Alwar (Raj.) v. State Of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Home

Judgment

3. State Of Rajasthan, through its Secretary, Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) Director General of Police, Head Quarter, Jaipur (Raj.) Superintendent of Police, Alwar (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta on behalf of Mr. Vigyan Shah For Respondent(s) : Mr. Samee Khan on behalf of Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT Judgment Reportable RESERVED ON:- PRONOUNCED ON:- 05/08/2025 13/08/2025 Per, HON’BLE MR. SANJEET PUROHIT, J:

1. The present special appeal (writ) is preferred assailing the validity and propriety of the judgment dated 22.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant-petitioner, challenging the order impugned dated

30.05.2017 rejecting the candidature of the appellant-petitioner for recruitment to the post of Constable (General) on account of registration of criminal case, was dismissed. The facts germane to the present appeal are as under:-

2. Factual Matrix:- [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (2 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]

2.1 Appellant-Petitioner in his writ petition has stated that the advertisement dated 28.09.2012 was issued by the Office of Director General of Police, Headquarter Jaipur, inviting applications for the posts of Constable (General) and Constable (Driver). The appellant-petitioner being eligible and aspirant has applied for the post of Constable (General).

2.2 The recruitment process was to be held in two stages i.e. written examination (held on 06.01.2013) and physical test. The appellant-petitioner cleared both the said stages and his name was shown at Serial No.156 in the merit list issued by the respondent-

Department. It was contended that in spite of securing the merit position, the appointment was not granted to the appellant- petitioner on the ground that a Criminal Case No.23/285/2007 State Vs. Dinesh and Ors, was registered against the appellant- petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 323, 451, 325/34 IPC, however in the said case, the appellant-petitioner was acquitted by the competent criminal court vide order dated

09.03.2010 by way of compromise between the parties.

2.3 Challenging the rejection of his candidature, the appellant- petitioner earlier preferred writ petition being S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3684/2017 before this Court and the same was disposed off vide order dated 28.03.2017, directing the appellant- petitioner to file a representation, which was to be considered and decided by the respondent-authority.

2.4 The respondent-authority vide its order dated 30.05.2017 has rejected the said representation while referring to the Circular No.1300 dated 28.03.2017. [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (3 of 16) [SAW-971/2022]

2.5 Challenging the said rejection order dated 30.05.2017, the writ petition was filed by the appellant-petitioner.

3. Reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of respondent- departments, Justifying the order impugned dated 30.05.2017. It was stated that as a matter of fact, two FIRs were registered against the appellant-petitioner i.e. (i) FIR No.181/2007 for offence punishable under Sections 323, 451, 325/34 IPC in which the appellant-petitioner was acquitted by the judgment dated

09.03.2010 on the basis of compromise between the parties. (ii) FIR No.173/2013 for offence punishable under Section 366 IPC wherein the final report was submitted by the Investing Agency on

03.09.2014. The respondents submitted that apart from the registration of criminal case, the appellant-petitioner is also guilty of concealment, as the criminal antecedents were not being disclosed by the appellant-petitioner in his application from. Respondents have further stated that the service under the Police Department is service of discipline security force and thus, the candidate having criminal antecedents and having concealed the material information is not eligible / suitable for appointment on the post of Constable.

4. The learned Single Judge decided the writ petition while relying upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Love Kush Meena reported in [(2021) 8 SCC 774] and Commissioner of Police Vs. Raj Kumar reported in [(2021) 8 SCC 347]. The learned Single Judge observed that although the appellant-petitioner was acquitted by the learned Trial Court vide order dated 09.03.2010 [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (4 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] but the said acquittal was on the ground of compromise and therefore, the same cannot be considered clean acquittal. Learned Single Judge further observed that the matter relates to appointment in discipline security force and therefore, the prime recruitment is clean and honest character and thus, no illegality was committed by the Selection Committee in rejecting the candidature of appellant-petitioner. With the said observation, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.04.2022 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner.

5. Rival Contentions:-

5.1 While assailing the validity of the judgment dated

22.04.2022, counsel for the appellant-petitioner argued that the learned Single Judge has wrongly placed reliance upon the judgment passed in case of Love Kush Meena (Supra) and Raj Kumar (supra), because the facts of present case are not akin to the facts of the said cases. Further, the guiding principles laid down in the case of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India: [(2016) 8 SCC 471] have not been considered in its true spirit by the learned Single Judge.

