R.Narayanan v. Secretary to GovernmentPublic (Law Officers) DepartmentGovernment of Tamil Nadu

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDated : 28.08.2009Coram :THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.RAVIRAJA PANDIANandTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAJAWrit Petitions No.16057 of 2009R.Narayanan Petitioner v.1.The Secretary to GovernmentPublic (Law Officers) DepartmentGovernment of Tamil Nadu2.The Registrar GeneralMadras High CourtChennai – 1023.Mr.P.KumaresanAdditional Public ProsecutorPublic Prosecutor (Incharge)High Court of MadrasChennai – 102. RespondentsWrit petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia for the issue of writ of Quo warranto directing the thirdrespondent to show cause by what authority he claims to have, use,enjoy and perform the rights, duties and privileges of the Officeof the Additional Public Prosecutor and Public Prosecutor (InCharge) in the High Court of Madras and consequently declaring thatthe appointment of the third respondent as an Additional PublicProsecutor and Public Prosecutor (in charge) of the High Court ofMadras as ab initio void. For petitioner:Mr.R.SankarasubbuFor respondents:Mr.P.S.Raman,Advocate GeneralJUDGMENTK.RAVIRAJA PANDIAN, J.This Writ petition is filed seeking for the relief of issuanceof writ of Quo warranto directing the third respondent to showcause by what authority he claims to have, use, enjoy and perform https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the rights, duties and privileges of the Office of the AdditionalPublic Prosecutor and Public Prosecutor (In Charge) in the HighCourt of Madras and consequently declare that the appointment ofthe third respondent as an Additional Public Prosecutor and PublicProsecutor (in charge) of the High Court of Madras as ab initiovoid. 2. The petitioner - a practicing advocate of the Madras HighCourt and Tamil Nadu State Joint Secretary Indian Association ofPeople's Lawyers, has filed the writ petition supported by anaffidavit. The material averments in the affidavit are that thepetitioner came to know that the third respondent, who is servingas Additional Public Prosecutor of Madras High Court, was appointedas Public Prosecutor (Incharge), that he came to know that thethird respondent before his appointment as Additional PublicProsecutor has also served as Government Advocate (Criminal Side)in the Madras High Court from 1996 to 1998; that under Right toInformation Act, he obtained certain Government orders and otherrelated documents pertaining to the appointment etc., of the thirdrespondent, that from which he learnt that the third respondent wasappointed as Additional Public Prosecutor of Madras High Court inthe year 2006 vide G.O.Ms. No.576 dated 23.6.2006; that thepetitioner came to know that the third respondent during his tenureas Government Advocate was terminated from his service oncorruption charges vide G.O.Ms.No.927 dated 12.6.1998; that hefurther learnt that the Government Advocates were appointed onlyfor a tenure of two years and subsequently extended for two moreyears if need be on lawful consideration; that despite the factthat only less than four weeks was remaining for completion oftenure of the third respondent, Government chose to terminate himfrom service; that reveals the gravity of the corruption chargeslevelled against the third respondent; that in the Bio-data placedby the third respondent for his appointment to the post ofAdditional Public Prosecutor, it is stated that the thirdrespondent has served two years as Government Advocate from theyear 1996 to 1998; that the said statement is not true as he wasterminated from service before the completion of two years from hisappointment; that it is clearly evident to conceal the fact oftermination, the third respondent has stated that he has completedtwo years of service as Government Advocate (Criminal Side); thatthe third respondent's termination from service on corruptioncharges was totally concealed during his appointment as AdditionalPublic Prosecutor; that Section 24 of Criminal Procedure Codemandates the consultation of the High Court before the appointmentof Additional Public Prosecutor; that the petitioner hoped that thedocuments relating to the termination and the enquiry proceedingsconducted before such termination were not placed before this Courtand that fact was completely concealed; that a great sanctity isattached to the post of Public Prosecutor; that the PublicProsecutor is not only defending the State, but also expected to befair to the Court as well as the accused; that the PublicProsecutor is expected to maintain the decorum, uphold the majesty https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of justice and help the Court in dispensing justice in CriminalJustice Administration; that if a person, who heads such system, ishimself a person removed on the charge of corruption, the verycriminal law administration would be at jeopardy; that theprocedure of consultation of the High Court for appointment of thePublic Prosecutor is not even required for the post of an AdvocateGeneral, that the word consultation is real consultation, in thesense, that all the materials in possession of one who consultsmust be unreservedly placed before the consultee, and withholdingof material information like termination of respondent No.3 oncorruption charges will vitiate the very appointment of the post ofAdditional Public Prosecutor. On the above basis the petitionerfiled the writ petition for issuance of quo warranto. 