The High Court · 2025

Order

This Writ Petition is filed to declare the action of respondent Nos.1 to 5 in not taking action against the 6th respondent for his removal from service and not considering the petitioner's case for appointmcnt under compassionate rules as illegal and arbitrary

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows :- (a) The petitioner's husband, Chinta-ta Venkateshwarlu, while working as a J.P.A. Helper in KTPS Station, Palvoncha, died in a road'accident on 27.12-1994. The petitioner and her two daughters, viz., Nagamani and Renuka, are the only legal heirs of the deceased. After the death of her husband, the petitioner sought death benefits and made an application to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment to her or to her daughters. Despite repeated requests, the respondent authorities did not consider her application. Subsequently, she came to know that the 6th respondent, Venkaiah, who is not the son 't "--'-i-{ of her husband, - appointed under th: compassionate 2 \r appolntmerlt scheme (b) 'lhe petitioner made several rep.esentations to the respondcnt authorities to conduct en<1t ry and remove the 6th respondent from service. Though he respondent authorities completed enquiry, the responc :nts have not taken any action against the 6th respondent I rr his removal. Hcnce, the ltresent writ petition

3. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed a counter . fidavit stating as follor.r,s :-

(a) Sri Chintala Venkateswarlu '*4r l JPA,/Helper at KTpS, pa_lvancha, died in a rci : working as cl accident on

27.72.1998. The allegations made by the pt:ri correct. The proposal has been received fr. Engineer, KTPS, along with an application Sri Ch.Venkaiah seeking compassionate apl) ioner are not m the Chief ;ubmitted by intment and also a legal heir certificate issued by the MzL .dal Revenue Officer, Palva-ircha. (b) As per the Lega_l Heir Certificate, he following persons are shown as the leeal h.i15 of the dec: rsed: /i (1) Smt. Chintala Seetharavamma (wife), (2) Smt. M. Nagamani (married daughter), (3) Smt. S. Renuka (married daughter), and (a) Sri Chintala Venkaiah (unmarried son). (c) Along with the proposal, copies of the death certihcate, educational certificates of Sri Ch.Venkaiah, and an affidavit duly notarized were enclosed. The said afhdavit was submitted by the petitioner and her two daughters, authorizing Sri Venkaiah to be appointed on compassionate grounds as the son of the deceased employee. (d) After scrutiny of the proposal, A.P. Genco, through Memo No. GM(A)/DS(PS)/AS(P)/81-246/2ooo-1, dated 23.06.20OO, permitted Sri Ch.Venkaiah to appear before the Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of compassionate appointments. On being found suitable, Sri Ch.Venkaiah was appointed as ar-i Attender on compassionate grounds. The petitioner herself by submitting an a-ffidavit had given consent for appointment of the 6th respondent and therefore, her later claim that the 6th respondent is not her son is false ald an afterthought. .- .. :-.. l \ 4 (e) No representation for compassionzL : appointment frcm the petitioner was pending at the tim: of Venkaiah's appointmenr:. On receipt of the petitioner s complaint, a Vigilance enquiry was ordered to examine 1l e matter. The report of the enquiry has been received md is under consideration by the competent authority.

4. Respondent No.6 filed a counter affici vit stating AS follows : (a) The petitioner's husband, lir e Chinthala Venkatesrnarlu, worked as a JPA He1: :r in KTPS, Palr,ancha, :rnd died in a road accident on 2' .12.1998. T]l,e 6th respondent is the adopted son of the dec :ased and the petiiioner. He was brought up by the petit oner and her husband and was treated as their son. (b) Ttre 6rh respondent obtained r lega1 heir certificate from the Mandal Revenue Offi<rr r, Palvancha, dated 13.02.1999, wherein he was shown as t re legal heir of the deceased. The 6th respondent has not abricated any documents and claims that the petitioner her', elf executed a t - ) notarized afhdavit dated 25.02.1999, giving her consent lor his appointment under compassionate grounds. Even the petitioner's brother-in-law, Veerabhadram, later filed a notarized afhdavit on 04.O2.2O0O confirming the settlement of family disputes ald supporting the appointment of the 6th respondent. (c) After verification and enquiry, the 6't' respondent was appointed as an Attender on 1,5.O7.2OAO, and his services were regularrzed in the vear 2OO2. Th,e petitior-rer filed this writ petition after nearly five years only due to personal family disputes. The petitioner has already received death benefits of the deceased and she is also receiving family pension and therefore, she has no valid

