Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  2323    OF 2013 (@ out of  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4669/2012 )

The Chief Executive Officer, Pondicherry Khadi and Village  Industries Board and Anr. …Appellants

Versus

K. Aroquia Radja & Ors. …Respondents

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2324    OF 2013 (@ out of  SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 4688/2012 )

The Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board and Ors. …Appellants

Versus

K. Aroquia Radja & Ors. …Respondents

J U D G  E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.

Leave Granted in both these appeals.

Page 2

2. Both  these  appeals  raise  the  question  as  to  

whether the employees who are appointed on a co-terminus  

basis  have  any  right  to  continue  in  service  after  the  

cessation  of  the  engagement  of  the  person  with  whose  

engagement their services were made co-terminus.

Facts leading to these appeals are this wise:-

3. The Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board  

(Board for short) is a statutory body corporate constituted  

under  Section  3  of  the  Pondicherry  Khadi  and  Village  

Industries Board Act, 1980 (Board Act for short). The board is  

running  various  Khadi  spinning/weaving/silk  centers  which  

provide  employment  opportunities  to  a  large  number  of  

persons, particularly women.  It runs several Khadi Bhandars  

for the sale of Khadi and Village Industries goods produced  

by  the  board.   The  board  has  219  sanctioned  posts  at  

various  levels  as  approved  by  the  Government  of  

Puducherry.   It  has  framed  Recruitment  Rules/Standing  

Orders with respect to each of these posts.

4. Government  of  India  had  issued  Office  

Memorandum  dated  18.5.1998,  wherein  after  referring  to  

the  principles  laid  down  by  this  Court  in  Excise  

2

Page 3

Superintendent  Malkapatnam,  Krishna  District,  A.P.  

Vs. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao and Ors. reported in 1996  

(6) SCC 216 (which recognises the recruitment through the  

employment  exchanges  as  the  principle  mode  of  

recruitment), it was directed that all vacancies arising under  

the  Central  Government  Offices/establishments  (including  

quasi-government  institutions  and  statutory  organizations)  

irrespective  of  the  nature  and  duration  (other  than  those  

filled through UPSC), are not only to be notified, but also to  

be  filled  through  the  Employment  Exchange  alone.  Other  

permissible sources of recruitment were to be tapped only if  

the  Employment  Exchange  concerned  issued  a  Non-

availability Certificate.  There can be no departure from this  

recruitment procedure unless a different arrangement in this  

regard has been previously agreed to in consultation with  

the  Department  and  the  Ministry  of  Labour  (Directorate  

General,  employment  &  Training).  Similar  instructions  are  

also  in  force  requiring  vacancies  against  posts  carrying  a  

basic  salary  of  less  than  Rs.  500/-  per  month  in  Central  

Public  Sector  undertaking  to  be  filled  only  through  

Employment Exchange.

3

Page 4

5. It so transpired that one Shri P. Angalan, assumed  

the office of the Chairman of the Board on 12.7.2002, and he  

desired engagement of certain persons as his personal staff.  

There was no provision for any sanctioned post of personal  

staff  in  the  board,  yet  without  obtaining  the  names  

sponsored by the Employment Exchange, the said Chairman  

engaged  five  persons  as  his  personal  staff  viz.  the  four  

respondents herein and one T. Kumar (since deceased).   

6. In view of the persuasion of the said Chairman, the  

Government  of  Puducherry  issued  general  orders  dated  

13.2.2003 appointing the respondents on co-terminus basis.  

They were appointed on fixed scale of pay.  The appointment  

orders of these respondents clearly stated that their service  

shall automatically stand terminated, as soon as the tenure  

of the Chairman is over.  The government order approving  

the appointment of these five persons read as follows:-

“GOVERNMENT OF PONDICHERRY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT

(INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE)

No. J.12014/5/2002/Ind. & Com.B        Pondicherry, the 26  Mar 2003

To The Chief Executive Officer,  

4

Page 5

Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board, Plot No. 1 & 2, Kamaraj Salai, New Saram, Pondicherry