3. On an office note dated 17.8.2009, My Lord the Hon'bleChief Justice has ordered the Registry to post this case beforethis Bench and as such the matter was listed before this Court on21.8.1999. On that day, at the request of the counsel appearing forthe petitioner to gather more materials, the matter was adjournedto 25.8.2009.4. The counsel appearing for the petitioner argued the case on25.8.2009 reiterating what is stated in the affidavit by arguingthat a person, who has been terminated from the service ofGovernment Advocate (Criminal Side) on proved misconduct shouldnot have been appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor byrespondents No.1 and 2. In his resume (bio-data), the thirdrespondent has stated that he has served as Government Advocate(Criminal Side) in Public Prosecutor's Office, High Court, Chennaifor two years (1996-1998), which is incorrect. The third respondenthas not completed two years of service, but was terminated fewweeks prior to the completion of two years. Section 24 of theCriminal Procedure Code requires that the State Government has toappoint Additional Public Prosecutor on consultation with the HighCourt. While respondent No.1 is seeking for the opinion of theCourt, he had failed to disclose the material fact of terminationof the third respondent on proved corruption charges. In order tobring home his contention, he relied on the decisions of PONNUSAMYVS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 1995 WRIT LAW REPORTER 503,R.RADHAKRISHNAN VS. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE reported in (2008)1 SCC 660 and ANNA MATHEW VS. N.KANNADASAN reported in 2009-1- LawWeekly 87. 5. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that a quowarranto can be maintained only if the person appointed to theOffice has no valid qualification to hold the post or if suchappointment is made against the relevant statutory provision. Inthe case of appointment of the third respondent, none of theconditions is contravened. Hence, a quo warranto cannot bemaintained. The contention of the petitioner that the thirdrespondent has been terminated from his post as Government Advocate(Criminal Side) on the proved misconduct of corruption is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ absolutely baseless, but it is a figment of the imagination of thepetitioner. The Government Order G.O.Ms.No.927 dated 12.6.1998 withwhich reliance has been made to contend as above by the petitionernowhere suggests that the third respondent was terminated from thepanel of advocates on the proved charge of corruption. The thirdrespondent was terminated from serving as Government Advocateearlier on the recommendation of the then Public Prosecutor forcertain alleged lapses in defending a transfer petition. Thatcannot be regarded as disqualification for appointing him asAdditional Public Prosecutor after lapse of eight years. The Stateis competent to appoint a lawyer of its choice to the post ofPubic Prosecutor in consultation with the High Court as requiredunder Section 24(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The thirdrespondent is an Advocate practicing in the criminal side for morethan fifteen years meets the requirement of sub section (7) ofsection 24 and was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor inconsultation of the High Court, Madras. The writ petition may bedismissed. 6. The file relating to the Order dated 12.6.1998 is placedfor our perusal. On a reading of the file, it could be seen thatone Satyanathan, first accused in Crime No.40 of 1998 on the fileof Sankar Nagar police station obtained an order of anticipatorybail from this Court on 13.1.1998 in Crl.O.P.No.404 of 1998 onconditions that he should appear before the respondent police dailyat 10.00 a.m, and 5.00 p.m, until further orders, and also producethe car allegedly involved in the case for investigation purpose asand when required. Subsequently the same Satyanathan filedCrl.O.P.No.2157 of 1998 praying for transfer of investigation ofcrime No.40 of 1998 from Sankar Nagar Police Station to some otherstation. On 27.2.1998, this Court passed an