High Court Bar Association v. Bar Council of U. P — 1987 DIGILAW 914 (ALL)

JUDGMENT V.K. Khanna, J. - These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the general election of Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh which is being held in pursuance of the directions given by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1354 of 1987 (reported in 1987 All WC 440) and of the Supreme Court in Civil Misc. Petn. Nos. 10851-52/86 (in Civil Appeal Nos. 476 and 418 of 1987) (reported in 1987 All WC 606). As the two writ petitions raise questions regarding the holding of the general election of the Bar Council of State of U. P. they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. At the very outset it may be mentioned that at the admission stage notice was given to the contesting respondents and the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh put in appearance through its counsel and made a statement that they do not propose to file any counter affidavit and the writ petition may be finally disposed of at the admission stage as the matter is urgent and the questions involved are questions of law. 3. Last General Election of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh was held in March/ April, 1980. Term of office of members of the Bar Council under the Act is five years from the date of publication of the result of election. Looking to the Scheme of the Act, the elections should have been held in the year 1985. As the election could not, however, be held even in the year 1986, Writ Petition No. 1354 of 1987 was filed by Adhivakta Maha Sangh, U. P. and another in which an issue was raised that the members of the State Bar Council cannot continue to hold office after the expiry of their term as they are elected for five years under the Act and their continuance in office is abuse of power and breach of trust reposed in them. The aforesaid writ petition was decided by a Bench of this Court on 2nd Feb. 1987 (reported in 1987 All WC 440). The petition was allowed and the directions relevant to this petition are as follows : - (1) to (4)............ (5) The Secretary of the Council is directed take steps to hold elections immediately in accordance with rules. The date of election shall be announced within one week from today. 1987 (reported in 1987 All WC 440). The petition was allowed and the directions relevant to this petition are as follows : - (1) to (4)............ (5) The Secretary of the Council is directed take steps to hold elections immediately in accordance with rules. The date of election shall be announced within one week from today. (8) Sri Jag Mohan Lal Sinha, the ex-Judge of this Court is appointed as Returning Officer for the elections." Special Leave Petition was filed in the Supreme Court challenging the aforesaid decision of this Court. Leave to appeal and Special Leave was granted and the appeal was finally disposed of by the Supreme Court on 23rd Feb. 1987 (Annexure I to the writ petition No. 9716 of 1987). The appeals were partly allowed by the Supreme Court and the matter was remanded for the limited purpose of determining certain questions afresh. The important directions which will have bearing in deciding the controversy raised in these writ petitions were contained in the High Courts judgment under direction 5. Supreme Court in respect of direction No. 5, which required holding of election, held that the same is confirmed. 4. It will be pertinent to note that in the order passed by the Supreme Court on Feb. 23, 1987 under head III of the aforesaid judgment the Supreme Court had held that the directions for holding of election shall be given effect to with a sense of urgency. (emphasis provided). 5. It is not disputed that the process of preparing of electoral rolls for the purposes of holding general election to the Bar Council of U.P. started much before the filing of the writ, petition No. 1354 of 1987 and steps had been taken by the Secretary of the Bar Council in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India. In view of the directions given by the Supreme Court of India, the Returning Officer appointed by this court fixed 9th and 10th July 1987 for holding polling. It is at this stage that the present two writ petitions have been filed in May 1987. 6. In view of the directions given by the Supreme Court of India, the Returning Officer appointed by this court fixed 9th and 10th July 1987 for holding polling. It is at this stage that the present two writ petitions have been filed in May 1987. 6. Sri A. D. Giri, counsel appearing for the petitioner in writ petition No. 9716 of 1987 has urged that all the Advocates whose names appear on the State Roll prepared by the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh should be entitled to vote at the ensuing general elections of the U. P. Bar Council and the exclusion of the names of the Advocates on the basis that they.have not complied with the provisions of R. 4 of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India is illegal. It has been urged that the provisions of R. 4 apply only when the electoral Roll is being prepared by the State Bar Council for the first time and does not apply to subsequent electoral rolls prepared for the subsequent elections of the Bar Council. Reliance has been made on certain observations made by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ No. 1354 of 1987 (reported in 1987 All WC 440) Adhivakta Mahasangh v. Union of India and others (supra). 7. Sri A. P. Singh, counsel appearing for the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh has, however, relied on the decision of the Supreme Court given in Petition for Leave to Appeal (Civil No. 8718 of 1982) Bar Council of India v. Paramjit Singh Goraya and others decided on 1-10-1982. It has been argued that it was incumbent on the Bar Council to have issued notices under R. 4 of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India. 8. For the purposes of deciding the aforesaid question raised before us it will be of use to take note of certain important provisions of the Advocates Act and the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India. S. 2(k) of the Act defines "roll" meaning to be a roll of Advocates prepared and maintained under this Act. S. 2(n) defines "State Roll" meaning a roll of advocates prepared and maintained by a State Bar Council under S. 17. S. 3 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Bar Council. S. 2(k) of the Act defines "roll" meaning to be a roll of Advocates prepared and maintained under this Act. S. 2(n) defines "State Roll" meaning a roll of advocates prepared and maintained by a State Bar Council under S. 17. S. 3 of the Act provides for the constitution of the Bar Council. S. 3(2) (b) which is relevant for the purposes of the present case runs as follows : - (b) In case of a State Bar Council with an electorate not exceeding five thousand, fifteen members, in the case of a State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding five thousand but not exceeding ten thousand, twenty members, and in the case of a State Bar Council with an electorate exceeding ten thousand, twenty five members, elected in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote from amongst advocates on the electoral roll of the State Bar Council : (emphasis provided). 9. There cannot thus be an iota of doubt that in the case of State Bar Councils the election has to be held in the manner provided under S. 3(2)(b) and the election has to take place on the basis of the Electoral Roll of the State Bar Council. 10. S. 3(4) provides as follows : - "(4) An Advocate shall be disqualified from voting at an election under sub-sec. (2) or for being chosen as, and for being a member of a State Bar Council, unless he possesses such qualifications or satisfies such conditions as may be prescribed in this behalf by the Bar Council of India and subject to any such rules that may be made, an electoral roll shall be prepared and revised from time to time by each State Bar Council." The aforesaid sub-sec. (4) makes it clear that the disqualification from voting at an election or being elected as a member of the Bar Council will be prescribed by the Bar Council of India and that the electoral roll has to be prepared and revised from time to time in accordance with the rules framed by the Bar Council of India. As we have noticed above, State Roll means a roll of advocates prepared and maintained by the State Bar Council under S. 17 of the Act. 11. Chapter III of the Act provides for admission and Enrolment of Advocates. As we have noticed above, State Roll means a roll of advocates prepared and maintained by the State Bar Council under S. 17 of the Act. 11. Chapter III of the Act provides for admission and Enrolment of Advocates. It provides for the disqualification for enrolment under S. 24-A of the Act and provides for removal of the names from the State electoral rolls under S. 26-A. S. 49 of the Act gives power to the Bar Council of India to make rules. The relevant sub-clause of the aforesaid section is S. 48(1 )(a) which runs as follows : - "The conditions subject to which an Advocate may be entitled to vote at an election to the State Bar Council including the qualifications or disqualifications of voters, and the manner in which an electoral roll of voters may be prepared and revised by a State Bar Council." 12-13. From the resume of the aforesaid provisions of the Act following things become clear : - (1) The State Roll is to be prepared and maintained by a State Bar Council under S. 17 of the Act. (2) Power to remove the names from the State Roll is given under S. 26-A which may be exercised when either the Advocate is dead or makes a request for getting his name removed from the State Roll. (3) As far as the Electoral Roll is concerned, it has to be prepared for the purposes of holding elections under S. 2(b) of the Act and the manner in which the electoral roll of the voters has to be prepared and revised by the State Bar Council has to be prescribed by the Bar Council of India. This conclusion is fortified by the view taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Bar Council of Delhi v. Surjeet Singh, AIR 1980 SC 1612 . 14. It appears that after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Bar-Council (supra) Chapter I of Part III of the Bar Council of India Rules were drastically amended. Under the scheme of the old rules there was no provision like the provision now introduced under rule (4) of the Bar Council of India Rules. 14. It appears that after the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Bar-Council (supra) Chapter I of Part III of the Bar Council of India Rules were drastically amended. Under the scheme of the old rules there was no provision like the provision now introduced under rule (4) of the Bar Council of India Rules. As has been observed above, the last election of the U. P. Bar Council was held on 31st March and 1st April, 1980 and thus the last electoral roll which had been prepared was in accordance with old rules of the Bar Council of India Rules, which had no provision like R. 4, which has now been added with effect from 8th Sept. 1980. 15. For examining the questions raised in the writ petitions it would also be relevant to notice the provisions made by the Bar Council of India in this respect. Part III of the Bar Council of India Rules under Chapter I provides for preparation of electoral roll, disqualification of membership and vacation of office. R. 1 of the aforesaid rules provides that every Advocate, whose name is on the Electoral Roll of the State Council shall be entitled to vote at the election. Part III of the Bar Council of India Rules under Chapter I provides for preparation of electoral roll, disqualification of membership and vacation of office. R. 1 of the aforesaid rules provides that every Advocate, whose name is on the Electoral Roll of the State Council shall be entitled to vote at the election. R. 2, which is rather important provides as follows :y- "The name of an Advocate appearing in the State Roll shall not be on the Electoral Roll, if on information furnished by the advocate concerned in terms of R. 4 or information received or obtained by the State Bar Council concerned that; (a) his name has at any time been removed; (b) he has been suspended from practice, provided that his disqualification shall operate only for a period of five years from the date of the expiry of the period of suspension; (c) he is an undischarged insolvent; (d) he has been found guilty of an election offence in regard to an election to the State Council by an Election Tribunal provided however, that such disqualification shall not operate beyond the election next following after such finding has been made; (e) he is convicted by a competent court for an offence involving moral turpitude, provided that this disqualification shall cease to have effect after a period of two years has elapsed since his release; (f) he is in full time service or is in such part time business or other vocation not permitted in the case of practising advocate by the rules either of the State Council concerned or of the Council; (g) he has intimated voluntary suspension of practice and has not given intimation of resumption of practice." R. 3 provides that subject to the provisions of R. 2, the name of every advocate entered in the State Roll shall be entered in the electoral roll of the State Council. R. 4 of the aforesaid rules on which the entire controversy in connection with this argument revolves runs as follows : - "4(1) In preparing the Electoral Roll, unless the State Bar Council concerned is already maintaining a list of advocates who are entitled to be voters in terms of R. 2 of the Rules at least 150 days before the date of election shall publish notice issued by the Secretary of the State Bar Council concerned in the prescribed form in the Official Gazette and in two or more local newspapers, one English and the other of local language, as may be decided by the State Bar Council, asking each of the Advocates on the Roll of the concerned State Bar Council to intimate the 'State Bar Council within the time to be specified in the said notice or within such extended time as may be given/allowed by the State Bar Council for reasons to be recorded, as to whether he has incurred any disqualification mentioned in R. 2 of these Rules (Rule 2 has to be quoted in the notice). By the said notice the Secretary shall also inform the advocates concerned that unless information required by the said notice in question is received by the State Bar Council in the prescribed form or from exactly similar thereto, with the specified time or within the extended time as stated here in above, his name shall not be included in the Electoral Roll and he shall not be entitled to take part in the election in question." (2) The Secretary of the State Bar Council shall also send a similar notice along with a prescribed form to all advocates on the Roll of the State Bar Council concerned at their respective addresses as maintained by the State Bar Council, in ordinary post with certificate of posting, asking the advocate concerned to furnish all the information mentioned in the said notice and in the form attached therewith or in 3 form exactly similarly thereto either typed, printed or cyclostyled within the time specified in the notice. Unless such information is furnished within the time specified the name of the advocate concerned shall not be included in the electoral roll and he shall not be entitled to take part in the election in question." 16. Unless such information is furnished within the time specified the name of the advocate concerned shall not be included in the electoral roll and he shall not be entitled to take part in the election in question." 16. The first question which has to be determined is as to whether in the present case it can be said that as the State Bar Council was already maintaining a list of Advocates who were entitled to vote in terms of R. 2, the preparation of the electoral roll by following the procedure laid down by R. 4 was invalid. As has been noted above, the last election of the U. P. Bar Council was held on 31st March and 1st April, 1980 and the electoral roll was prepared before this date. The electoral roll was thus prepared in accordance with unamended Bar Council of India Rules. The earlier electoral roll, therefore, cannot be said to be in terms of R. 2 of these rules inasmuch as the provisions of even rule 2 have been altered to some extent. In the unamended rules the name of an Advocate appearing at the State Roll could not be entered if he was convicted by a ' competent court for an offence involving moral turpitude. Under the amended rules a provision has been added that this, disqualification shall cease to have effect after a period of two years has elapsed since his release. Under, the unamended rules there was a provision that the name of an Advocate will not be included in an electoral roll if he has been at any time suspended from practice. Under the amended rules now the provision is that the name will not be included in case his name at any time has been removed from the State Roll. 17. From the aforesaid it can well be said that after the election of 1980 it was for the first time that an electoral roll was being prepared in accordance with the amended R. 2 of the Bar Council of India Rules, and the Bar Council rightly for the purposes of preparing the electoral rolls followed the procedure laid down in R. 4 of the aforesaid Rules. The decision given by this court in the writ petitionof Adhivakta Mahasangh (1987 All WC 440) (supra) is of no help to the petitioners inasmuch as no final adjudication has been done by the Bench on the aforesaid question which would be evident from the , following observations made in the concluding part of the judgment : " It is apparent that the Bar Council has not been acting fairly and discharging its responsibility of holding the elections well within time. Even though it was well known to the members that the terms shall expire in May 1985, yet no steps were taken either under R. 4 or R.5 of the Bar Council of India Rules to publish the Preliminary electoral roll" (emphasis provided). It may also be noticed that under direction No. 5 the court ordered the Secretary of the Bar Council to take steps to hold election immediately in accordance with rules and the date of election was to be announced within one week of the judgment. It is thus clear that the Bench approved the preparation of the electoral roll in accordance with R. 4 of the Bar Council of India Rules as from the record of that writ petition it was clear that the electoral roll of the Bar Council was being prepared after following the procedure of R. 4. The Court wanted the election to be held immediately in accordance with that electoral roll prepared after following the procedure of R. 4. 18. In connection with this argument it will be of great use to look into an order passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bar Council of India v. Paramjit Singh Goraya and another (supra). In the aforesaid case the statutory term of Punjab and Haryana Bar Council had come to an end in 1980. The Supreme Court passed the following order in this case ; "Order Special leave is granted. Filing of statements of case and security dispensed with. On the expiry of the statutory term the election to the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council had become due in 1980 and by one or other process the election process has been held up with the result that the old Bar Council is functioning. That is not a desirable situation and the democratic process must not be thwarted. On the expiry of the statutory term the election to the Punjab and Haryana Bar Council had become due in 1980 and by one or other process the election process has been held up with the result that the old Bar Council is functioning. That is not a desirable situation and the democratic process must not be thwarted. In view of this position, we direct that the Secretary of the Punjab and Haryana State Bar Council shall proceed to compile a fresh electoral roll in compliance with R. 4(1) and (2) of the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India under the Advocates Act, 1961. He must issue an appropriate notice as envisaged under R. 4(1) and also R. 4(2) and complete this process within a period of 150 days as required by the Rules. The Secretary shall commence the work according to the directions contained herein from 18th Oct. 1982. As soon as the electoral roll, both provisional and final, is ready, the same must be published as prescribed by the Rules and the pendency of the appeal will not come in the way of holding the election according to the Rules. We make it clear that pursuant to this order a fresh notice will be issued for entering the name in the electoral roll and if any eligible Advocate does not send the prescribed form his name will not be included in the electoral roll and he will not be entitled to make any grievance. We stay that part of the order of the High Court by which the High Court has prescribed a schedule for holding the election" (Emphasis provided). In the case before the Supreme Court also the earlier election to the Bar Council must have been held in accordance with the electoral rolls prepared under the unamended Rules of the Bar Council of India. The Supreme Court ordered preparation of fresh electoral rolls in accordance with amended R. 4(1) and (2) of the Bar Council of India Rules, and also observed that the Advocates who did not send the prescribed form, their , names will not be included in the electoral rolls and he will not be entitled to make any grievance. 19. In connection with this argument it would also be useful to have a look at the statutory form of notice prescribed under R. 4. 19. In connection with this argument it would also be useful to have a look at the statutory form of notice prescribed under R. 4. The notice prescribes that final electoral roll was to be prepared for the next election of members of the Council (Emphasis Provided). Out of the various information which are required to be furnished by the Advocates, the important information are regarding the present address of the Advocate, whether he incurred any of the disqualifications mentioned in R. 2 of Chapter I, Part III of the Rules of the Bar Council of India, regarding the fact whether the , Advocate was member of any Bar Association and where he intended to cast his vote. Statutory form is also indicative of the fact that for every general election to the Bar Council these information will be absolutely essential. An Advocate at the time of previous election may be practising in one district but at the time of next election may have either shifted to another district or may have shifted to the High Court. In our opinion, even the provisions of R. 2 of the Bar Council of India Rules give power to the concerned Bar Council to prepare an electoral roll after following the procedure laid down in R. 4. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that all the Advocates whose names are entered in the State Roll should be allowed to vote at the ensuing general election is against the scheme of the Act and the Rules inasmuch as under the Act and the Rules framed by the Bar Council of India two rolls have to be maintained i.e. State Roll and Electoral Roll. Only those Advocates whose name appears in the Electoral Roll are entitled to vote and contest in the election. The preparation of the Electoral Roll in accordance with R. 4(1) and (2) of the Bar Council of India Rules is perfectly valid and the Advocates who have not sent information in prescribed form have been rightly excluded from the Electoral Roll. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner in other writ petition have raised an argument that the amount of security has been raised from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 1000/- is invalid. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner in other writ petition have raised an argument that the amount of security has been raised from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 1000/- is invalid. Bar Council of a State under the Rules has a right to prescribe for the security and it was well within its powers to have raised the security amount from Rs. 200/- to Rs. 1000/-. The argument thus has no force. 21. Under the interim order of this court the elections have been held on 9th and 10th July 87 in the entire State except at Allahabad. It is unfortunate that on 9th and 10th July 1987 the polling had to be adjourned because certain advocates took away the ballot papers and created such a situation that the election at Allahabad had to be postponed by the Returning Officer. Shri J. M. L. Sinha Returning Officer intimated this court about his resignation. However, on persuasion by certain Advocates and the Chairman of the Bar Council and in pursuance of the request made by this court the resignation was withdrawn and another date was fixed. On this date also despite elaborate arrangements being made by the Returning Officer, certain elements created trouble, forced their entry into the polling room, forcibly snatched away a large number of ballot papers which were torn into pieces, election at Allahabad was again postponed. Sri J. M. L. Sinha intimated this court that his resignation from his assignment as Returning Officer is final and the court in these extraordinary circumstances had to accept his resignation and appointed Sri B. C. Jauhariex. Judge of this court as the Returning Officer, with the consent of the parties. The elections are now being held on 10th and 11th Sept. 1987. 22. Some candidates at the election may have deposited only Rs. 200/- as security amount under the interim orders of this court. The aforesaid candidates will be given a notice by the Returning Officer by registered post within three days of this judgment. The notice should be given in such a manner that the intimation may reach the concerned -candidates before the counting of votes starts. The notice will intimate those candidates who have not deposited Rs. 1,000/- but have deposited only Rs. The notice should be given in such a manner that the intimation may reach the concerned -candidates before the counting of votes starts. The notice will intimate those candidates who have not deposited Rs. 1,000/- but have deposited only Rs. 200/- in pursuance of the interim order of this court that they should pay the deficiency in the security money by depositing it under the relevant head with the Secretary of the Bar Council on or before counting of the votes starts. In case the deficiency in the security is not made good, before the counting starts the nomination paper of the candidate will be deemed to have been rejected and names of such candidates will be deemed to be scored out from the ballot papers. There may be some candidates in the election whose names do not appear in the Electoral Rolls and only appear in the State Roll. In case of such candidates it will be deemed that their nomination papers have been rejected and their names will also be treated as scored out from the ballot papers. 23. Votes of those candidates who are disqualified by reason of their names not being on the electoral roll or who have not furnished additional security as directed within time shall not be counted in favour of the said candidate, as their names will be deemed to be scored out from the ballot papers. The next preference vote of such voters will be counted in their place. In other words, if the first preference of a voter is for such a disqualified candidate, his second preference will become the first preference and so on. The effect will be that the aforesaid disqualified candidates will be treated to have been eliminated at the very outset in view of their disqualifications. As we have held the votes of the voters who are on the electoral roll are only to be counted, as they are only eligible to vote at the election, the votes of the advocates who may have cast their votes in pursuance of the interim order passed by this court shall not be taken into account. 24. Before parting it may be observed that during the proceedings of this writ petition it has been brought to the notice of this court that names of about 80,000 Advocates are on the State Roil of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. 24. Before parting it may be observed that during the proceedings of this writ petition it has been brought to the notice of this court that names of about 80,000 Advocates are on the State Roil of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh. 163 candidates are contesting election to the 25 seats of membership of the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh more than Rs. 8 lacs will be spent on this election. We have been told that the counting itself will take more than two months. Last election had been held in the year 1980 and more than 7 years have passed and the election of the members to the new Bar Council could not be held. Elections to the Parliament and State Assemblies tire being held on the basis of representatives from various Constituencies which have been carved out under the Representation of the People Act. However, S. 3(2)(b) prescribes election to be held in accordance with the system of proportional representation by means of single transferable vote from amongst Advocates, on the electoral roil of State Bar Council. More than 25 years have elapsed since the aforesaid provisions were inserted in S. 3 by the Parliament. We have before us material which shows that during the election in the year 1980 there were about 40,000 Advocates on the State Roll. In the year 1987 we have been told that there are more than 80,000 Advocates on the State Roll. It shows that during the period of about 7 years 40,000 Advocates have been added in the State Roll. One can easily see that when next election would be held to the Bar Council of Uttar Pradesh, it might not be impossible to find more than one lac Advocates on the State Roil. This time the number of candidates at the election is 163/In the next election it may be double. If this system remains the preparation of the electoral roll, holding of election and the counting process may always take several months saddling the Bar Council with enormous expenditures which otherwise could be utilised for some good welfare activities of the Advocates. The entire election process of the Parliament is concluded within a reasonable time. In no election of the Parliament in any constituency one finds 163 candidates standing for the election. Why then one finds so many candidates in the election of the Bar Council. The entire election process of the Parliament is concluded within a reasonable time. In no election of the Parliament in any constituency one finds 163 candidates standing for the election. Why then one finds so many candidates in the election of the Bar Council. The Advocates who are in the State Roll practice in the High Court and the subordinate courts. In the State of U. P. alone there are more than 50 districts. Advocates from practically each district want to have their representation in the Bar Council. That is how one finds 163 candidates standing for the election. State of Uttar Pradesh is a big State but this problem may be there, though not in such a big magnitude but in no less measure in other States. We feel that time has come that a serious thought be given for suitably amending the provisions of S. 3(2)(b) of the Act so that the present election process may become less cumbersome. 25. The Returning Officer appointed by this court will conclude the election process in accordance with the observations made in this judgment and in accordance with law at the earliest. Looking to the fact that on two occasions a lot of disturbances took place at Allahabad due to which the polling at Allahabad had to be postponed, we are of the opinion that at the time when counting of votes takes place, the District Authorities will render assistance to the Returning Officer as required by him so that the counting of votes may also finish at the earliest peacefully. The Returning Officer will ensure that the .counting takes place at a place where the candidate or their agents may be accommodated comfortably. There are 163 candidates and thus it is expected that at the counting of the votes large number of Advocates and their agents will be present. The Returning Officer will be entitled to regulate the procedure and entry to the place of counting in such a manner so as to eliminate any possibility of disturbances during the counting process. 26. For the reasons stated above we dismiss the writ petitions. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. 27. Sri R. L. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has made an oral prayer for leave to appeal to Supreme Court. 26. For the reasons stated above we dismiss the writ petitions. However, looking to the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. 27. Sri R. L. Sharma, counsel for the petitioner has made an oral prayer for leave to appeal to Supreme Court. We being of the opinion that the writ petitions do not raise any substantial questions of law needing to be decided by the Supreme Court, we reject the prayer for leave to appeal to Supreme Court.