Sir, Sub: DID (Ind & Com.) – Providing personal staff to   

the Chairman  of  the  Boards/Corporations- Approval-Conveyed

Ref:1 I.D. No.A.52011/1/2002/DP&AR/SSI (2) Dated 13.02.2003 of the Department of Personnel   

and Administrative  Reforms  (Personnel  Wing),   

Pondicherry 2. Letter No. 1/516/2002/Estt-I  dated 13.03.2003  

from the Chief Executive Officer, Pondicherry   Khadi and Village Industries Board, Pondicherry I am directed to invite a kind reference to the I.D. Note cited   under reference one above. 2. Approval of the Government is hereby conveyed for the   engagement of the following personal staff by the Chairman   of the Pondicherry Khadi and Village Industries Board on co- terminus basis as requested in the reference second cited   above:-

Sl .N o

Name and Address Post Scale  of  Pay

1. K.Aroquia  Radja,  S/o  Kulandai   Raj, No.  24,  II  Cross,  Balaji  Nagar,   Pondicherry-13

Stenograph er

Rs.  4500- 125-7000

2. G. Ayappan, S/o Gangadharan,  No.  29,  II  Cross,  Mariamman  Nagar,  Karamanikuppan,  Pondhicherry-4

Personal  Clerk

Rs.  3050- 75-3950- 80-4590

3. T. Kumar, S/o Thiagarajan,  Thirupur  Kumaran  Street,   Manjolai,  Ariyankuppam,  Pondicherry-7

Staff  Car  Driver

Rs.  3050- 75-3950- 80-4590

5

Page 6

4. P.  Rajesekar,  S/o  Puroshothaman, No.  8,  Main  Road,  C.N.   Palayam,  Arumapathpuram  (P.O.)  Villianur  via,   Pondicherry-10

Peon Rs.  2550- 55-2660- 3200

5. S.  Ramachandran,  S/o  Subramani, 64, Gangai Amman Koil Street, Pillaichavadi, Pondicherry-14

Peon Rs.  2550- 55-2660- 3200

3. These  official’s  services  shall  automatically  stand   terminated as soon as the Chairman ceases to hold his post. 4. Further,  it  is  also  requested  to  send  proposals  for   incorporating the provision of personal staff to Chairman in   the Act/Rules of corporation immediately.

Yours faithfully

(P.M.Emmanuel) Under Secretary to Govt. (Ind. & Com.)”

7.  Based on the above order of approval, a separate  

office  order  dated  26.3.2003  was  issued  concerning  the  

appointment of the five persons, containing the terms and  

conditions which were as follows:-

“……. TERMS AND CONDITIONS  FOR ENGAGEMENT  OF  PERSONAL STAFF ON CO-TERMINUS BASIS

1. The individual is engaged on co-terminus basis.   It  means  that  the  services  of  the  individual   stands automatically terminated as soon as the   present  Chairman  ceases  to  hold  his   post/ceases to be in the office of the Chairman.

2. The  terms  of  this  engagement  will  be  co- terminus basis and coincide with the tenure of   

6

Page 7

the Chairman of the Board or will be in force till   the Chairman requires his service whichever is   earlier.   When  the  necessity  for  his  services   ceases, his services stands terminated from this   office without any prior notice and he will not   have  any  claim  for  regular   appointment/absorption  in  Board’s  service   whatever  be  the  duration  of  services  in  the   office.

3. No  pay  fixation  will  be  done  for  his   engagement.   But the pay will  be claimed on  per with the same post and scale of pay exists   in the government against which he is engaged   and he will earn increment, as per Rules, every   year  in  the  time scale  of  pay  in  which  he  is   engaged.

4. No Act/Service Rules/Regulations will  be made  applicable  to  the  individual  for  claiming  the   regular appointment in the Board.  Because of   working in the Board on co-terminus basis, he   does  not  have  any  right  for  claiming  regular   appointment in the Board.

5. The  engagement  is  neither  temporary/regular   no adhoc basis.   It  is  only purely co-terminus   basis for the purpose of assisting the Chairman   till he hold his post.

6. Neither  legal  nor  the  Board  Resolution  to  be   passed  shall  bind  over  orders  issued  to  the   individual to make him as a regular employee in   the Board in future.

7. Because  of  working  as  on  Co-terminus  basis,   the  Board  will  not  give  any  preference  for   selection to any post if any recruitment is made   in the future.

8. Whatever be the period the individual served in   the  Board  it  will  not  be  accounted  for  any   purpose.

9. The individual has no right to go to anywhere   viz.  Higher  Authority/Legal  Authority  to  claim  the  services  put  by  him  for  regular   appointment.