order to call thematter on 3.3.1998 along with Crl.M.P.No.1544 of 1998 and in themeanwhile directed the respondent police not to insist thepetitioner's presence or harass him. The application inCrl.M.P.No.1544 of 1998 was filed for cancellation of the bailgranted earlier. The conditions imposed in the anticipatory bailpetition directing Satyanathan to appear before the respondentpolice and produce the car allegedly involved in the case forinvestigation purpose as and when necessary was not brought to thenotice of the Court while passing the order on 27.2.1998 and thatat the time of hearing of Crl.M.P.No.2157 of 1998 filed fortransfer of investigation, the third respondent did not present thecase properly and did not make any attempt to refute theallegations made against the police officer, were the allegationsmade against the third respondent. It could be seen from the orderdated 27.02.1998 that filing a petition for cancellation of bail inCrl.M.P.No.1544 of 1998 has been brought to the notice of theCourt, but for which there is no necessity for the Court to directthe Crl.M.P.No.2157 of 1998 to be posted along with Crl.M.P.No.1544of 1998. However, on the basis of the above allegation, the thenPublic Prosecutor sent a letter recommending for termination ofservice of the third respondent as Government Advocate as his https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ continuance in the office of the Public Prosecutor would be againstpublic interest. Pursuant to the same, G.O.Ms.No.927 dated12.6.1998 was issued terminating the third respondent from thepanel of Advocates. The termination order reads as follows:"ORDER:-As per Rule 2 in para VI under the heading"System of Panel of Advocates" in High Court StandingOrder Part II, the Government of Tamil Nadu herebydirect that the services of Thiru.P.Kumaresan,Government Advocate (Criminal Side) attached to HighCourt, Chennai be terminated from the panel ofAdvocates by giving one month retainer fee from thedate of issue of this order.2. The Public Prosecutor, High Court, Chennai isrequested to arrange to serve the order to the LawOfficer. He is also requested to arrange to draw anddisburse the retainer fee as mentioned above to theabove Law Officer, High Court, Chennai."There is absolutely no material or even a whisper in the aboveorder that the third respondent's service as Government Advocatewas terminated on proved corruption charges. There is noexplanation from the petitioner as to how he came to the conclusionthat the third respondent was terminated on proved corruptioncharges. For the allegation of corruption charges, except the baldaverment in the affidavit and the stout argument before the Court,there is no material forthcoming from the petitioner. This isnothing but wild, rather reckless allegation levelled against thethird respondent for the reasons best known to the petitioner. 7. The third respondent was appointed as Additional PublicProsecutor on 23.6.2006. It is surprising to note that thepetitioner, who claims to be a practicing advocate of this Courtcame to know about such appointment only recently and filed thewrit petition after 3 years and 2 months. 8. The allegation of corruption charges without any basis andon that basis filing a writ petition by a practicing advocate, whois supposed to know about the gravity of the allegation andconsequences of filing of the writ petition of the present natureafter a period of three years from the date of appointment of thethird respondent, cast some suspicion as to the bonafide of thepetitioner. 9. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the thirdrespondent was not terminated for the proved corruption charges,which is evident from the reasons stated above. Hence, the veryfoundation of the case is collapsed and as such the allegationshave to be rejected. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

10. Now let us consider whether the appointment of the thirdrespondent meets the statutory requirement of sub-Sections (1) and(7) of Section 24 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The saidprovisions, which are relevant to the present case, read thus:"24. Public Prosecutors. - (1) For every HighCourt, the Central Government or the State Governmentshall, after consultation with the High Court, appointa Public Prosecutor and may also appoint one or moreAdditional Public Prosecutors, for conducting in suchCourt, any prosecution, appeal or other proceeding onbehalf of the Central Government or State Government,as the case may be.....