5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 5 filed additional affidavit stating as follows :- (a) The 6th respondent was appointed as Attender vide orders dated 15.07.2000 and therea-fter, he u,as issued charge-sheet dated 29.O9.2OO5 on the allegation of giving false declaration and claiming fraudulently employment 6 \ under dependent quota. An enquiry was concr cted against the 6th responcient and after conducting en<1 riry. he was issued Sh<rrv Cause Notice dated 74.02.2006 t s to why he should not be awarded with punishment of I :mova-l from service Aggrieved by the same, the 6th resl ondent filed W.P.No.3l92 ,tf 2006 before this Court. In W.I' U.P.No.396 1 of 2006 in W.P.No.3I92 of 2006, this Court L1 order dated

23.O2.2006 granted interim stay of all furthel proceedings. Thereafter, the said writ petition was allowed tr order dated

27.O9.2OI1 bv setting aside the show cause rotice dated

14.02.2006, however, kept it open to issue ihow Cause Notice and thereafter take further steps in ac,; ,rdance with (b) Pursuant to the order passed in W. '.No.3192 of 2006, dated 27.O9.2O11, the 6th respondent was issued Memo No.JS(P)/DS(E)/AS(V&R)(NT)/PO-1/38 I loo5, dated

22.02.2012 alieging that he has obtained s gned blank papers from Clh.Seetaravamma, for the purpori of securing appointment ()n compassionate grounds on th,: death of her husband and also managed to get false cert f-rcates from I 7 MRO Office and a-lso obtained Ration Card and Medicinal Card/KTPS and thereby, he has cheated her and her family and also the Government by securing the appointment cn the compassionate grounds. In response to the same' the 6'r' respondent submitted an explanation on 06'03.2012 On consideration of the explanation, it was found that the petitioner herself has given an affidavit, which was notarized on 25.O2.1999 and her daughters viz" Smt Nagamani and Smt. Renuka have also given an affidavit stating that they have No Objection for appointment of the 6'h respondent' (c (c) During the vigilance enquiry, the petitioner Save statement stating that the 6th respondent is her sister's son and she has taken care of the 6th respondent and that rhe name of the 6th respondent is also recorded in the registers of KTPS for the purpose of availing the LTC' (d) On consideration of the relevant factors and eriso keeping in view that the 6th respondent has put in more than 12 years of service, the respondents have decided to drop the further action against the 6th respondent and accordingly, proceedings, dated 24'O4'2012 were issued to that effect. .--9'\ 8 I (e) Thr: record further discloses that the petitioner has also grven a statement stating that rer husband's brother Sr Ch.Veerabadram has makir g issues for providing ernployment to the 6rh responderL and ignoring him, the 6th respondent should be provided , mployment in the interest ol the family. Sri Ch. Veerabadrir n, the brother of the clecetrsed cmployee, has also given : r affidavit on

04.O2.2OOO stating that the disputes betwe,: r himself and the 6th resprondent have been resolved atr objection to provide employment to the rj I he has no h respondent under deceased quota. (0 Orr consideration of the said stat(l rents, the 6th respondent u,as issued letter dated 29.06.2OO( interviern, fol provicling employment. There i respondent rnas issued order dated lS.O7.2Ct to appear for Iter, the 6th 0 along with five others appointing as Attenders under ,: rmpassionate grounds. (g) After a lapse of four years, the peli complaint dated 24.I2.2OO4. On the to[ circumstances, it was found that there are no the complaint lodged by the petitioner. ioner gave a Llity of the bonafides in Hence, the 1 9 proceedings dated 22.04.2012 were issued to drop further action against the 6th respondent.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the 6th respondent submitted fabricated documents and forged the petitioner's signature to misrepresent himself as a legal heir of the deceased to secure the appointment' The petitioner made several representations and also issued a legal notice dated 19.O4.2OOS to the respondents' requesting removal of the 6m respondent and consider-ation of her own claim for appointment on compassionate grounds.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner further submits that the respondents conducted enquiry anC found that the 6'h respondent obtained job by committing frauci and he is not entitled for compassionate appointment lor the death of the deceased. The respondent authorities aiso found that the 6th respondent is not the son of the deceased, but he is the son of one Orsu Anjaiah. Though the respondent authorities completed enquiry, till date, no action has been taken against the 6'h respondent -- !F'5L{i \'- $' \-l 'l l0 Therefore, appropriate orders be passed in .- e writ petition by directing the respondents to consider tL : claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment arr, a-llow the writ petitlon.

