a decision of this Court in Sunil
Fulchand Shah v. Union of India and Ors., [2000] 3 SCC 409 the High Court
held the order of detention dated 31.10.2001 to be unsustainable. However,
it permitted the concerned authority to examine the matter and pass a fresh H
426 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A order if necessary. and the circumstances so warrant.
Learned Additional Solicitor General submitted that the decision in
Sunil Fulchand's case (supra) had no application to the present case. In that
case the question adjudicated was whether the period during which the detenu
is on parole can be adjusted from the period of detention indicated in the
B detention order. While dealing with that issue the Court observed that where
there is considerable gap of time, the desirability of sending any detenu to
custody has to be considered in the background of the issue as to whether a
live link for preventive detention still existed. That had nothing to do with
a challenge to the order of detention before its execution.
c Mr. Gopal Subramaniam, learned senior counsel appearing for the
respondent submitted that the writ petitioner was not in custody pursuant to
the order of stay passed by the High Court. The stay order can be treated at
par with an order of parole. In any event, a live link has to be established
to detain a person in custody by way of preventive detention. The liberty of
D a person is sacrosanct and it should not be affected except on grounds legally
available to the detaining authority.

With reference to a decision of this Court in Union of India and Ors.
v. Muneesh Suneja, [2001] 3 SCC 92 it is submitted that the Detaining
Authority has to be satisfied afresh whether the detention was still necessary.
E It was submitted that liberty was given to the Detaining Authority and,
therefore, it would not be proper to interfere. It is also pointed out that in the
case of four similarly situated persons relating to the alleged offending acts,
detention orders have been revoked in respect of two and in respect of two
others, the High Court has quashed the orders of detention and no appeal has
been filed.
F
So far as these four persons are concerned, learned ASG submitted that
their cases were not considered at the pre-execution stage. All the four persons
were in custody and their cases were considered by the Advisory Board or
the High Court as the case may be. They do not stand at par with the present
G respondents.

Before dealing with rival submissions, it would be appropriate to deal
with the purpose and intent of preventive detention. Preventive detention is
an anticipatory measure and does not relate to an offence, while the criminal .
proceedings are to punish a person for an offence committed by him. They
H are not parallel proceedings. The object of the law of preventive detention is
UNION OF INDIA v. AMRIT LAL MANCHANDA [PASA YAT . .I.] 427

not punitive but only preventive. It is resorted to when the Executive is A
convinced that such detention is necessary in order to prevent the person
detained from acting in a manner prejudicial to certain objects which are
specified by the concerned law. The action of Executive in detaining a person
being only precautionary, normally the matter has necessarily to be left to the
discretion of the execmive authority. It is not practicable to lay down objective B
rules of conduct in an exhaustive manner, the failure to conform to which
should lead to detention. The satisfaction of the Detaining Authority, therefore,
is considered to be of primary importance, with great latitude in the exercise
of its discretion. The Detaining Authority may act on any material and on
any information that it may have before it. Such material and information
may merely afford basis for a sufficiently strong suspicion to take action, but C
may not satisfy the tests of legal proof on which alone a conviction for
offence will be tenable. The compulsions of the primordial need to maintain
order in society without which the enjoyment of all rights, including the right
to personal liberty of citizens would loose all their meanings provide the
justification for the Jaws of prevention detention. Laws that provide for
preventive detention posit that an individual's conduct prejudicial to the D
maintenance of public order or to the security of State or corroding financial
base provides grounds for satisfaction for a reasonable prognostication of
possible future manifestations of similar propensities on the part of the
offender. This jurisdiction has at times been even called a jurisdiction of
suspicion. The compulsions of the very preservation of the values of freedom E
of democratic society and of social order might compel a curtailment for
individual liberty. "To, lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the
written law" said Thomas Jefferson "would be to lose the law itself, with life,
liberty and all those who are enjoying with us, thus absurdly sacrificing the
end to the needs". This, no doubt, is the theoretical jurisdictional justification
for the law enabling prevention detention. But the actual manner of F
administration of the law of preventive detention is of utmost importance.
The law has to be justified by striking the right balance between individual
liberty on the one hand and the needs of an orderly society on the other.

The question whether the detenu or any one on his behalf is entitled to
challenge the detention order without the detenu submitting or surrendering C
to it has been examined by this Court on various occasions. One of the
leading judgments on the subject is Additional Secretary to the Govt. of India
and Ors. v. Smt. Atka Subhash Gadia and Anr., case [1992] Suppl SCC 496.
In para 12 of the said judgment, it was observed by this Court as under:

"12. This is not to say that the jurisdiction of the High Court and I-
428 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.
.......
A the Supreme Court under Articles 226 and 32 respectively has no role
to play once the detention punitive or preventive- is shown to have
been made under the law so made for the purpose. This is to point
out the limitations, which the High Court and the Supreme Court
have to observe while exercising their respective jurisdiction in such
cases. These limitations are normal and well known, and are self-
B imposed as a matter of prudence, propriety, policy and practice and
are observed wh;le dealing with cases under all laws. Though the
Constitution does not place any restriction on these powers, the judicial
decision have evolved them over a period of years taking into
consideration the nature of the legislation or of the order or decision
c complained of, the rteed to balance the rights and interests of the
individual as against those of the society, the circumstances under
which and the persons by whom the jurisdiction is invoked, the nature
of relief sought, etc. To illustrate these limitations, (i) in the exercise
of their discretionary jurisdiction the High Court and the Supreme
Court do not, as Courts of appeal or revision, correct mere errors of
D law or of facts, (ii) the resort to the said jurisdiction is not permitted
as an alternative remedy for relief which may be obtained by suit or
other mode prescribed by statute. Where it is open to the aggrieved
person to move another Tribunal or even itself in another jurisdiction
for obtaining redress in the manner provided in the statute, the Court
E does not, by exercising the writ jurisdiction, permit the machinery
created by the statute to be by-passed; (iii) it does not generally enter
upon the determination of questions which demand an elaborate
examination of evidence to establish the right to enforce which the
writ is claimed; (iv) it does not interfere on the merits with the
determination of the issues made by the authority invested with
F statutory power, particularly when they relate to matters calling for
expertise, unless there are exceptional circumstances calling for judicial
.. intervention, such as, where the determination is mala fide or is
prompted by the extraneous considerations or is made in contravention
of the principles of natural justice of any constitutional provision, (v)
the Court may also intervene where (a) the authority acting under the
G
concerned law does not have the requisite authority or the order
which is purported to have been passed under the law is not warranted
or is in breach of the provisions of the concerned law or the person
against whom the action is taken is not the person against whom the
order is directed, or (b) when the authority has exceeded its power or
H jurisdiction or has failed or refused to exercise jurisdiction vested in
UNION OF INDIA v. AMRIT LAL MANCHA NOA [PASA YAT, J.] 429

it; or (c) where the authority has not applied its mind at all or has A
exercised its power dishonestly or for an improper purpose; (vi) where
the Court cannot grant a final relief, the Court does not entertain
petition only for giving interim relief. If the Court is of opinion, that
there is no other convenient or efficacious remedy open to the
petitioner, it will proceed to investigate the case on its merit and if B
the Court finds that there is an infringement of the petitioner's legal
rights, it will grant final relief but will not dispose of the petition only
by granting interim relief (vii) where the satisfaction of the authority
is subjective, the Court intervenes when the authority has acted under
the dictates of another body or when the conclusion is arrived at by
the application of a wrong test or misconstruction of a statute or it is C
not based on material which is of a rationally probative v~lue and
relevant to the subject matter in respect of which the authority is to
satisfy itself. If again the satisfaction is arrived at by taking into
consideration material, which the authority properly could not, or by
omitting to consider matters, which it sought to have, the Court
interferes with the resultant order. (viii) In proper cases the Court D
also intervenes when some legal or fundamental right of the individual
is seriously threatened, though not actually invaded."

In Sayed Taher Bawamiya v. Joint Secretary to the Govt. of India and
Ors., [2000] 8 SCC 630, it was observed by this Court as follows:
E
"This Court in Alka Subhash 's case (supra) was also concerned
with a matter where the detention order had not been served, but the
High Court had entertained the petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution. This Court held that equitable jurisdiction under Article
226 and Article 32 which is discretionary in nature would not be F
exercised in a case where the proposed detenu successfully evades
the service of the order. The Court, however, noted that the Courts
have the necessary power in appropriate case to interfere with the
detention order at the pre-execution stage but the scope for interference
is very limited. It was held that the Courts will interfere at the pre-
execution stage with the detention orders only after they are prima G
facie satisfied:

(i) that the impugned order is not passed under the Act which it
is purported to have been passed.

(ii) that it is sought to be executed against a wrong person.
H
430 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A (iii) that it is passed for a wrong purpose.
(iv) that it is passed on vague, extraneous and irrelevant grounds, or
(v) that the authority which passed it had no authority to do so.
>
As we see it, the present case does not fall under any of the aforesaid
B five exceptions for the Court to interfere. It was contended that these
exceptions are not exhaustive. We are unable to agree with this
submission. Alka Subhash 's case (supra) shows that it is only in these
five types of instances that the Court may exercise its discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 or Article 32 at the pre-execution stage.
The appellant had sought to contend that the order which was passed
c was vague, extraneous and on irrelevant grounds but there is no
material for making such an averment for the simple reason that the
order of detention and the grounds on which the said order is passed
has not been placed on record inasmuch as the order has not yet been
I
executed. The appellant does not have a copy on the same, and
I-
D therefore, it is not open to the appellant to contend that the non-
existent order was passed on vague, extraneous or on irrelevant
grounds".