7

Page 8

10. The  benefits  enjoyed  by  the  regular   employee  will  not  be  made applicable  to  the   individual  engaged  on  co-terminus  basis.   Procedure  and  rules  followed  for  regular   employees will  not be followed in the case of   Co-terminus basis engagement.

11. On humanitarian ground he will avail casual   leave, as Board thinks fit.

12. The  individual  may  claim  T.A  on   humanitarian basis, if permitted to go on tour   by  the  Chairman  since  he  has  to  incur   expenditures for undertaking tour.  The services   will confine only to the office of the Chairman  and not to the Board.

13. The individual may claim O.T.A in connection   with official duty performed by him in the office   of the Chairman.

14. The individual  is  exempted from production   of  Medical  Certificate  and  Character  and  Antecedents,  since  it  is  not  a   regular/temporary/adhoc appointment selected  by  the  Board  as  per  Recruitment   Rules/Recruitment Committee.

15. During the tenure of his service, if he is found   under any mis-conduct or involved in any type  of criminal  case, his services will  be forthwith   terminated without any notice.

16. No other service terms and conditions will be   made  applicable  to  the  individual  except  the   above said facilities O.T.A and O.T.A.

In  the  event  of  the  candidate  is  accepting  the  above  terms  and  conditions  for  the  co-terminus   engagement,  he  is  directed  to  report  for  duty   before  the  undersigned  with  his  Bio-data/other   testimonies not later than 10 days time of receipt   of this office order. ……..”

8. The board, after obtaining the approval from the  

Government  as  above,  issued  the  necessary  appointment  

8

Page 9

orders on 22.1.2004 to the five persons concerned, engaging  

them  as  personal  staff  retrospectively  from  22.7.2002,  

although  making  clear  once  again,  therein,  that  these  

appointments  were on co-terminus basis.   In  spite  of  this  

position, the then Chairman moved a resolution and got it  

passed in the board on 31.8.2005, to send a proposal to the  

Government for  absorption of five personal staff  in lieu of  

vacant  posts  for  the  Governor’s  approval.  However,  the  

Government  declined  to  approve  the  said  proposal.  The  

Chairman,  therefore,  got  another  resolution passed in  the  

Board for absorption of the five persons on 17.2.2006.  The  

said  Chairman  thereafter  forwarded  a  note  containing  8  

paragraphs to the Lt. Governor of Puducherry.  Paragraphs 5  

to 8 of this note read as follows:-

“5. Accordingly,  a  proposal  was  sent  to   Government  for  absorption  of  the  above  five   personal  staff  taking  in  account  the  continuous  service  of  3  ½  years  and  experience  in  the   respective posts.  Whereas the proposal has not   been agreed to by the Government on the ground   that the above appointments were made on co- terminus basis with the tenure of the Chairman.

6.  Again  the  above  subject  matter  was  discussed  in  the  50th Board  meeting  held  on  17.02.2006, where it has been resolved as follows:

9

Page 10

“The  Board  was  informed  that  the  proposal  sent  earlier  for  absorption  of   personal staff of the Chairman has not been  approved  by  the  Government.   However,   Chairman  has  desired  to  send  a  separate   note  with  necessary  justification  to   government,  in  relaxation  of  the  existing   norms, for approval, as a special case.  The   Board has endorsed the same.” 7. Considering  the  fact  that  the  above  

proposal involves no additional creation of posts   involving additional financial liability, the power of   the  board  to  relax  any  of  the  provisions  of   recruitment  Rules,  wherever  it  is  felt  necessary,   length  of  service  put  in  by  the  above  personal   staff and in the light of deliberation of the Board,   the Government is solicited to approve the above   proposal of absorption of the 5 personal staff of   the Chairman, in relaxation of existing norms, as a   special case.

8. Bio-data of the personal staff are placed   in the file for kind perusal.”

Paragraph 7 of the above note was approved by the then Lt.  

Governor of Puducherry on 26.2.2006 in spite of the fact that  

this  time the note was not  routed through the concerned  

Administrative Secretariat, namely Department of Industrial  

Development  (Industries  &  Commerce),  and  Office  of  the  

Chief Secretary of the Government of Puducherry.  

