WRIT PETITION NO: 14202 0F 2 v. l state of reranoana Hearth

Petition unde'r Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstitnces stated the affidavit filed-in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents tc produce the letter dated 11 05 2024 bearing No SPLA/C/2024 and any correspordence issued to and received from the Finance Department'' State of Telangana in regard to the transfer of the Petitioner' lA NO: 3 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC Praying that rn the circumstances stated tn the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to allow the present application and take on record the present additiorral affidavit and documents attacht-'d herewith as Annexure 1 to 6 IA NO:4O F 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition' the High Court may be pleased to pass and Responclent No 4 to disburse the an order directing Respondent No 3 June 2024, JulY 2O2a' August 2024' Petitioner's salary for the months of t. I \ September 2024 and henceforth, prompfly disburse the salary of the Petitioner pending adjudication of the present Writ petition lA NO: 5 OF 2024 Petition under section 151 cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit fired in support of the petition, the High court may be preased to permit the Petitioner to resume duty as professor bf iT surgery and Head of Department (CfVS) in the Respondent No 3 College (i.e, Osmania Medical College, Hyderabad) Counsel for the petitioner: SRI D. FOR SRI MALIPEDDI ABHINAY REDDf 'RAKASH REDD', SENIOR COUNSEL Counsel for Respondents: Gp FOR SERVICES _ 1 FOR THE ADVOCATE GENERAL The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE PULLA KARTHIK WRIT PETITIO N No. 1 4202 of 2024 ORDER: This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of |ne Constitution cf India' is hled seeking the [ol1or'"'ing relief: "...to Pais cut order or order, ditection or wit more particularlll one in the natt:ra of Wit of Certior(ui, bg calting for records qnd: (a) declaing the: iction oi the Respondent No' 1 in.issuing G'O Rt No 1g5 dc:t;(l 21.05.2024 as mala fide, arbitrqry' illegal' ancl contra4'r to tlrc pitr:iples of naturc,l justice, and consequentlA set aside th':' tbl declarila t/rc oction of the Respondenl No'2 itl issuing lette" ' heanno-N.. DME Lr. No. SpUVC.A 2024 dated 25 05 2024 o's malrl fid-e, ibit.rculr, illegal, contrary to the pinciptes of nltllral justtce' ond conselllenttA set Gside the same; relieuinLl ord.er aitta.ls.os.zoic (beaing Rc. No. E1P/ SpU oMCt'2024) a5 mata ficle, arbitraru, tltegal and consequentlg set aside the samt ' and... " (c) dectaing ih" cLition of Respondent No3 in pas-sing -a ,

2. Heard Sri D. Plakash Reddy, learned Senior Counsel, rept'esenting Sri M. Abhinay Rr:dcly, learned counsel for thc petitioner, ancl learned Government Pleader for Serwices-I, appearing on behalf of the learned Advocate General, for the respondents. Learned serLiot. counsel for the petitioner submitted that while the

3. petitioner was wc,rking as Professor and the Head of the CT Surgery Department, thre: Post Graduate Teachers submitted a complaint to him on 07 .O5.2O2+ against one Dr. P. Sri Sai Janani, I 1,'ear Post I l 2 PK, J W.P.No.1a2ob of 2O24 Graduate student, which was immediately brought to the notice of respondent No.4. While so, the aforesaid Dr. Janar-ri submitted a false complaint against the petitioner and the other post Graduate students, to respondent No.4 on OB.OS.2O24, alleging that ttrey had discriminated, threatened ard harassed her, but the petitioner was never provided with a copy of the complaint of Dr. Janani dated Og.O5.2 O24. Hewas also neither served with a copy of the preliminary enquiry report dated 7O.O5.2O24 alleged to have been submitted nor was he aware of the contents therein' subsequently, an Internar compiaints committee (ICC) was constituted by the osmania Medical colrege to look into the allegations leveled against the petitioner vide complaint of Dr. Jarani dated O8.O5.2O24. Later, as per the directions in the letter dated 71.05.2024, the petitioner appeared before the ICC on 14.O5.2O24.