This Court's decision in Union ofIndia and Ors. v. Parasmal Rampuria,
. [1998] 8 sec 402 throws considerable light as to what would be the proper
E course for a person to adopt when he seeks to challenge an order of detention
on the available grounds like delayed execution of detention order, delay in
consideration of the representation and the like. These questions are really
hypothetical in nature when the order of detention has not been executed at
all and challenge is made at pre-execution stage. It was observed as under:

F "In our view, a very unusual order seems to have been passed in
a pending appeal by the Division Bench of the ·i-Iigh Court. It is ·'
challenged by the Union of India in these appeals. A detention order
under Section 3(1) of the COFEPOSA Act was passed by the
authorities on 13.9.1996 against the respondent. The respondent before
surrendering filed a writ petition in the High Court on 23.10.1996
G
and obtained an interim stay of the proposed order, which had remained
un-served. The learned Single Judge after hearing the parties vacated J-
the ad interim relief. Thereafter, the respondent went in appeal before
the Division Bench and again obtained ad interim reliefon 10.1.1997
which was extended from time to time. The writ appeal has not been
H still disposed of. :
UNION OF INDIA v. AMRIT LAL MANCHANDA [PASA YAT, .I.] 431

When the writ petition was filed, the respondent had not A
surrendered. Under these circumstances, the proper order which was
required to be passed was to call upon the respondent first to surrender
pursuant to the detention order and then to have all his grievances
examined on merits after h<! had an opportunity to study the g~ounds
of detention and to make his representation against the said grounds B
as required by Article 22(5) of the Constitution."

ln Sunil Fulchand Shah's case (supra) a Constitution Bench of this
Court observed that a person may try to abscond and thereafter take a stand
that period for which detention was directed is over and, therefore, order of
detention is infructuous. lt was clearly held that the same plea even if raised C
deserved to be rejected as without substance. It should all the more be so
when the detenu stalled the service of the order and/or detention in custody
by obtaining orders of Court. In fact, in Sayed Taher 's case (supra) the fact
position shows that 16 years had elapsed yet this Court rejected the plea that
the order had become stale.
D
These aspects were highlighted recently in Hare Ram Pandey v. State
of Bihar and Ors., (2003) 10 JT 114.

Cases involving challenges to orders of detention before and after
execution of the order stand on different footings. Courts should not place
reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits E
in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed.
Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as
provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These
observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been
stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret F
words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for
judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to
explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret
judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be
interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton, (1951) G
AC 737 at p.761, Lord Mac Dermot observed:

"The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the
ipsissima vertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of
Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto.
This is not to detract from the great weight to be given to the language H
actually used by that most distinguished judge."
432 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] 2 S.C.R.

A In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co., (1970) 2 All ER 294 Lord Reid
said, "Lord Atkin's speech .... .is not to be treated as if it was a statute definition.
It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J in (1971) I
WLR l 062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a resetyed
judgment of even Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament." And; in
B Herrington v. British Railways Board, (1972) 2 WLR 537 Lord Morris said:

"There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment
as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be
remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts
of a particular case."
c Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a
world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by
blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.

The following words of Lord Denning in the matter of applying
D precedents have become locus c/assicus:

"Each case depends on its own facts and a close similarity between
one case and another is not enough because even a single significant
detail may alter the entire aspect, in deciding such cases, one should
avid the temptation to decide cases (as said by Cordozo) by matching
E the colour of one case against the colour of another. To decide
thereforn, on which side of the line a case falls, the broad resemblance
to another case is not at all decisive."

*** *** ***
"Precedent should be followed only so far as it marks the path of
F justice, but you must cut the dead wood and trim off the side branches
else you will find yourself lost in thickets and branches. My plea is
to keep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede
it."

The High Court does not appear to have considered the case in the
G background of whether any relief was available to the writ petitioner even
before the order of detention was executed. The decision relied upon by it
was not strictly applicable. Merely because the High Court had granted stay
of the order of detention, the respondent cannot take advantage of the order
of stay passed by the High Court to contend that there is a passage of time.
H The petitioner cannot be allowed to have an unfair advantage and double
UNION OF INDIA v. AMRIT LAL MANCHANDA (PASAYAT, J.] 433

benefit of his own action . which delayed the execution of the detention order. A
In fact in Sayed Taher Bawamiya's case (supra) the time gap was nearly 16
years. The inevitable conclusion therefore is that the High Court was not
justified in quashing the order of detention. The writ petition filed by the
respondent is dismissed. It is open to the respondent to surrender to custody

- as was observed in Parasmal Rampuria 's case (supra) and take such plea as
is available in law. The reliance sought to be placed on the fate of proceedings
taken against others is wholly inappropriate. The individual role, behavioral
attitude and prognostic proponsities have to be considered, person-wise, and
B

no advantage can be allowed to be gained by the petitioners in these cases
based on considerations said to have been made as to the role of the others
and that too as a matter post detention exercise undertaken so far as they are C
concerned. The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside
and the writ petition filed before the High Court shall stand dismissed.
I
SLP (CRL.) NO. 3902/2003

The conclusions in SLP(Crl.)No.390112003 shall be equally applicable D
to this case in view of the fact that the position in law is the same on the
similar fact situation of this case as well, though the dates are different.

The appeal is allowed. The order of the High Court is set aside and the
writ petition filed in the High Court shall stand dismissed.
E
B.K.M. Appeal allowed.

--