9. It  is relevant to note that earlier  the services of  

some other similarly situated temporary employees of the  

Legislative  Assembly  Department,  Puducherry  were  not  

1

Page 11

regularized and came to be terminated. On their termination  

they  had  approached  the  Central  Administrative  Tribunal,  

and their Original Applications were dismissed. Those orders  

were confirmed by the High Court and by this Court by its  

order 6.3.2006 in SLP (C) No. 7859-7877 of 2005 in the case  

of Ilango & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors.   It is also material  

to note that a similar proposal for regularization of services  

concerning  other  co-terminus  employees,  engaged  by  the  

very Board, also came to be rejected by the Lt. Governor,  

subsequently, on 17.6.2008.

10. The above  proposal  for  absorption  of  these  five  

persons  was  kept  in  abeyance  due  to  the  declaration  of  

elections  of  the  State  Assembly  of  Puducherry  in  March  

2006.   The  then  Chairman  P.  Angalan  resigned  from  his  

chairmanship  when  his  term  expired  on  16.4.2006,  and  

thereafter, alongwith him all the four respondents and above  

referred T. Kumar were relieved from their services.

11. The respondents  filed a  Writ  Petition nearly  two  

years later bearing No. 3181 of 2008 seeking a direction to  

implement the resolution dated 17.2.2006 and the approval  

dated 26.2.2006.  In their Writ Petition they accepted in para  

1

Page 12

3 that they were appointed on co-terminus basis. In para 6  

thereof,  they  stated  that  they  were  already  dis-engaged  

from their services after the resignation of the Chairman in  

April  2006.  In spite of these averments in the petition, a  

Single Judge of the High Court of Madras relied upon the fact  

that an approval had been given to their absorption, and the  

issue was kept in abeyance only till the elections of the year  

2006  were  over,  and  two  years  had  gone  thereafter.  

Therefore,  the  learned  Single  Judge  by  the  order  dated  

26.2.2008, directed that the petitioner herein (which was the  

respondent  in  that  petition)  shall  act  as  expeditiously,  as  

possible, preferably within a period of 6 weeks from the date  

of receipt of a copy of the order in accordance with the note  

of  approval.   It  is  material  to  note  that  the  petition  was  

disposed of at the admission stage itself,  and the present  

petitioner  did  not  have  any  opportunity  to  file  a  reply  to  

place the necessary facts on record such as the recruitment  

rules and the nature of respondents’ engagement.   

12. In view of passing of this order the appellants filed  

a Writ Appeal, bearing No. 1131 of 2011 before the Division  

Bench  of  Madras  High  Court,  and  placed  the  necessary  

1

Page 13

material on record.   Yet the Bench gave importance to the  

fact  that  board  had  sought  an  approval  from  the  Lt.  

Governor  of  Pondicherry  which  had  been  granted.  

Therefore,  according  to  the  Division  Bench,  there  was  no  

error  in  the  order  of  the  Single  Judge  directing  the  

implementation of the decision of the board to absorb the  

respondents  herein.   The  appeal  was  consequently  

dismissed.

13. In  the meanwhile,  the respondents  filed another  

Writ Petition bearing No. 13428 of 2010 since no order was  

being passed by the Board with respect to their absorption in  

spite of the order passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition  

No.3181 of 2008.  During the pendency of this second Writ  

Petition,  the  petitioner  passed  order  dated  10.1.2011  

rejecting  the  claim  of  the  respondents.   Therefore,  the  

respondents  amended  the  second  Writ  Petition  and  

challenged  this  order  dated  10.1.2011.   This  second  Writ  

Petition reached for hearing after the dismissal of the Appeal  

Nos. 1131 of 2011 filed by the appellants herein. That being  

so,  the  learned  Single  Judge  who  heard  Writ  Petition  No.  

13428 of 2010 allowed the same, and quashed the order of  

1

Page 14

10.1.2011, after referring to the dismissal of the Writ Appeal  

filed  by  the  appellants  herein.   Being  aggrieved  by  the  

judgment and order in that Writ Petition the appellants have  

filed the second SLP (C) No.4688 of 2012 which has been  

heard alongwith SLP (C) No.4669 of 2012 which has been  

filed  to  challenge the  order  of  the Division Bench in  Writ  

Appeal No.1131 of 2011.  Both these appeal arising out of  

these two SLPs have been heard and are being disposed off  

together.     