4. It was further submitted that the ICC is yet to conclude its investigation, record findings ald submit al enquiry report. However, pending the conclusion of investigation and submission of enquiry report by the ICC, to the utter shock and surprise o1 the petitioner, he was trarsferred on .administrative grounds, to Government Medical College, Wanaparthy, vide G.O.Rt.No. 195 dated 24.05.2024 issued by respondent No.1. Consequently, respondent No.2 issued a letter dated ...,-,.-t ;r-:rxxrgx*-. .;.::*:3ya* l L l I -tt: 3 PK' J W.P.No.14..!O2 of 2024

25.O5.2024, dlrecting the transfer of the petitioner' and respondent No'3 issued the relieving order dated 25 O5'2O24'

5. It was further submitted that so far' no disciplinary proceedings havebeeninitiaterlagainstthepetitionerbytherespondents-Therefore, the impugned trartsfer could not have been effected as per G O lr4s'No 81 dated 18.06.2018 Further' in the event respondent Nos l and 2 are considering the proceedings before the Internal Complaints C ommittee as disciplinary pl-ocecdings' the same cannot be countenancgd as the disciplinary proc e edings have to be conducted b1' the (rompetent authorit.v or the concerned authority as per the Service Rules 'rf State of Telangana bul th e proceedings Lrefore the Internal Complaints committee 21's qo'zerned by the sexual Harassment of $/omen at Workplace (Prevcntlon, Prohibition and Redressal) Act' 2013 (for short' the Act, 2Or3'). h is a well settled law that following the enquiry repolt submitted by tht: lt)C, empowered under Sections 13 :rnd 19 of the Act 20L3, initiation of disciplinary proceedings or action may be recommended b," tre employer' However' in the case of the petitioner' the ICC is yet tc crlnclude the enquiry and submit its report' As such' the transfcrring the petitioner vide impugned G O Rt No L95 dated 24.05.2024, b5'placing reliance on G'O'Ms No 81 dated 18'06 2018 is ex facie lllegal' r 4 PK, J W.P.No.142O2 of 2024