8. Learned Government Pleader appearinll lor respondent Nos.1 to 5 submits that the relief sought in I Le writ petition insofar AS providing employment to thr petitioner on compassionate grounds is misconceived, as s re herself gave notarized affidavit on 25.02.7999, whr'; :in she has categoricallr. stated that she has no intere r t to do job in I{TPS and agreed to provide employmer t to the 6th respondent. Even, the petitioner's rrother-in-law, Veerabhadram, hled an aflidavit on O4.O2.lt. tOO confirming the settiem.ent of family disputes and s rpporting the appointrnent of the 6,h respondent. Therefore at this length of time, removing the 6th respondent md providing empioyment to the petitioner does not arir; ,. There is no irregularity and iliegality in issuing the app ,intment order to the 6th respondent under compassio Late grounds @{&Ixffi:3 kryfr:':: 't Hence, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent submits that the 6th respondent is the adopted son of the deceased and the petitioner. The 6rh respondent \ /as brought up by the petitioner and her husband and was treated as their son. There are no bonalides in the complaint lodged by the petitioner. Hence, the proceedings dated 22.O4.2012 were issued to drop further action against the 6th Respondent

10. Learned counsel appearing for the 6th respondent further submits that the petitioner has given notatized aflrdavit on 25.O2.L999 and her daughters viz-, Smt.Nagamani and Smt. Renuka have also given an afhdavit stating that they have No Objection for: appointment of the 6'h respondent. During the vigilance enquiry, the petitioner gave statement stating that the 6th respondent is the son ofher sister and she has taken care of the 6th respondent and that the name of the 6th respondent \ '\. . '--"-1 i t is .also recorded in the registers of KTPS for t re purpose of - 12 availing the LTC. 1 1 . Learnecl counsel appearing lor the t> , respondent further submits that on consideration of the :- levant factors arrd also keeping in view the fact that the 6th pLrt in more than 72 years of servic': spondent has the offrcial respondents have decided to drop further acli rn against the 6th respondent and accordingly, proce( 24.O4.2072 \'ere issued to that effect' 1ings, dated The ofhcial respondents have rightly appointed the 6th espondent on compassionate grounds. Therefore, there alt no merits in the writ petition ald is liabie to be dismissed

12. Heard Mr.Abdul Azam Khan, lezL ned counsel appearing lbr the petitioner, Smt.K.Udaye Sri, learned to 5 and counsel appearing for respondent Nos Sri K.Venkat Reddy, learned counsel appeal ng for the 6'h respondent. Perused the material available oll record. i3. The present writ petition is wit r regard to cornpassionate appointment. After the le ath of the - I l) petitioner's husbald, the petitioner made an application to the respondents seeking compassionate appointment to her or to her daughters. While pending the said application, the petitioner received all the death benehts and repeatedly requesting the authorities to consider her case for compassionate appointment. The petitioner's husband died in a road accident on 27.12.1998. After a lapse of several years, the petitioner carne to know that the respondent authorities appointed her relative by name Venkaiah, who is none other than the 6'h respondent in the present writ petition, under compassionate grounds, for the death of her husband. Subsequently, on her enquiry, she came to know that the 6th respondent fabricated documents to the effect that he was brought by her husband and created the records, as if he is the legal heir of her husband and forged the petitioner's signature and fabricated the documents and submitted to the respondent authorities to the effect that she made a declaration that she has no objection for appointment of the 6th respondent under compassionate appointment rules. .- \ \. .:..r.-;:l l I,1 \