(7) A person shall be eligible to be appointed asa Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutorunder sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) or sub-section(3) or sub-section (6), only if he has been in practiceas an advocate for not less than seven years."11. The third respondent is a legal practitioner having astanding of fifteen years of practice in the High Court, Madras onthe date of his appointment on 23.06.2006. He was appointed by theState Government after consulting the High Court under Section 24(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code under G.O.Ms. No.576 dated23.06.2006, which reads as follows:"ORDERUnder section 24(1) of the Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 (Central Act 2 of 1974), the Governmentof Tamil Naldu in consultation with the High Court ofMadras) hereby appoint the following Advocates asAdditional Public Prosecutors in the High Court of Madrasand its Bench at Madurai as noted against each:- HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, CHENNAISl.No. Name of Advocates the Place in which appointment is made ....... 2........3........4.Thiru.P.Kumaresan as Additional Public Prosecutor in the place of Thiru. A.Navaneetha- krishnan, resigned........ " https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Thus, his appointment meets the statutory requirements. 12. Now let us consider as to how the issue of the presentnature has been dealt with by the Court of superior jurisdiction."The matter relating to the appointment of a legal practitioner bya Government may be the subject matter of a legislation. The Stateby amending the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Code ofCriminal Procedure may make a law regulating the appointment of thePublic Prosecutor or Additional Public Prosecutor. Such a law canalso be made for regulating appointment of other State counsel. Inabsence of any legislation in that behalf, various States have laiddown executive instructions. Thus, the State in exercise of itsjurisdiction under Article 162 is competent to appoint a lawyer ofits choice and designate him in such manner as it may deem fit andproper." (vide M.T.KHAN v. GOVT. OF A.P. (2004) 2 SCC 267). 13. In the case of B.SRINIVASA REDDY VS. KARNATAKA URBAN WATERSUPPLY & DRAINAGE BOARD EMPLOYEES' ASSOCIATION, (2006) 11 SCC 731,the Supreme Court enunciated the principle as follows: "... 49. The law is well settled. The High Court inexercise of its writ jurisdiction in a matter of thisnature is required to determine, at the outset, as towhether a case has been made out for issuance of a writof quo warranto. The jurisdiction of the High Court toissue a writ of quo warranto is a limited one which canonly be issued when the appointment is contrary to thestatutory rules. ....57. It is settled law that a writ of quo warrantodoes not lie if the alleged violation is not of astatutory nature....59. In High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat KishanMazdoor Panchayat (2003) 4 SCC 712, it was held by thisCourt that a writ of quo warranto can only be issuedwhen the appointment is contrary to the statutory rules.The judgment in Mor Modern Coop. Transport Society Ltd.V. Financial Commissioner & Secretary to Government ofHaryana (2002) 6 SCC 269, was relied on"(bold supplied)(See also High Court of Gujarat v. Gujarat Kishan MazdoorPanchayat,(2003) 4 SCC 712) 14. So long as in appointing a counsel the procedures laiddown under the Code of Criminal Procedure are followed and areasonable or fair procedure is adopted, the court will normallynot interfere with the decision. The nature of the office held by alawyer vis-à-vis the State being in the nature of professional https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ engagements, the courts are normally chary to overturn any decisionunless an exceptional case is made out. The question as to whetherthe State is satisfied with the performance of its counsel or notis primarily a matter between it and the counsel. (Vide State ofU.P. v. Johri Mal,(2004) 4 SCC 714). (bold supplied)15. The Court should consider whether the writ petition is theoutcome of the ill will or malice. (Vide A.N. Shashtri v. State ofPunjab, 1988 Supp SCC 127). In the earlier paragraph, we doubtedthe bona fide of the petitioner. Issuance of a writ of quo warrantois discretionary and such a writ should be issued only upon a clearfinding that the appointment to a public office was contrary to thestatute. (Vide Arun Singh v. State of Bihar, (2006) 9 SCC 375)16. In B.R.Kapur v. State of Tamilnadu, (2001) 7 SCC 231),the apex Court has held as follows :"Quo warranto protects the public from illegalusurpation of public office by an individual and thenecessary ingredients to be satisfied by the Court beforeissuing a writ is that the office in question must bepublic, created by the Constitution and a person notlegally qualified to hold the office, in clear infringementof the provisions of the Constitution and the law..............A writ of quo warranto is a writ which lies againstthe person, who according to the relatory is not entitledto hold an office of public nature