6. It was further submitted that as per G.O.Ms.No.g 1 dated

18.06.2018, in order to effect a transfer subsequent to 16.06.2O1g, on the ground of an administrative edgency at an available vacancy, a proposal for such tralsfer, along with proper justification is necessary to be submitted to the Finance Department. However, the impugned transfer order vide G.O.Rt.No. 195 dated 24.05.2O24, does not disclose submission of any proposal to the Finalce Department, justifying the tralsfer of the petitioner. As such, the impugned order is in violation of G.O.Ms.No.S1 dated 18.O6.2O18. Learned counsel further submitted that the impugned order is malicious as it was not based on any germane factors that necessitated the petitioner's transfer, ald it was solely based on an irrelevant ground i.e., the false allegations leveled against the petitioner. Therefore, it can be ascertained that the transfer was consequential to the complaint of Dr. Janali dated 08.05.2024. Hence, the petitioner's transfer is effected as a form of punishment, and hence, the said tralsfer is punitive in nature. Further, in the cornplaint dated 08.05.2024, frorn Dr. Janar-ri, allegations were leveled against other individuals apart from the petitioner. However, no action has been taken against the said individuals and the petitioner alone is being targeted, which shows the ma-licious attitude of the respondents. Therefore, it was prayed to ailow the present writ petition by setting 5 PK, J W.P.No.1 1202 oJ 2024 aside the impu gn ed ffansfer order dated 24 'O5 '2024 and its consequential relieving order dated 25'O5'2O24' issued by rerspondent Nos.1 and 3, respectively ln support of his arguments' learned Senior Counsel for the petilioner relied on the decision of the Holl'ble Apex Court in somesft' Tiulari u union o;f India and othersl ' It was als'o submitted by the learned Senior Counsel for the 7. petitioner that r;ubsequent to filing the writ petition and the interim order of this Court dated 07'O6'2024' a Memo dated 26 06 2024 ' was issued by respondcnt No 1' calling the petitioner to show cause as to why disciplinirrl' proce edings sha11 not be initiatecl again st him in connecLion with the complaint of Dr' Janani Thus' it is clt:ar that no disciplinary prriceedrngs were initiated against the petitioner prior to issuernce of thc lnpugned tralsfer and relleving orders' Despite the interim order o1 this Court' even as on date' lher petiti'rner is not permitted to disclrarge his duties at respondent No 3 Hospital' nor is he being paid rcrtuneratlon since June' 2024' Therefore ' it is once again pral'ed to pass ncccssary orders in the present writ petition' 8. Per conlra, iearned Government Pleader submittcd that the impugnedtrarLsferorderdated24Os'2O24'transferrrngthcpetitionerto the Government Medical College, walaparthy, was issued based on the I (2OO9) 2 SCC 512 6 PK, J W.P.No.14202 of 2024 complajnt dated 08.05.2 O24, lod,ged. by one Dr. p. Sri Sai Janani, I year, P.G. CTVS, wherein, the petitioner is working as the Head of the Department in CT Surgery Department, and therefore, keeping in view the sensitiveness of the i same workprace wourd ":::ffi,#"#-, ;. ;.";,." have decided to transfer the petitioner. Further, there was also every possibility of the petitioner meddling with the investigation and tampering the evidences, which necessitated the pctitioner,s transfer on administrative grounds. It was further submitted that based on the compiaint lodged by Dr. Jartali, narrating the incidents that occurred on O8.O5.2O24, between 10-52 hours and 11_50 hours, respondent No.3 has constituted a Committee to conduct a preliminary enquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner. The said enqulry was conducted in the chambers of respondent No.4 and a preliminary enqulry report was submitted to respondent No.2 on 10.05.2O24, stating the sequence of events ald held that there was pnma facie evidence against the petitioner. In turn, respondent No.2 had addressed a letter to respondent No. 1, requesting to take necessary action. Therefore, keeping in view the sensitivity of the issue and unpreasant situation, and since there was every possibility of the petitioner tampering with the evidence a,d meddling with further enquiry, he has been transferred on t- i l ' o'' P No.t+z.z 'fPfif,+ g . arry mato fidelnt(lnlions on any of the offrcers' Hospital, for condrlclrng of the Hospitai' administrative gr lt'lods to the Government Medical 3oilege' Wanaparthy' vide (i'O Rt No 195 dated 24 'O5 '2024 ' Subsequer'tly' one Dr. Anant Bala' (lT Surgeon' was kept in-charge of CTVS' ()srnanla the healthcare services and-academic l)rograms 'Iherefore' the fansfer was affected only on administrative gr lund s Further' the petitioner also did not attribute It was furr h er submitted that as per paragraph Nos'2 and 1 1 of G O Nrts No Sl d'Lted 18 O6 2018' transfer can be effected on the ground but in the case on the petitioner herein' his grounds' Fr.Lrther' the of disciplinarl' f)roceedings transfer was elfected on administrative Department is I et to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner pur iuirnt to the comPlaint lodged by the vict 'm and the preliminary rerort ol the lnternal Complaints Committee' '[';isrefore' the contention of thc petitioner that the impugned order vide G O Rt No l95 - '"",. t'*:""uary to G o Ms'No'81 dated 18 o6 2018 is daled 24 Or' 1r '''- 'S contrar)i to G O Ms'Nt highly untenable lt was further submitted that the concr.Lrrence of the Depa'rtment Therefore' the contention of the petitioner that the impugned crder attracts the principle of malice in lau is absolutely without an) merit and does not stand for consideration of this Court as carr be subsequently obtained al1t '*t*::: Finance Department t:" -2-- I r1 PK, ,] W.P.No.14202 of 2024 no mala fi.des are attributed to any of the ofhcers. It was further submitted that the Internal Complaints Committee is enquiring into the allegations leveled against the petitioner which fall within the domain of Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (prevention, prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013. Therefore, there is no illegality in issuing the impugned transfer order and the respondents are fully justified in transferring the petitioner to the Government Medical College, Wanaparthy, on administrative grounds. Hence, it is prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. It was further submitted during the pendency of the prese.nt writ petition, the petitioner had sent threatening e_mails to respondent No. 1 during the mid-nights on 14.09.20 24. rs.og.2o24 and 16.09.2024. Therefore, it is once again prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. Learned Government Pleader relied on the decisions of the Hon,ble Apex Court in SK Nausad Rahaman and others u. trnion oJ rndia q.nd others2 a,.d. The Tam Nadu Agricultural tlnitwsitg qnd. q.nother u. R. Agilas.