Consideration  of  the  submissions  of  the  rival  

parties:-

14. The principle contention of the appellants is that  

as seen from the above narration of facts, the engagement  

of  the  respondents  was  clearly  on  a  co-terminus  basis.  

There was no assurance to them that they will be continuing  

in service after the tenure of the Chairman of the Board was  

over.  There are recruitment rules and a procedure by which  

the employees under the Board are to be engaged.  It was  

submitted  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  that  any  departure  

therefrom  would  mean  allowing  a  back  door  entry  in  

Government Establishment / Quasi Government employment  

1

Page 15

which  would  be  violative  of  Articles  14  and  16  of  the  

Constitution  of  India.   As  against  this  submission  of  the  

appellant, it was pointed out by the respondents that in their  

case there has been an approval by the Board and then by  

the Lt.  Governor.   That  being so,  there was no reason to  

interfere into  the orders passed by the Division Bench as  

well  as by the Single  Judge in  the two matters before us  

directing implementation .

15. We have noted the submissions of counsel for both  

the parties.  It is very clear from the narration of facts as  

above  that  the  respondents  were  engaged  only  because  

their names were sponsored by the then Chairman of the  

Board.  They have not come into the service either through  

the  Employment  Exchange  or  through  any  procedure  in  

which they were required to compete against other eligible  

candidates.  It is also seen that the proposal which was sent  

to the Governor for his approval was not sent through the  

normal routine of the concerned Administrative machinery,  

and through the Chief Secretary of Puducherry.  Since the  

proposal  was  not  routed  through  the  normal  channel  of  

administration,  the  factual  position  with  respect  to  the  

1

Page 16

irregular  employment  of  the  respondents  could  not  be  

placed  before  the  Governor.   The  relevant  facts  such  as  

those  relating  to  their  initial  engagement,  availability  of  

sanctioned posts in the same category in the Board, relevant  

rules for engagement of the employees etc. could also not  

be placed before the Governor.  Even so the proposal itself  

recorded that the respondents had put in just   3½ years of  

service, and the proposal to regularize them had been once  

turned down by the Government.  Section 15 of the Board  

Act  clearly  laid  down  that  the  Board  was  bound  by  the  

directions given by the Government in the performance of its  

function under the Act.   The Governor was not supposed to  

act on his own, but with the aid and advice of the Council of  

Ministers.  The  question  as  to  whether  it  will  result  into  

creation of additional posts and additional financial liability  

was required to be referred to the Government.  Besides, the  

resolution only recorded the request of the Chairman in that  

behalf.   It  was  not  a  resolution  of  the  Board  approving  

regularization or  relaxing the existing norms,  as  a special  

case.    

1

Page 17

16. The learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition  

No.3181  of  2008  at  the  admission  stage  itself  without  

affording  an  opportunity  to  the  appellants  to  place  these  

relevant facts before the Court, which led to an erroneous  

decision.  If the petition was to be allowed, the least that was  

expected was to permit the respondents to the petition to  

file their response, and then take the decision one way or  

the other.  Again the Division Bench also did not look into the  

substantive  issue before  it  although the  relevant  material  

was placed before the bench in the writ appeal.  The learned  

Single  Judge  who  heard  the  second  writ  petition  merely  

followed the decision of the Division Bench in writ appeal.