and is only usurpur ofthe office. It is the person, against whom the writ of quowarranto is directed, who is required to show, by whatauthority that person is entitled to hold the office. Thechallenge can be made on various grounds, including on thegrounds that the possessor of the office does not fulfilthe required qualifications or suffers from anydisqualification, which debars the person to hold suchoffice. "(bold supplied)17. The Constitution Bench of Supreme Court in the case of THEUNIVERSITY OF MYSORE VS. GOVINDA RAO reported in AIR 1965 SUPREMECOURT 491 has held as follows:"Broadly stated, the quo warranto proceeding affordsa judicial enqiry in which any person holding anindependent substantive public office, or franchise, orliberty, is called upon to show by what right he holds thesaid office, franchise or liberty; if the inquiry leads tothe finding that the holder of the office has no validtitle to it, the issue of the writ of quo warranto ousts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ him from that office. In other words, the procedure of quowarranto confers jurisdiction and authority on thejudiciary to control executive action in the matter ofmaking appointments to public offices against the relevantstatutory provisions, it also protects a citizen frombeing deprived of public office to which he may have aright. It would thus be seen that if these proceedings areadopted subject to the conditions recognised in thatbehalf, they tend to protect the public from usurpers ofpublic office; in some cases, persons not entitled topublic office maybe allowed to occupy them and to continueto hold them as a result of the connivance of theexecutive or with its active help, and in such cases, ifthe jurisdiction of the courts to issue writ of quowarranto is properly invoked, the usurper can be oustedand the person entitled to the post allowed to occupy it.It is thus clear that before a citizen can claim a writ ofquo warranto, he must satisfy the Court inter alia thatthe office in question is a public office and is held byusurper without legal authority, and that necessarilyleads to the enquiry as to whether the appointment of thesaid alleged usurper has been in accordance with law ornot." (bold supplied)18. Quo warranto is extra-ordinary remedy and citizen mustsatisfy, inter alia, that office in question is public office andis held by usurper without legal authority and appointee did notpossess requisite qualification. No quo warranto can be issued onbasis of mere allegations which are vague. (vide T.Fenn Walter v.Hon'ble Mr.Justice E.Padmanabhan, 2002(3) CTC 321)19. Pure questions of fact cannot be enquired into in petitionseeking issuance of quo warranto. (Vide N.S.Ziauddeen v. S.AshokKumar, Principal Sessions Judge, (2002) 2 CTC 257.)20. Having regard to the fact that the third respondent ishaving required qualification of seven years standing in the Barunder sub-section (7) of Section 24 of Criminal Procedure Code andthe requirement of consultation of the High Court under Section 24(1) has also been complied with, the appointment of the thirdrespondent cannot be at any stretch of imagination be consideredto be an appointment against the statutory provision. If that beso, no writ of quo warranto can be issued in the light of thejudicial pronouncements above referred to.21. The case laws cited by the counsel for the petitioner areas follows : The first of the case relied on behalf of the petitioner isPONNUSAMY VS STATE OF TAMIL NADU reported in 1995 Writ Law Reporter508. In the case, the writ petition was filed for quo warranto https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ questioning the appointment of Advocate General on the ground thatthree professional irregularities viz., (1) In contempt applicationNo.69 of 1994 pending on the file of this Court, implicating thesecond respondent therein in the matter of printing and publishingwall-posters denigrating the Judiciary, (2) On 2.11.1981, thesecond respondent was appointed as Legal Adviser of the Tamil NaduIndustrial Investment Corporation Limited(in short, "TIIC"). Awritten complaint was made by one Mr.Nalla Gounder, complainingabout the second respondent's conduct in demanding a sum ofRs.10,000/- for offering legal opinion on the title of the propertyoffered by the said Nalla Gounder as security for a loan sought forfrom the TIIC.The TIIC sought the opinion of the Government and theGovernment, by a letter dated 31-1-1985, instructed the TIIC toremove the second respondent from the panel of the Legal Advisersand (3) There were certain proceedings against the secondrespondent pending before the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu. In thosefactual circumstances, the writ petition was filed for issuance ofa writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent State of TamilNadu to remove the second respondent therein from the Office of theAdvocate-General for the State of Tamil Nadu. However, as thesecond respondent therein has resigned from the post of AdvocateGeneral during the pendency of the writ petition, the Courtdismissed the writ petition without laying down any ratio. 