5.2 Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner argued that the Circular dated 28.03.2017 was also not considered by the learned Single Judge in its true perspective. The learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner also argued that registration of a criminal case or even mere conviction is not a disqualification for appointment under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989 (for brevity “Rules of 1989”) and thus, rejection of appellant- petitioner’s candidature is in violation of the statutory provisions of the Rules of 1989. [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (5 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] It was further contended that the criminal case registered against him was regarding offences of trivial nature and since the appellant-petitioner has never been convicted, the same alone cannot be justified ground for rejection of his candidature. It was argued that the appellant-petitioner is meritorious candidate and has secured higher merit position, therefore prayed that the order impugned dated 22.04.2022 deserves to be quashed and the writ petition be allowed in toto.

6. While supporting the judgement impugned dated

22.04.2022, counsel for the respondents argued that the learned Single Judge has passed a perfectly valid and reasoned order while taking into account all the facts and circumstances of the present case and while rightly applying the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that as a matter of fact, two criminal cases have been registered against the appellant-petitioner, however appellant-petitioner has not disclosed his criminal antecedents in his application form. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the judgment of Love Kush Meena (supra) was rightly relied upon by the Hon’ble Single Judge and since the case of the appellant-petitioner does not fall within the ambit of clean and honorable acquittal, therefore, the judgment impugned is wholly justified. It was contended that no interference is called for in the present appeal.

7. Relevant Provision and Precedents:-

7.1 The present case relates to appointment on the post of Constable which is governed under the Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989. The Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989 [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (6 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] provides for “Character”. For ready reference the said Rule 13 is quoted hereunder:- “13. Character.-(1) The Character of a candidate for direct recruitment must be such as to qualify him for employment in the Service. He must produce a certificate of good character from the Principal Academic Officer of the University or College or School in which he was last educated and two such certificates, written not more than six months prior to the date of application, from two responsible persons not connected with his School or College or University and not related to him. (2) The Candidates with the following antecedents shall not be considered for appointment:- (a) Moral turpitude- It shall include a crime which pertains to cheating, adulteration of food items, forgery, intoxication, rape, outraging the modesty of a woman or any other kind of crime against a woman, and willful suppression of information (particularly adverse information) about the candidate e.g. suppression of information about criminal case registered against a candidate or a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988 or if a candidate has ever been debarred by any Board/Commission. (b) Violence:- It shall include assault (section 324, 325, 326 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 etc.), rioting and involvement in crimes disrupting communal harmony (section 146, 147, 148, 149, 153 and offences under Chapter 15 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 etc.), house trespass (section 452 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860) and more serious offences like section 307, 308, 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 etc. It shall also include planned violence or any other offence against the State as mentioned in Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and involvement in violent demonstrations and destruction of public property under the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984. (c) Illicit traficcing:- It shall include involvement in human trafficking in any manner, trafficking of excisable articles or narcotic substances. Illicit trafficking as defined in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (Central Act No. 61 of 1985) or the Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1988 (Central Act No. 46 of 1988), immoral trafficking under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956 (Central Act No. 104 of 1956) and excisable articles under the Rajasthan Excise Act, 1950. (d) Property ofencee:- It shall include property offences, except those mentioned in Chapter 21 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. (e) Caeee under inveetigation or trial- Candidate against whom any criminal case is pending under investigation or trial, in respect of the offences mentioned above, shall not be considered for appointment. Note: (i) If after the trial, the candidate is acquitted honourably then the candidate may be considered for appointment by the Committee constituted for the purpose at the level of the Department, if it is produced within 3 years of the last date of application for recruitment. (ii) In case of acquittal, the department would be well within its right to consider the antecedents and the suitability of the candidate, [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (7 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] while so considering the severity of the charges levelled and whether the acquittal in question was an honourable acquittal or merely on grounds of benefit of doubt or compromise. (iii) In case of closure of the case against the candidate after investigation, candidature will be considered after the final report is submitted to the court, provided the same is within one year of the date of publication of final result and brought to the notice of the department by the candidate. (iv) Juvenile cases which involve one incident and if the candidate was less than 16 years of age at the time of occurrence of crime, shall be so considered, while a juvenile more than 16 years of age shall be dealt with akin to an adult by the department if the offence is not a petty offence as defined under various sections of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

7.2 In view of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 13, registration of criminal case or even conviction alone is not a disqualification prescribed under the recruitment Rules. It is only if the offences alleged are of the nature of moral turpitude, violence (which shall not include the assault under Section 324, 325 and 326 IPC), illicit trafficking, property offences are considered as disqualification for recruitment under the said Rules.

8.1 The Hon’ble Supreme Court in its various authoritative pronouncements have laid down the detailed guidelines for consideration of the cases for recruitment where the candidate has faced the criminal cases as well as where there had been suppression of information by the candidate in the process of recruitment.