17. The  learned  Single  Judge  who  heard  the  Writ  

Petition No.3181 of 2008 and also the Division Bench which  

heard  the  writ  appeal  could  not  have  ignored  that  the  

respondents were clearly  told that  their  services were co-

terminus,  and  they  will  have  no  right  to  be  employed  

thereafter.   Condition  No.4  and  6  of  the  earlier  referred  

terms  and  condition  are  very  clear  in  this  behalf.   The  

respondents  had  taken  the  co-terminus  appointment  with  

full  understanding.   It  was  not  permissible  for  them  to  

1

Page 18

challenge  their  dis-engagement  when  the  tenure  of  the  

Chairman was over.  What a Constitution Bench of this Court  

has  observed  in  paragraph  45  of  Secretary,  State  of  

Karnataka and Ors. Vs. Umadevi (3) and Ors. reported  

in  2006 (4) SCC 1,  is quite apt.   The said para reads as  

follows:-

“45.   While  directing  that  appointments,   temporary  or  casual,  be  regularised  or  made  permanent, the courts are swayed by the fact that   the person concerned has worked for some time  and in  some cases  for  a  considerable  length  of   time.  It  is  not  as  if  the  person  who accepts  an   engagement either temporary or casual in nature,   is not aware of the nature of his employment. He   accepts the employment with open eyes. It may  be true that he is not in a position to bargain—not   at  arm's  length—since  he  might  have  been  searching for some employment so as to eke out   his livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But   on that ground alone, it would not be appropriate   to  jettison  the  constitutional  scheme  of   appointment and to take the view that a person   who  has  temporarily  or  casually  got  employed   should be directed to be continued permanently.   By doing so, it will  be creating another mode of   public  appointment  which  is  not   permissible………”  

18. As  stated  by  this  Court  in  Umadevi  (supra),  

absorption,  regularization  or  permanent  continuance  of  

temporary,  contractual,  casual,  daily-wage  or  adhoc  

1

Page 19

employees  appointed/recruited  and  continued  for  long  in  

public  employment  dehors  the  constitutional  scheme  of  

public employment is impermissible and violative of Article  

14  and  16  of  the  Constitution  of  India.   As  recorded  in  

paragraph 53 of the report in SCC, this Court has allowed as  

a one time measure, regularization of services of irregularly  

appointed persons, provided they have worked for ten years  

or more in duly sanctioned posts.  That is also not the case  

in the present matter.   

19. In  another  judgment  of  this  Court  in  State  of  

Gujarat and Anr. Vs. P.J. Kampavat and Ors. reported in  

1992 (3) SCC 226,  this Court had occasion to look into a  

similar situation.  That was a case where persons concerned  

were appointed directly in the office of the Chief Minister on  

purely temporary basis for a limited period up to the tenure  

of  the  Chief  Minister.   This  Court  held  that  such  an  

appointment was purely a contractual one, and it  was co-

terminus with that of the Chief Minister’s tenure, and such  

service  came  to  an  end  simultaneously  with  the  end  of  

tenure  of  the  Chief  Minister.   No  separate  order  of  

1

Page 20

termination or even a notice was necessary for putting an  

end to such a service.

20. We  have  to  note  that  in  the  present  case  the  

M.L.A. concerned was to function as the Chairman during the  

course of his tenure as an M.L.A., and had resigned with the  

announcement  of  the  election  for  the  state  assembly.   A  

proposal  for  regularization  of  the  co-terminus  employees  

appointed by him was directly sent to the Governor without  

the  same  being  routed  through  the  State  Government.  

Similar  such  proposals  have  come  to  be  rejected.   As  

observed by this Court in Union of India Vs. Dharam Pal  

reported in  2009 (4) SCC 170, the requirement of being  

employed through proper channel could not be relaxed in an  

arbitrary  and  cavalier  manner  for  the  benefit  of  a  few  

persons.  This would be clearly violative of Articles 14 and 16  

of the Constitution of India.

21. This being the scenario, the learned Single Judge  

as well as the Division Bench, and the subsequent learned  

Single Judge have erred in passing the orders that they have.  

The High Court has erred in deciding Writ Petition No.3181 of  

2008  by  directing  the  board  to  implement  the  

2

Page 21

resolution/note issued by the Chairman and approved by the  

Governor.  The Division Bench has also erred in leaving the  

order  passed by  the  learned Single  Judge in  that  petition  

undisturbed.   So  has  the  learned  Single  Judge  erred  who  

heard the second Writ Petition.

22. For the reasons stated above both these appeals  

are allowed, and the impugned judgments and orders in Writ  

Appeal No. 1131 of 2011 as well as one in Writ Petition No.  

3181 of 2008 and Writ Petition No. 13428 of 2010 are set-

aside.  Writ Petition No. 3181 of 2008 and 13428 of 2010  

shall stand dismissed.  Consequently the Interim Applications  

in both these appeals, and the Contempt Petition No.1841 of  

2011 filed by the respondent in the Madras High Court will  

also stand disposed of.  In the facts of the present case we  

do not pass any order as to the costs.

……..………………..……..J.  [ G.S. Singhvi]

 ………………………..…..J.  [ H.L. Gokhale  ]

……………………………..J.

2

Page 22

[Ranjana  Prakash  Desai]

New Delhi Dated : March 12th, 2013

2