22. The second decision relied on by the petitioner isR.RADHAKRISHNAN VS. DIRECTOR GENEARL OF POLICE AND OTHERS reportedin (2008) 1 SCC 660, wherein the appellant filed an application forappointment to the post of Fireman on 5.1.2000. He wasprovisionally selected whereafter he submitted a verification roll,in which the appellant answered in negative in respect of threequestions as to "Have you ever been concerned in any criminal caseas accused?", Have you ever been arrested or convicted andsentenced to undergo imprisonment or pay a fine in any criminal orother offence? If so, give details with CC No. and Court." and Arethere any civil or criminal cases pending against you? If so,details". However, later it was admitted that he was involved inan incident which occurred on 15.4.2000 and was proceeded withagainst under Section 294(b) of the Penal Code and he was arrested,but was released on bail, however was acquitted from the charge on25.9.2000. He was not selected on the premise that he had made afalse statement in his verification roll in respect of pendency ofaforementioned cases. The Supreme Court held that the non-disclosure of pendency of criminal case is fatal and the non-selection on that ground is in accordance with law. In that casegiving false answers to the questions in the verification roll hasbecome fatal to the petition.23. It appears that the above judgment has been pressed intoservice by the petitioner on the ground that in the Resume of thethird respondent, which the petitioner obtained under the Right toInformation Act, the third respondent has given an incorrectstatement that he served as Government Advocate (Criminal Side) in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Public Prosecutor's Office, High Court, Madras, Chennai for twoyears (1996-98) and he did not disclose the termination. We arenot able to accept the contention of the petitioner that theinformation that the third respondent served as Government Advocatefor two years 1996-98 is incorrect statement as the petitionerhimself has stated in paragraph No.5 of the affidavit as follows:"I came to know that the 3rd respondent before hisappointment as Additional Public Prosecutor has alsoserved as Government Advocate (criminal side) in theMadras High Court from 1996 to 1998."It is also a fact that the third respondent served as GovernmentAdvocate (Criminal Side) upto his termination on 12.6.1998. Thenon-furnishing of the fact of third respondent's termination asGovernment Advocate in the resume would not ipso facto be regardedas disqualification of the third respondent to hold the office ofthe Additional Public Prosecutor, as the earlier order oftermination was passed by the same respondent, who has passed thepresent order appointing the third respondent as Additional PublicProsecutor. Thus, there is no suppression of material fact.24. The third case is ANNA MATHEW VS. N.KANNADASAN reportedin 2009-1- Law Weekly 87, which has been merged with the order ofthe Supreme Court in the case of N.KANNADASAN VS. AJOY KHOSEreported in (2009) 7 SCC 1, in which the core question was whetherthe respondent therein was qualified to be appointed as thePresident of the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission, Chennai. Though the first respondent therein acted asAdditional Judge of this Court for a period of two years, hisperiod has not been extended. Whether an Additional Judge, whoseterm has not been extended, can be regarded as a retired Judge orbe regarded as has been a Judge or has held the Office of the Judgewas a question. That was held against the first respondent therein.We are of the view that none of the three decisions relied on bythe petitioner would advance the case of the petitioner for therelief sought for. 25. In view of the catena of decisions about themaintainability of writ of quo warranto, few of which have beenreferred to supra, and in the facts and circumstances of the case,we are of the view that the petitioner has not made out any casefor issuance of quo warranto and the writ petition deserves to bedismissed and accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd/- Asst.Registrar/true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrarusk https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ To1. The Secretary to Government Public (Law Officers) Department Government of Tamil Nadu Chennai.2. The Registrar General, Madras High Court Chennai – 102.+1 cc to Mr.R.Sankarasubbu, Advocate, SR.No.42750 Order inW.P.No.16057 of 2009KA {CO}TP/7.9.2009.