8.2 The law on this issue is settled by three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India: [(2016) 8 SCC 471], laying down the guidelines for consideration of such cases of conviction or concealment by a candidate in the recruitment process. The relevant paras of the judgement are extracted hereinbelow:- “34. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (8 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] “material” Suppression of based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects. 35. information presupposes that what is suppressed that “matters” not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions, if any, in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases. 36. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by authorities concerned considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects. ***

38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus: 38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information. 38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. 38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government Orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision. 38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses appropriate to the case may be adopted: 38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. 38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (9 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee. 38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. 38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case. 38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper. 38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime. 38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] holding [Ed. : The matter between two asterisks has been emphasised in original.] departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form. 38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for. 38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.” (emphasis supplied)

8.3 In case of Pawan Kumar Vs. Union of India: [(2023) 12 SCC 317], involving appointment to the post of Constable in Railway Protection Force and setting aside the order of discharge [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (10 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] due to alleged suppression in the verification form, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under :- “11. This cannot be disputed that the candidate who intends to participate in the selection process is always required to furnish correct information relating to his character and antecedents in the verification/attestation form before and after induction into service. It is also equally true that the person who has suppressed the material information or has made false declaration indeed has no unfettered right of seeking appointment or continuity in service, but at least has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and power has to be judiciously exercised by the competent authority in a reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case on hand. It goes without saying that the yardstick/standard which has to be applied with regard to adjudging suitability of the incumbent always depends upon the nature of post, nature of duties, effect of suppression over suitability to be considered by the authority on due diligence of various aspects but no hard and fast rule of thumb can be laid down in this regard. ***

13. What emerges from the exposition as laid down by this Court is that by mere suppression of material/false information regardless of the fact whether there is a conviction or acquittal has been recorded, the employee/recruit is not to be discharged/terminated axiomatically from service just by a stroke of pen. At the same time, the effect of suppression of material/false information involving in a criminal case, if any, is left for the employer to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances available as to antecedents and keeping in view the objective criteria and the relevant service rules into consideration, while taking appropriate decision regarding continuance/suitability of the employee into service. What has been noticed by this Court is that mere suppression of material/false information in a given case does not mean that the employer can arbitrarily discharge/terminate the employee from service.

8.4 Reiterating the principles laid down in Avtar Singh (Supra), recently the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar Vs. State of U.P.: [(2024) 5 SCC 264], has held :-

32. The nature of the office, the timing and nature of the criminal case; the overall consideration of the judgment of acquittal; the nature of the query in the application/verification form; the contents of the character verification reports; the socio-economic strata of the individual applying; the other antecedents of the candidate; the nature of consideration and cancellation/termination order are some of the crucial aspects which should enter the judicial verdict the contents of [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (11 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] in adjudging suitability and in determining the nature of relief to be ordered.”

34. On the facts of the case and in the backdrop of the special circumstances set out hereinabove, where does the non-disclosure of the unfortunate criminal case, (which too ended in acquittal), stand in the scheme of things? In our opinion on the peculiar facts of the case, we do not think it can be deemed fatal for the appellant. Broad-brushing every non-disclosure as a disqualification, will be unjust and the same will tantamount to being completely oblivious to the ground realities obtaining in this great, vast and diverse country. Each case will depend on the facts and circumstances that prevail thereon, and the court will have to take a holistic view, based on objective criteria, with the available precedents serving as a guide. It can never be a one size fits all scenario.

9. Reasonings and Analysis :-

9.1 We have heard learned counsel for parties and scrutinized the material available on record. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition while observing that acquittal on the basis of compromise cannot be considered as clean acquittal and in the case of appointment in discipline security forces, the character of candidate assumes significance. The learned Single Judge has further relied upon the judgments passed in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) and Love Kush Meena (supra).

9.2 A bare perusal of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989, makes it clear that the said provision does not prescribe the disqualification mere on the factum of conviction but the same is based upon nature of offences involved in the criminal case. Mere conviction alone is not a disqualification for appointment under the Rules of 1989. The object of the said provision is to debar the candidate only if his conviction is based upon the offences involving moral turpitude or association with crimes of violence etc.

9.3 Even the Circular dated 28.03.2017 (Ann.R/6) issued by the respondent - Police Department itself reveals that the guidelines [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (12 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] have been issued for consideration of the candidature for recruitment under the Rules of 1989 and the same provides that the candidates will be considered for appointment who have disclosed the criminal antecedents where; (i) after investigation, the candidate is not found accused, final report is accepted (ii) where the candidate has been acquitted by the Court “on the basis of benefit of doubt or lack of evidence” (iii) where the candidate has been acquitted on the basis of compromise (iv) where the benefit of probation has been granted (v) where the benefit of Section 15 (ii) (a) under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act was granted.