10. This Court has taken note of the rival submissions made bv the learned counsel for the respective parties. 2 (2022) 72 SCC I 3 Judgment date d 20.OA.2O24 in Civil Appeal No. IOOOS_ tOO 10 of 2024 , o*' t W.P'No H2A) of 2024

11. A perusai of tlle record discloses that the impugned transfcr order of the petitioner dtrted 24 05 2024 was issued based on a corlplaint frorn one i year P (i student' Dr' P' Sri Sai Janarri' daLed o8'a5'2o24' wherein, she ailegec tnisconduct not only against ttre'petitioner 'cut also against hve other n clividuals (a nurse' a III year and lhree I year P'G' students)' However' as can be seen from the record' no aclion was taken against the said lndividuals' and only the petitioner is s'ubjected to transfer to Government Medicai College' Wanaparthl' The respondents have rLlso failed to provide any justifiable reason 1br taking action only against the petitioner' This selective action violates Article 14 of the constilulion of India' which guarantees equality before law' and rarses seriot's (loncerns with regard to the truthful intentton behind the tra1-lsfer of tk'e l)ctitioner' enquiry rePort the Preliminarl reveals that the impugned transfer order vide 72. The recorrl further G.O.Rt.No 195 darcd 24 O5'2O24 was issued bY resPondents;' based on submitted by the Internal Complaints Committee, rvkLiclt was constituted under the Sexual Har-assment of Women at WorkPlace (Prevention , Prohibition and Redressal) Act' 2013' of sexual harassment against the to enquiry in to the ailegations dated 08'05 2024' Dt Jananl ffeated. me bod tt s loLU caste . H:u'ever, in her comPlaint .threot.e ning, harossment and petitioner aI1eged, I 10 PK, J W.P.No.14202 of 2024 person tn my department-CTVS Todag (08.05.2O24) at 10.52 AM to 11.50 AM", but no incident of sexual harassment was alleged against the petitioner. Based on her complaint, an Internal Complaints Committee was constituted that conducted an enquiry and submitted the preliminar5z enquiry report on ll.OS.2O24. However, the petitioner specihcaliy contended that he was not provided a copy of the preliminary enquiry report of the Interna_l Complaints Committee dated 11,.05.2024 , and no counter submissions were presented to rebut this contention of the petitioner.

13. The record also makes it evident that the entire litigation originated from a complaint lodged against Dr. Jalani, by the petitioner and other P.G. students on O7.O5.2O24. Only after the said complaint was hled, Dr. Janani submitted her counter complaint agalnst the petitioner and the six other P.G. students on OS.O5.2O24, alleging misconduct against them. The sequence of events makes it abundantly clear that the complaint of Dr. Janani was retaliatory in nature. As such, the action of the respondents in taking an adverse action against the petitioner by placing reliance on such a counter-complaint, without duly considering the earlier complaint against Dr. Jalani, raises serious concerns regarding the fairness of the proceedings. I ;*&*..&,-; 71 PK, J W.P.No.142)2 of 2024

14. Coming to tbc impugned transfer order vide G O Rt'No 1!t5 dated 24.05.2024, u'hich is said to have been issued in accordance rvith the orders issued in (i.O.Ms.No.81 dated 18'06'2018, whereby, the Government had imposed ban on transfers' The 1:llowing circumstances $,g1r1 cnlisted as exceptions for transfer: Posting ru ders to the employees on account of promotion L shall be issucf t,t the clear exrsting vacalrcies \,vithout shifting luty other employees. Posting orders to the employees due to disbandmenl of II. posts, reversicns, repatriations, deputations (on Foreign Servi.ce only), discipliniry proceedings shall be issued in clear existing vacancies u,ithout shiftrng other employees. I1l. Posting, ordcrs to the employees on return frorn long leave of more than si:: ntonths shall be issued in clear existing vacan':ies without shifti rg other employees. The vacancy arising out of leave up to a period ol six (6) months (i.e., the maximurn periocl of Earned Leawe that can be available by a Governrnent Employee at a time as pel C.O.Ms,No.153, Finance (FR.l) Department, dt 04- O5-2010) shall r.rot be filied in by transfer.