1.4. The petitioner stated that though the 6t respondent is not the legal heir of the deceased, by risleading the respondent authorities, obtained :ompassionate appointment for the death of her husband. lrr mediately, she made a representation to the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry against the 6th respond: rt and remove him lrom service. But, the respondent aut - rrities clid not takc any ar:tion against the 6th respondent Finally, the petitioner gc,t issued a legal notice, dated 19.i +.2OO5 to take action against the 6,h respondent. Tl: respondent authorities after receiving the petitioner's n,r ice, intimated thc petitiont:r's counsel vide proceedings dat :d 18.06.2005 that the matter is under examination :r I I appropriate examination u,ould be taken in the matter based on the results of the hndings in due course. 15 The petitioncr lurther stated that tf : respondent authorities conducted an enquiry and four r that the 6tt' respondent obtained appointment by commi.: .ng fraud and he is not entitled for appointment under t ompassionate grounds for the death of her'husband. However, the - 15 respondent authorities did not take any action against the 6th respondent for his removal from service'

16. The proposals have been received from CE/O&M/KTPS alongwith an application from the 6'h respondent seeking employment and the Legal Heir Certificate obtained from the MandalRevenueofficer,Paloncha.AspertheLegalHeir Certificate issued by the Mandal Revenue Officer' Paloncha' there are four legal heirs including the 6'h respondent' The 6threspondentwhilerequestingtheauthoritiesfor compassionate appointment enclosed copies of Death Certificate, educational certificates and also an affidavit duly notarized submitted by the petitioner herein and her two daughters authorizing the 6'h respondent to be appointed under compassionate grounds as he is the son of the deceased.

17. After scrutinizing the proposals of the CE/O&M/KTPS' the APGENCO vide its Memo No'GM(A)/DS(PS)/As(P)/81- 246 I2OOO-1, dated 23.06'2000, issued orders permitting the 6th respondent atong with others to appear before the l6 \ \ .:'--i \ Selection Committee constituted for tlr : purpose of - \ appointment to the post of Attender at hea<l r uarters ofhce. i8. The respondent authorities in their cotr Lter specifically stated tha't the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph No.2 of the writ affidavit are irr orrect, as she herself declared that the 6th respondent is h :r son and her tuo daughtr:rs have also submitted affidavir r to that effect. Thr: responclent authorities stated that no re1 resentation for appointment under compassionate grounds : ts come up for consideration tili appointment of the 6,h rr:s; ondent. When the petitioner herself has given consent to ; ppoint the 6th responcient, the question of the petitionr: 's r.r,aiting for appointment does not arise

19. The 6.1 respondent in his counter affidz tzit stated that irc is the sister's son of the petitioner and th, . when he was about 3 or 4 years old, he u,as taken in a< option by the per-itioner ald her husband, as they did not rave any ma_le children. L:rter, he was brought up by his er opted parents and thev have provided him all the faci. .ies including 17 education. After the death of his adopted father, the Department has paid the death benefits to the peLitioner and she is also receiving the monthly lamily pension

20. In the month of March, 2O24, tespondent Nos.1 to 5 hled additional affidavit stating that after appointment of the 6th respondent as Attender vide order clated 15.07'2OOO, on the objection raised by the petitioner, the respondents have issued charge-sheet dated 29.O9.2OO5 and after conducting the enquiry, he was issued show-cause notice dated 14.02.2006. Aggrieved by the sarne, the 6th respondent liled W.P.No .3192 of 2006 before this Court and this Court vide its order dated 23.03.2006 granted stay of all further proceedings with regard to rhe said show'-cause notice. The said writ petition was a-llow'ed on 27 .O9 '2017 by setting aside the show-cause notice, dated 14-02.2006 and kept it open to the respondent authorities to issue sholv- cause notice and take further steps in accordance u'ith law-' Pursuant thereto, the respondent authorities issued Memo, dated 20.02.2005 to the 6th respondent alleging that he obtained btank signed papers from the petitioner for the l8 + pl-trDose ol' securing appointment )ompassionate \ Erorinds. TLLe 6th respondent submitted an xplanation on i)6"{-\3.2412 21 . On consideration of the explanation, I le respondent authorities came to know that the petitio - :r herself has given a notarized afhdavit on 25.02.1999 stlting that she has no obje<:tion for appointment of the 6th r: ;pondent. The r-rarne of the 6,h respondent is also recordetl -r the registers oi tiTPS for the purpose of availing LTC. .Af er considering the above said facts and in view of the ltL t that the 6rh respondent has completed 12 years ol servi, e without aly cor-no1aint, the respondent authorities c1<:, ided to drop further action against the 6m respondent rr rd accordingly proce edings dated 24.O4.2OI2 were issued 1r, hat effect.