9.4 On conjoint reading of Rule 13 of the Rules of 1989 as well as the Circular dated 28.03.2017, it is clear that the acquittal on the basis of compromise as well as criminal case wherein FR has been given by the Investigation Agency are not considered as ground to deny the appointment under the Rules of 1989. So far as gravity of offence involved in case of the appellant-petitioner is concerned, it is clear that the same was not of heinous nature rather falls within the exception clearly carved out under Rule 13 (2) (b) of the Rules of 1989. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ravindra Kumar (supra) has clearly held that each case will depend upon of its facts and circumstances which has to be considered on various relevant factors. In our opinion, when even a conviction for an offence not involving moral turpitude or crimes of violence is not considered as disqualification, the acquittal on the basis of compromise can in no case is considered as justified ground to deny appointment to a meritorious candidate. [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (13 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] In view of the facts of the present case, it is clear that the FIR against the appellant-petitioner was registered in the year 2007 and the criminal case came to be decided in the year 2010 by way of compromise. Whereas the recruitment advertisement in the present case was issued in the year 2012 i.e. 2 years after acquittal of the appellant-petitioner. This clearly shows that the said compromise was arrived between the parties with the spirit of brotherhood and for maintaining future peaceful relations and the same was not arrived only for the purpose of securing employment. In view of the facts of the present case, the rejection of the appellant- petitioner’s candidature while holding that the acquittal on the basis of compromise cannot be considered as clean acquittal cannot be sustained.

10.1 So far as the issue of concealment of criminal antecedents on the part of appellant-petitioner is concerned, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Avtar Singh (supra) and Ravindra Kumar (supra), has held that even the cases of non-disclosure have to be considered in an objective manner and mere suppression of criminal antecedents itself alone cannot be a justified ground for rejection of candidature.

10.2 Learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner has drawn our attention to the police verification form (Ann.R/2) and a perusal of the same shows that the information sought in the said from was with regard to “any conviction or jail period, which a candidate might have faced”. To the said query, the appellant-petitioner has not furnished any details as he was never been convicted. In this view of matter, it is clear that there had been no intention of appellant-petitioner to suppress or conceal any material [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (14 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] information as the details filled by the appellant-petitioner in the verification form was in consonance with the information sought in the said form. While applying the criteria for consideration of suppressed information, in the light of Ravindra Kumar (supra), we find that there was no willful concealment as such on the pat of appellant - petitioner. Even otherwise, the appellant-petitioner has already been acquitted in a criminal case on the basis of compromise and since the same itself is not a ground of disqualification, therefore, the non-disclosure of the same alone cannot be a ground for denying the appointment to the appellant- petitioner.

11.1 Learned Single Judge has placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Love Kush Meena (supra) and Raj Kumar (supra). It is a settled position of law of precedents that the judgments are to be made applicable only upon the similar facts and circumstances. A bare perusal of the judgment passed in case of Love Kush Meena (supra) shows that one of the case registered against the petitioner therein was for the offence punishable under Section 302 r/w Section 34 IPC and the facts also referred to planed action / intention to commit the crime. In the said background where the alleged crime against the petitioner therein was of heinous nature, the Hon’ble Court has passed the said judgment. However, in the presence case, the offences alleged against the appellant-petitioner were for offences under Section 323, 451, 325/34 IPC which are not of grave nature and even the Rule 13 (2) (b) clearly provides that the violence shall not include the assault under Sections 324, 325 and 326 IPC. [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (15 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the judgment passed in case of Love Kush Meena (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

11.2 The judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar (supra) is also not applicable in the present case as in the said case the offence has been committed in planned manner where the accused persons armed with ‘lathis’ committed offence of trespass into house of complainant and snatched the jewellery of complainant’s daughter-in-law by causing injuries.

12. The appellant-petitioner has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.10830/2020: State of Rajasthan Vs. Rajesh Kumar Meena wherein the SLP has been dismissed in the case where the acquittal was based upon compromise between the parties. After the said decision, the appointment has been granted to the said candidate.

13. On the facts of present case and in the backdrop of peculiar facts and circumstances set out hereinabove, we do not think that the acquittal on compromise as well as non-disclosure of offence of trivial nature can be deemed to be fatal for the appellant.

14. In view of the above discussion, the present appeal succeeds and the same is allowed. The judgment impugned dated

22.04.2022 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner is allowed, while directing the respondent- department to grant appointment to the appellant-petitioner on the post of Constable (General) for which he was selected pursuant to the recruitment notification dated 28.09.2012. We [2025:RJ-JP:30299-DB] (16 of 16) [SAW-971/2022] make it clear that the appellant-petitioner will not be entitled for arrears of salary for the period during which he has not served in the force. However, we direct that the appellant-petitioner will be entitled for all notional benefits including pay-scale, seniority and other consequential benefits. The respondents are directed to pass necessary orders within a period of four weeks from today. There shall be no order as to costs. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J TN