15. From the atrot'e, it is clear that a transfer may be effected if an employee is facing disciplinary proceedings. However, in the case on hand, admittedlr', no disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner as on 124.05.2024, i.e., prior to issuance of the irnpugned transfer and relicvinfl orders. ' t2 PK, J W.P.No.142O2 of 2O24

16. In the said G.O.Ms.No.g 1 dated 1g.06.201g, the Government had also issued clear instru ctions with regard to transfer of employees on/for administrative exigencies/efficiency. The relevant portion of the said G.O. is as under "5. In respect of the existing vacancies to be trlted for administrative effrciency, the sarne shall be hled with persons who have completed one year of active service at their present station, duly submitting proper justification of t1-e proposal for obtaining the concurrence of Finance Department."

17. According to the aforesaid paragraph, in the cases of administrative exigencies, a proposal justifying the tralsfer must be submitted to the Finance Department for obtaining concurrence. However, in the case on hand, no such concurrence was obtained. As such, it can be construerl that there are procedural flaws in issuing the impugned trarsfer order.

18. The Hon'ble Apex Court, in Somesh Tttoq.ri (supra), whiie deaJing with a similar case of transfer, which is an incidence of service, should not be interfered with, uniess mala../i d.es are attributed to the authority passing such al order, and also held that a transfer in lieu of punishment is liable to be set aside. The relevant portion of the said decision is extracted hereunder: r/ / 73 PK, J w.P.No.14.202 of 2024 " 16. ln<lisputably an order of transfer is an administr"ati\ e order. There carrnot be any doubt rvhatsoever that transfcr, which rs ordinarily an incident of service should not be interfered uith, save rn *,h"." irl1er alia mala flde on the part of the authority rs "^"." proved. MaJ:: ficte rs of t$'o kinds-one malice in fact and the second malice in law. I'he order in question would attract the principle rrf matice in Ia\\ as it was not based on any factor germane for passilg an order of lriursfer and based on an irrelevant ground i.e. on tl-te allegations mado against the appellant in the alonymous complairrt It is one thin.j rc, say that the einployer is entitled to pass an order of tralsfer in administrative exigencies but it is another thLng to s.ty that the orrler of transfer is Passed by way of or in lieu ':f punishment. When an order of transfer is passed in lieu trf punishment, t}l(i same is liabte to be set aside being wholly illegal." 19, It is also p€rtincnt to refer to a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in A. Venugopal Rao u. Exec-utiae Engineer, Panchagat Raj, Machilipatna.m, drtd other*, wherein, it is categorically held that transfer orders issucd as a form of punishment are not permissible. The relevant portion ol the said decision is extracted hereunder: "7O. In q arse of this nature, tLLe Court Luill not exercise its pou,zr of judicial retiew et the instance of a person uho in the euent of the (;rder of tanskr a; ellainst the Sth respondent being upheld uould be entitled to cofiLe to h,s place at Mouua. The Stote does not qLreslLoi the order of the TibunqL hr all probabilitg it hos accepted the order of the TibtnaL For the pltry,'ose, of Jinding out as to Luhether an order oJ transfer has been passed by uag of or in lieu of punishment or otherluise depeno|s on facts and cit aonstances of each case. It is uell settled pinciple oJ' lau) that an ordet oi transfer on odministratiue ground is pertnissible bt.Lt an order of tronsk, bg uag of or in tieu of punishment is not. onLll beccluse the order impugned before the learned Tribunqt did not cast anA stigma the some caurc't bA itself be conctusiue on the point that ttLe allegotions against the Sth respondent bA the Cotlector had not been acted upon. The sequence ctf euents as noticed herelnbefore cleorlg go to show that the report oi'the Collector had been acted upon crt all leuels. The Sth respondent beiry DeputA Executiue Engineer (Panchagat Raj) could haue been transferred onlg bg the State Gouemment and an order of transfer could not hcLtx: been pdssed bA anq person at the instance otF the Collector. 4 2022 Suppl. (1) ALII 147 (DB) t'l 14 PK, J W.P.No.142O2 of 2024