22. In the instant case, the petitioner has i pproached the respondent authorities after a lapse of morc 1 ran four years after the appointment of the 6th responclt: t seeking his remcval. Tire petitioner herself gave a notari: ed afhdavit on

25.O2.i999 stating that she has no interes to do job 1n KT PS and agreed to provide compassionate ; ppointment to - l9 the 6il, respondent. Once the petitioner herself gave consent for appointment of the 6th respondent, she is estopped from questioning the same

23. A perusal of the recorci discloses Lhat before appointment of the 6th respondent, there was a conversation in between the family members of the petitioner and the petitioner and her daughters expressed no objection for appointment of the 6Lh respondent and later due to some family disputes, the petitioner walts to remove the 6th respondent from service and accordingly, she has approached the respondent authorities

24. With regard to compassionate appointment, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Hon'lrle Apex Court rn I\IALAYA NANDA SETIIY Vs. STATE O.F. ORISSI{ AND OTHERST, wherein the Apex Court heid as follows "14. TLtus, from tlrc aforesaid, it can be seen that there uas no fault and/ or delag and/ or negligence on the part of the appellant at all. He tuas fulfiUing all the conditions for appointment on compassionate grounds .- \ : -l .\ \ zpplication ;ed on one ts no fault i and all rt of th.e ld not be under th.e the delag absolute tuthoities. 'aue delay ' bg the Tisputablg t fact, the >assionate 7 to under t uictim of t of the 'ate or for :oncented. '.ces of the aside, as t that the ent under tment on e releuant Part inaction on il.n()er tlrc 1990 Rules. For no reason' hi: ,.uas kei:t pendinq and/ or no order was pa. crr;,rttri r r tlte other- Therefore, when there t .n( ,,ar ieia! on the paft of the appelht i.r.t:ttitc tit there tuas a delag on the .: depurtntznt./ authoities, th-e appellant shcr ntade to suffer. Not appointing the appellott l99r Rr,1r-,. u'ould be giuing a premium t . and i or departnt,:nt,/ authoities. There u)as ar collorisrr.:ss cn the part of the department,' J'he .lcict:; are conspicuous and manifest tfuz t it erLieliatninq the application submitte cipot'ilant in. seeking emplogment uthich is tr ::'.tri b u tab i e to th.e aep artment/ authoritie s. c:pi;clianl has been depriued of seeking cctrn .ipDaintn'er'-!.. u,,hich he utas otheruuise entitle thc 1()eO R-.ries. The appelLant hos become lh<: .Jelcttl and/ or tnaction on the pe ienortment,l authorities uhich may be delibe i.,ri.:;o7ls be-st ltn.outn to the authoities T'hercforc, in th"e peculiar facts and circumstLr casc. ke,:ping the lqrger question open aru1 cbseriecl he,rein aboue, u)e are of the opitttt aopeLlant herein shall not be denied appointr the 1990 Rules. 1 B. Il the ctbject and purpose of appoi compasslcnate grounds as enuisaged under;t 20ll s('('()nlinc s( 634 i I 2t policies or the ntles haue to be achieued tlrcn it is jrzsf and necessary that such applications are corlsidered utell in time and not in a tardg utag. We haue come across cases u.there for nearlA two decades the controuersA regarding tLLe application made fot compassionate appointment is not resolued. This consequently leads to the frustration of the uery policg of granting compassionate appointment on the death oJ the employee while in seruice. We haue, therefore, directeci that such applications must be considered at an earliesL point of time. TtLe consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on releuant consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of fiuolous and for reasons extrafteous to the facts of the case. Then and then only the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate grounds can be achieued."

25. In the above said case, an application was made lor compassionate appointment and the delay was occurred due to the negligence of the authorities. In the said circumstances, the Apex Court interfered and directed the authoritics to consider the case of the appellant therein lor appointment on compassionate grounds. But, in the case on hand, there is no delay. Initially, the appointment of the 6rh respondent is accepted by all the family members ald iater after completion of more than four years, the petitioner 3"t \ 22 made a representation for removal of the ( -h respondent Herice, the above case is not applicable to thtl rase on hand.

26. With regard to compassionate appoirr'ment, learned counsei for the respondents relied upon the )ivision Bench judgment of this Court in W.A.No.269 <r 2005, dated

28.04.2025, -wherein the Division Bench helc rs follows :- Tirc Vlit Petitioner himself disclosed h: years i,t the cause title of the tttit petitior Petition<'r ciid n.ot ttpproach the respondents at far qro.n t of con4tassionate appointment uithir' tine upori aita.initl,g majoity. Merelg because- the it ,stcnce of the wnt petitioner's brother t u'cis periding, it cannot be said that it is o just l to ign"ore tlte enorrnous detag of feut decades this. in ihe case af Debabrata Tiutai (supra), tl'.t age as 44 . The Wit I this Court reosonable litigation at 2., Ibrahim zble reoson Apaft from Apex Court opi,-ed- as urider : Ctnsideing the second question referred Lh-e -ttrs,t i"nstanrce, regarding uhether appi cc;mpassttnctte appointr,ent could be consid z delag or seueral aears, ue are of the uieut tht u,here, .,'or reasons of prolonged delay, either tt th.e app,!.ican.t i-s claiming compossionate appoit authoities in deciding such ciaim, th.e sense c is dilute d and Lost, Furlher, the financial circ,, the fan.ily of th-e deceased, mag haue chant. better, since the time of the death of the ernployee. In such circumstances, Courts or <n authoities are to be guided by th.e fact th to aboue, in :ations for ed, after a l, in a case the port of ment or the 'immediacy nstances of ed, for the gouentment ter releuant tt for such t) prolonged peiod of delay, the familg of the deceased was able to sustain themselues, most probablg bg auailing gainful employment from some other source- Granting compassionate appointment irt such a case, as noted bg this Court in HAKIM SINGH uould amount to treating a clatn .for compassionate oppointment as though it utere cL rnatter of inheitance based on a line of succession tthich is contrarg to the Constitution. Since compassionate appointment is rtot a uested ight and tle same is relatiue to the ftnancial condition and hardship faced by the dependents o-f the deceased gouernment emploAee as o consequence oJ' his death, a claim for compassionate appointmertt mag not be entertained after lapse of a considerable peiod of time since the dedth of the gouemment employee." (emphasis suppiied)

27. In the above case, after a deiay of several years, the petitioner therein approached the respondents for grant of compassionate appointment. In those circumstances, rvhile setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge, aliorved the W.A. by observing that a claim for compassionate appointment may not be entertained after lapse of a considerable period of time since the death of the Government e#.ployee and a-lso observed that the petitioner therein does not deserve any right of consideration for compassionate appointment after few decades from the ciate of attaining majority. l.t 2a. StrictJy speaking, the above said crl ;e is not fully applicable to the case on hand. In the i: petitioner 'tzrs given consent lor appoint;r ;tant case, the ent of the 6rh 5"-',*"-! - 'l respondent as Attender on compassionate g - ,unds and later after four yllars, shc maCe a representation I :eking removal of the 6th rr:spondent and the same cannot >e entertained. More so, i.r'ithout any complaint, the Sth 1 :spondent has completeci rLearly 15 years of service. At this; not be apprropriate to interlere with the appointmeni of the bir, respondent. Moreo\,, illegality or irregularitv in appointing the under cornpassionate grounds. Hence, the stage, it would :ompassionate r, there is no ,rt, respondent rit petition is devoid of me rits ald is liable to be dismissecl

29. Accordingly, thc .w-rit petition is dismisst j. No order as to costs Pending inisceilaneous petitions, if ar., shall stand c1o seL1. //TRUE COPY// SiI V. L. VIJAYA LAXMI SSiI iTANT REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI ABDUL AZAM KH One CC to SRI K.VENKAT REDD One CC to SMT K.UDAyA SRt ,A Two CD Copies , Advocat , Advocate UCI P To,

1. 2. J. 4. BSR b$ iW.,**ali":- n., ,t ] !,.---r.trr,.- HIGH COURT I DATED: 2611112025 ORDER WP.No.16660 of 2005 ( 0 r THE S s' a * 7 ;iF ?l:1t * PzITC DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION, WITHOUT COSTS %.