11. Furthemore, in a cose of this nqture the Couri is entitled to pierce ,!:-:::! ?: :he fup?se o1 Loi,i,e ,, o f"ii,s ;,"io'')n *., n" apparent state of affairs is the real state oy ifairsl n aioip u- Gout. of India. AIR t 984 SC 636 - t s84 Lctb.rc s4i it fr"" i."" #ii* ... EueL thnugh tte order of discLnrge maA be no4-corrlm[ttrlt, it cannot stand alone. .Though tLe noting in thi fite ofln Ooii^ .nt maV De tneteuant, the cause. for the order cannoi be ignored. Tlle recommendation of the Dtector tohich is the to,sX or liuiiion yor the order should be rearl along uittt the order jor ii *li"r" "l determining 6 true ctlaracter. - tf on reaaing ti- *"-r{i"ili, ,t* Court reaches the conctuston thai thp an"g"io"t oj ^;i:";;; _"" the cause of the order and that but forih"t i*ia""l it *o"ia not haue been passed then it is ineuitabie thot the irai, "y7iij_,g" should fall to tle ground as thp appe ant nr.." not i."i ifrla"a o r::::a9lp op-porlunity to dplend hinlsctf as prouided iln inrcle J1 1(2) oJ the Constitution.

13., ln-Stotc oraer oJ tronsler tn lieu of punishmenr is not permissible." u.p u. Jagdeo Singh the Apex Court cleorla held that on -oI

20. Admittedly, in the instant case, the respondents claim that the transfer was effected in view of the administrative exigencies of the Department. However, as can be seen from the record, no such compelling exigencies, wal.ranting the petitioner,s tralsfer, were demonstrated by the respondents. Thus, the petitioner,s transfer appears to be in lieu of a punishment rather than an administrative transfer. Therefore, the impugned tran sfer order is liable to be set aside.

21. Coming to the judgments relied on by the respondents, the same are based on different factual circumstances, and therefore. are not applicable to the case on hald. I I I I 15 PK, J ..V p No.1,)202 of 2024

22.Furthermor'3,therespondentshaveallegedthatthepetitioner sent ,threatening, e-rnails to respondent No.1 (the Principal se(lretary to the GovernmenL) oLr 14.09 2024, 15.09.2024 arr{ 16 09 2024' This Court has callecl .or production of copies of the said e mails, ,rnd upon perusing the sard e-mai1s, it can be inferred that the pctitioner has been facing mental distress, ald therefore, sent the e-mails, expressing his situation. Although the tone in the e mails conveys a sense of hrm insistence and highlighted potential consequence, the same r:annot be termed as threa tcning in nature. Further, the argumerrt of the respondents that the petitioner had sent those e-mails during mid night is irrelevant and bzrseless, and the time of sending an e-mai1 has no bearing on its contcnt or intent, as it is for the reciprcnt to read an e- mail at his/her convenience. Though this Court does not hnd any malicious/threatr:ning intent in the e-mails, it is appropriate to advise the petitioner to refrain from sendlng such repeated direct r:-mai1s of this nature to respondent No. 1 .

23. In the foregorng discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the impugn.-cl transfer order suffers from seriou s infirmities and \Marrants interference of this Court. As such, the impugnerl transfer order is 1iab1e to be set aside. , I r 16 PK, J LV.P.No. j4202 of 2O24

24. Accordingly, impugned transfer issued by respondent the Writ petition is allowed setting aside the order vide G.O.Rt.No. 195, Health, Medical and Family Welfare (A) Department, dated 24.O5.2024 No.1 and its consequential correspondence and relieving order vide proceedings in Endt.No.Spl/VC A/2024 and Rc.No.E1 p/Spl/OMC/2O2a respectively, both dated 25.05.2024, issued by respondent Nos.2 and 3 respectively However, keeping in view the sensitivity and seriousness of the issue, this order sha-lr not preclude the authorities from taking appropriate acdon against the petitioner, if warran ted, strictlv in accordance with law Miscellaleous appiications, if any, pending in this writ petition. shall stand closed. No costs //TRUE COPY// SD/-A.V.S. PRASAD , EPUTY REGISTRAR ,/ .t i I l l ! i \ To, 1 .) J 4 q o

7. 8. MBC BS s HIGH'COURT DATED: 1310312025 ( o -:"--:___:-- j,,:: S-ir\,. ( '{ v F 2 E rilAf 2tl6 t /l': 9 t ORDER WP.No.14202 o12024 ffi*q-ffi, ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS