SALAMBHAI LAKHABHAI KHANT v. STATE — 1988 DIGILAW 132 (GUJ)

M. B. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) BEING aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 17/05/1988 passed by the Additional Development Commissioner Gujarat State in Revision Application No. 136 of 1987 the petitioners have filed this revision application. By the impugned order Additional Development Commissioner has set aside the Resolution dated 30-6-1987 as per agenda No. 1 passed by the Taluka Panchayat Balasinor district Kheda. ( 2 ) ON 27/03/1987 the meeting of the Taluka Panchayat Balasinor was called to consider the budget for the year 1987-88 and constitute the Executive Committee and Social Justice Committee. In the said meeting budget for the year 1987-88 was not passed. For that Resolution No. 1 was passed rejecting the approval of the budget. Election of the Executive Committee was held and as per Resolution No. 2 members who secured more votes were declared to be elected as members of the Executive Committee. By Resolution No. 3 members who had secured more votes were declared to have been elected as members of the Social Justice Committee. These Committees were constituted as per the provisions of Sec. 111 (1) and (2) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. Other resolutions were also passed in the said meeting. Below the said resolutions and the proceedings there are the signatures of the Taluka Development Officer Balasinor and the President of the Taluka Panchayat Balasinor. Thereafter there is a note by the President that he was not agreeing with the Resolutions Nos. 1 to 3 because there was violation of the Act which disqualifies the persons who change the party. As par the endorsement below it the copies of the said resolutions were sent to all members of the Taluka Panchayat to the District Development Officer Kheda and all branches of Taluka Panchayat Balasinor and also one copy was placed on the Notice Board in the office of the Taluka Panchayat. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER the meeting of the Taluka Panchayat was held on 20/06/1987 In that meeting minutes of the meeting of 27/03/1987 were placed for confirmation. Minutes were not confirmed and resolution was passed for reconstituting Executive Committee and Social Justice Committee. Proposals for appointing 9 persons as members of the Executive Committee and 10 persons as members of the Social Justice Committee were approved. Minutes were not confirmed and resolution was passed for reconstituting Executive Committee and Social Justice Committee. Proposals for appointing 9 persons as members of the Executive Committee and 10 persons as members of the Social Justice Committee were approved. At that time the Taluka Development Officer pointed out that under Rule 13a of the Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayats (Procedure) Rules 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the Procedure Rules) the aforesaid resolution cannot be passed and therefore he was not agreeing to it. ( 4 ) THEREAFTER the Chairman of the Social Justice Committee filed Civil Suit No. 87 of 1987 before the Civil Judge (J. D.) at Balasinor challenging the proceedings of the meeting held on 30/06/1987 In the Affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent No 9 it has been stated that the Chairman of the Social Justice Committee went on hunger strike on 1-8-1987 and about 15 persons including members of the Taluka Panchayat joined him. On the same day at about 4-30 p. m. the President of the Taluka Panchayat agreed for an overall compromise and it was further agreed that Resolution dated 30/06/1987 would be treated as void and that the suit filed in the Civil Court would be withdrawn. In pursuance of the said agreement the civil suit was withdrawn. ( 5 ) THEREAFTER the Development Commissioner Gujarat issued a show cause notice dated 5-10-1987 (Annexure I) to the Taluka Panchayat stating as to why the proceedings of the meeting of 30/06/1987 should not be set aside under Sec. 305 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. It was further ordered that prima facie the proceedings of the held on 30/06/1987 were found to be illegal and hence by the interim order its operation was stayed. Hearing for interim order was fixed on 19-10-1987. In the said notice it is stated that the said show cause notice be placed in the meeting of the Taluka Panchayat and written reply be sent and the time of hearing of the matter all the records should be produced. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER the meeting of the Taluka Panchayat was held on 2/03/1988 In that meeting the minutes of the meeting held on 30/06/1987 were confirmed by majority. 14 members approved it and 12 members disapproved it. One member remained neutral. ( 6 ) THEREAFTER the meeting of the Taluka Panchayat was held on 2/03/1988 In that meeting the minutes of the meeting held on 30/06/1987 were confirmed by majority. 14 members approved it and 12 members disapproved it. One member remained neutral. With regard to the item No. 4 of the Agenda it is mentioned that for the decisions which were taken on 30/06/1987 as there was stay order from the Development Commissioner with regard to the said proceedings no action was taken. The discussion with regard to the notice dated 5-10-1987 also took place and Resolution No. 24 was passed in the said meeting. ( 7 ) THE hearing before the Additional Development Commissioner was kept on 19/10/1987 10/11/1987 21 November 1987 16/12/1987 12/01/1985 3/02/1988 20 February 1988 and lastly on 9/03/1988 The Additional Development Commissioner arrived at the conclusion that under Sec. 111 (9) (a) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act the terms of the Executive Committee and the Social Justice Committee is fixed and by passing the resolution under Sec. 116 of the Act membership of the said Committees cannot be terminated. It has been further stated that the District Development Officer instead of taking action under Sec. 304 referred the matter to the Development Commissioner. The Additional Development Commissioner set aside the resolution passed on 30/06/1987 by holding that the procedure followed in the said meeting was in violation of Sec. 111 (9) (a) of the Gujarat Panchayats Act. This order is challenged in this petition. ( 8 ) MR. Patel learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the order passed by the Development Commissioner is without jurisdiction because under Sec. 305 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act he has no jurisdiction to set aside the resolution passed by the Taluka Panchayat or any Panchayat. He further submitted that under Rule 13 of the Gujarat Taluka and District Panchayat (Procedure) Rules 1963 minutes of the previous meeting are required to be confirmed and unless the minutes of the resolution are confirmed it cannot be said that the Panchayat has passed any resolution. He submitted that in the meeting held on 30/06/1987 the minutes of the meeting held on 27/03/1987 were not confirmed and a further resolution was passed electing the members of the Executive Committee and the Social Justice Committee and that minutes of the said resolution were confirmed. He submitted that in the meeting held on 30/06/1987 the minutes of the meeting held on 27/03/1987 were not confirmed and a further resolution was passed electing the members of the Executive Committee and the Social Justice Committee and that minutes of the said resolution were confirmed. He further submitted that in view of Sec. 116 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act the Taluka Panchayat had authority to modify or cancel its previous resolution after the period of three months. In set of circumstances he submitted that if the resolution is supported by two-third of the total number of members of the Taluka Panchayat then within-three months also the previous resolution can be modified or cancelled and in the present case on 30/06/1987 the Taluka Panchayat had passed the resolution by majority of more than two-third members of the Taluka Panchayat. Hence also the order passed by the Additional Development Commissioner is illegal. ( 9 ) LASTLY he submitted that the order passed by the Additional Development Commissioner is in violation of principles of natural Justice inasmuch as the newly elected members of the Executive Committee and the Social Justice Committee were not served with any show cause notice or were never heard by the Additional Development Commissioner before passing the order. ( 10 ) IT is the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that under Sec. 30t of the Gujarat Panchayats Act the Additional Development Commissioner has no jurisdiction to set aside the resolution passed by the Taluka Panchayat and that his jurisdiction is limited only to set aside any order passed by the Panchayat. In my view this submission is without any substance looking to the fact that normally the Panchayat which is corporate body acts by passing an appropriate resolution. Even if any order is passed by the Panchayat it would be in pursuance of the resolution. Rule 25 of the Procedure Rules provides that a matter requiring the decision of the Panchayat shall be decided by means of a question put by the Presiding Officer on resolution made by a member. Rule 25 is as under:"25 A matter requiring the decision of the Panchayat shall be decided by means of question put by the Presiding Officer on resolution made by a member". Therefore any matter which requires decision is to be determined on the basis of the resolution passed by the Panchayat. Rule 25 is as under:"25 A matter requiring the decision of the Panchayat shall be decided by means of question put by the Presiding Officer on resolution made by a member". Therefore any matter which requires decision is to be determined on the basis of the resolution passed by the Panchayat. Further Rule 35 provides the manner of passing resolution by the Panchayat after debate over it and the amendment or amendments if any to a resolution. It reads as under:"35 (1) the presiding officer may on the conclusion of a debate on a resolution or at any time when the presiding officer is satisfied that the resolution has been sufficiently discussed put the resolution to the vote of the meeting. (2) (i) When there are one or more amendments to a resolution the presiding officer shall first put to vote the amendment or amendments one by one; (II) If all amendments are lost the presiding officer shall put the resolution to vote; (III) If any amendment or amendments are carried the presiding officer shall put to vote the resolution incorporating the amendment or amendments which have been carried; (IV) The presiding officer may group together amendments which are substantially the same:provided that in group of amendments the presiding officer may give precedence to any amendment which is most comprehensive and that when such amendment is either carried or lost it shall not be necessary to put to vote the other amendmeats in the group. (3) The resolution with or without an amendment or amendments as finally carried under sub-rule (2) shall be considered to be the decision of the Panchayat". For our purposes sub-rule (3) is important. It provides that the resolution with or without an amendment or amendments as finally carried under sub-rule (2) shall be considered to be the decision of the Panchayat. Reading Rule 25 and Rule 35 together it is clear that for any matter which requires decision by the Panchayat it is required to decide it by passing appropriate resolution. Resolution with or without amendment as finally passed by the majority is the decision of the Panchayat. Therefore the effect of passing the resolution would be that the Panchayat has taken a particular decision or has passed an order with regard to a particular subject. Resolution with or without amendment as finally passed by the majority is the decision of the Panchayat. Therefore the effect of passing the resolution would be that the Panchayat has taken a particular decision or has passed an order with regard to a particular subject. If the decision or order is found to be illegal or improper the State Government has power to revise modify or cancel it under Sec. 305 of the Panchayats Act. ( 11 ) IN the case of Haresh Octroi Co. v. S. Ramabhadran 1979 (2) GLR 551 this point is dealt with by the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench negatived the contention raised by the appellants in that case that the State Government has no jurisdiction under Sec. 305 to quash the resolution passed by the Panchayat and that revisional powers could be exercised only in respect of any order inter alia by any Panchayat and that a resolution passed by the Panchayat is not an order. It upheld the decision rendered by the learned Chief Justice that under Sec. 305 of the Panchayats Act the State Government had power to call for and examine the record and proceedings of any Panchayat or Committee thereof and that the width of the power indicated that if any decision or order made in such proceedings was not in accordance with law or was improper the revisional power could be properly exercised. ( 12 ) THE next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Resolution dated 27/03/1987 was not confirmed in the subsequent meeting and therefore it remained on dormant file and would not be enforceable. It is true that the minutes of the previous meeting are required to be confirmed in the next meeting and Rule 12 (1) provides that the first item of the business at the meeting of the Panchayat shall be confirmation of the minutes of the previous meeting. But from this it cannot be said that the resolution passed in the previous meeting would be non-est as soon as the minutes thereof are not confirmed in the next meeting. But from this it cannot be said that the resolution passed in the previous meeting would be non-est as soon as the minutes thereof are not confirmed in the next meeting. As per Rule 35 of the Procedure Rules after the debate on a resolution or on the amendment is over the resolution or amendment is to be put up for voting and under sub-rule (3) of Rule 35 the resolution with or without amendment or amendments as finally carried under sub-rule (2) shall be considered to be the decision of the Panchayat. This rule nowhere prescribes that the said resolution or amendment which is carried is required to be confirmed in the subsequent meeting. The resolution becomes decision as soon as it is passed by the majority. The minutes of the meeting are the record which is kept by the Panchayat to indicate that in the meeting particular decision was arrived the names of the members who attended it and the members voting for or against and of the members remaining neutral. These minutes are required to be prepared on the same day following the day of the meeting or as soon as thereafter as may be and are required to be signed by the Presiding Officer. Rule 45 provides to the aforesaid effect and that it casts a duly on the secretary of the Panchayat to record the minutes of each meeting in a bound book. Confirmation of minutes is therefore only for a limited purpose i. e. whether the resolution passed in the meeting i. e. the decision taken by the Panchayat is accurately mentioned or whether the facts stated in the minutes with regard to the name of the members who were present at the time of meeting and the members voting for or against and the members remaining neutral are accurately recorded or not. But it cannot be said that if the minutes are not confirmed in the subsequent meeting the resolution passed in the previous meeting becomes non-est or does not come into force. As per Rule 35 of the aforesaid Rules as soon as the resolutions is passed it is the decision of the Panchayat and it is required to be followed subject to other provisions of the Rules. The said resolution can be modified or cancelled as provided under Sec. 116. As per Rule 35 of the aforesaid Rules as soon as the resolutions is passed it is the decision of the Panchayat and it is required to be followed subject to other provisions of the Rules. The said resolution can be modified or cancelled as provided under Sec. 116. But resolution once passed is not required to be confirmed under any provision. Confirmation of minutes would only been that record of the proceeding and the business transacted in the meeting is accurately kept. ( 13 ) MR. Jani learned Advocate for respondents Nos. 5 to 14 rightly relied upon the Book 0the Law and Practice of Meetings by Shackleton Fourth Edition for pointing out that confirmation of minutes has no legal significance. At page 98 in the topic Confirmation the learned author has stated as under:"decisions once arrived at do not need confirmation and the practice adopted by some authorities of confirming minutes has no legal significance. the word confirm sometimes means verify it is commonly used in that sense at meetings of public bodies who confirm the minutes of their last meeting not meaning thereby that they give them force but merely that they declare them accurate. IT is usual to submit the minutes to the Chairman at the same or subsequent meeting for signature. If they have not been previously circulated he will ask the secretary to read them and if the meeting is of opinion that they are correct record of the proceedings he will sign them. The Chairman who signs at the next succeeding meeting need not necessarily have been present at the meeting of which the minutes are a record. If they have previously been circulated he will often sign them without having them read if the meeting so agrees. His action in signing them is merely to record that they are a correct record of the business transacted. If there should be an error in them of an immaterial kind such as misspelt word or a clerical error the alteration could be made by the Chairman and initialled. If however a material point is omitted it is competent for a member at any time to prove at law the inaccuracy of minutes and have the resolutions set aside. THERE may however be occasions where the Chairman although having no reason to question the accuracy of the record refuses to sign the minutes. If however a material point is omitted it is competent for a member at any time to prove at law the inaccuracy of minutes and have the resolutions set aside. THERE may however be occasions where the Chairman although having no reason to question the accuracy of the record refuses to sign the minutes. In such cases W record should be made in the minutes to the effect that the minutes of the previous meeting were correct. AT a vestry meeting it was the usual procedure to read over at the next meeting the resolutions of the preceding one and to confirm or rescind them At the second meeting there was considerable diversity of opinion as to the votes admitted at the first meeting hut judgment was to the effect that there was no necessity for the confirmation of she second vestry of what was legally done at the first. If the first was a legal vestry the election thereat was legal". Similar is the view expressed by Curry and Sykes in the Book The Conduct of Meetings Twentieth Edition at page 60. While discussing the topic Minutes ? it has been observed as under:"any discussion on the minutes except as to their accuracy is out of order and the Chairman should rule accordingly". Lastly it has been observed as under:"the approval of the minutes by a meeting merely verifies their accuracy; it does not necessarily mean that such minutes are adopted or that the resolution therein are confirmed or ratified". ( 14 ) IN this case it is an admitted fact that on 27/03/1987 Resolution No. 1 for passing the budget was not approved. Resolutions Nos. 2 and 3 of electing members of the Executive Committee and Social Justice Committee were passed by majority of votes. Thereafter other resolutions were passed. Minutes of the said resolutions are also recorded and are signed by the Secretary i. e. Taluka Development Officer and President of the Taluka Panchayat. There is one note below the said resolution that the president was not agreeing with Resolutions Nos. 1 2 and 3 because the members who have voted in the said meeting have voted against the direction given by political parties and the said resolutions were therefore illegal. There is one note below the said resolution that the president was not agreeing with Resolutions Nos. 1 2 and 3 because the members who have voted in the said meeting have voted against the direction given by political parties and the said resolutions were therefore illegal. At the same time the copies of the aforesaid resolution were sent to all the members of the Taluka Panchayat and District Development Officer as well as to all the branches of the Taluka Panchayat and it was directed that a copy be placed on the Notice Board of the Taluka Panchayat. No dispute is raised by any one that the said resolutions are not correctly recorded or minutes therein are in any way inaccurate. Hence in my view there is no substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners that the resolutions dated 27-3-1987 are non-est as they are not confirmed in the next meeting. ( 15 ) MR. Patel learned advocate for the petitioners next contended that under Sec. 110 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act the Taluka Panchayat is entitled to modify or cancel the resolution passed in the previous meeting and therefore also the resolutions passed in the meeting of 30/06/1937 electing the members of Executive Committee and the Social Justice Committee are valid resolutions. ( 16 ) MR. Jani learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents Nos. 5 to 14 submitted that as such there is no resolution passed by the panchayat cancelling the resolutions dated 27-3-1987. He submitted that merely because minutes are not approved it cannot be said true the previous resolutions are cancelled. In my view this submission seems to be justified because in the resolution dated 30/06/1987 which is produced on record at Annexure D to the petition it is nowhere stated that the previous resolutions passed on 27/03/1987 are cancelled or modified. ( 17 ) FURTHER once the members of the Executive Committee and Social Justice Committee of the Taluka Panchayat are elected by passing a proper resolution the Taluka Panchayat has no jurisdiction to pass any resolution electing the members of the Executive Committee and Social Justice Committee before expiry of their term. As per Sec. 111 (9) the term of the Executive Committee is two years and that of Social Justice Committee is co-extensive with the term of the Panchayat. As per Sec. 111 (9) the term of the Executive Committee is two years and that of Social Justice Committee is co-extensive with the term of the Panchayat. That means the tenure of the members of the Executive Committees and Social Justice Committee is determined under the statute and the Legislature has not given any power to the Taluka Panchayat to reduce it. This would be clear if we refer to the relevant provisions of Sec. 111 Section 111 (1) provides that a Taluka Panchayat shall constitute an Executive Committee for exercising such powers and performing such functions and duties of the Taluka Panchayat (not being functions pertaining to its Social Justice Committee) and Social Justice Committee will perform such functions as are considered essential for securing social justice to the weaker sections of the society. Under sub-sec. (2) in addition to the aforesaid two committees a Taluka Panchayat may constitute a committee or committees to execute any work or scheme decided upon by the Taluka Panchayat or to inquire into and report to the Taluka Panchayat on matters which the panchayat may refer to such committee or committees. Sub-secs. (3) and (4) provide as to how the members of the Executive Committee and Social Justice Committee are to be elected and their constitution. Even the functions of these two Committees are determined as per the statute. The relevant part of Sec. 111 is as under: 111 (1) xx xx xx xx (2) xx xx xx xx (3) xx xx xx xx (4) xx xx xx xx (5) xx xx xx xx (6) xx xx xx xx (7) xx xx xx xx (8) xx xx xx xx (9) (a) The term of each of the Committees other than the Executive Committee and the Social Justice Committee shall be such as may be determined by the panchayat. (B) The term of the Executive Committee shall be two years and on the expiry of its term the committee shall be reconstituted and the term of the Social Justice Committee shall be Co-extensive with the term of the panchayat. PROVIDED that where the unexpired part of the term of the panchayat during which the Executive Committee is constituted or reconstituted is less than two years the term of the Executive Committee shall be Co-extensive with the unexpired part of the term of the panchayat. PROVIDED that where the unexpired part of the term of the panchayat during which the Executive Committee is constituted or reconstituted is less than two years the term of the Executive Committee shall be Co-extensive with the unexpired part of the term of the panchayat. (10) xx xx xx xx (11) xx xx xx xx (12) xx xx xx xx (13) A taluka Panchayat may at any time withdraw from any committee other than the Social Justice Committee any of the powers functions and duties assigned to it and assign the same to any other committee other than the Social Justice Committee. (14) xx xx xx xx (15) xx xx xx xxfurther Sec. 116 reads as under:"116 No resolution of a Taluka Panchayat shall be modified amended varied or cancelled by a Panchayat within a period of three months from the date of the passing thereof except by a resolution supported by two-thirds of the total number of members of such Panchayat". From the aforesaid provisions it is apparent that these two committees are statutory committees. Their term powers functions and the duties are determined under the statute. Once the members of these committees are elected by passing appropriate resolution the said resolution cannot be modified or cancelled so as to reduce their term or tenure. No reliance can be placed upon Sec 116 of the Act which gives general powers to the panchayat to modify amend vary or cancel the resolution passed by it. But these general powers are subject to specific provisions of the Act. Further if this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is accepted then Sec 9 (a) and (b) would become otiose and redundant. It would mean that inspite of the fact that their term is determined by the statute their term can be modified by passing resolution on a subsequent date under Sec. 116 by a bare majority if it is passed after three months and by a two-thirds majority if it is passed within three months. In my view when the Legislature has specifically provided that the term of the Executive Committees shall be two years and that of the Social Justice Committee shall be co-extensive with the term of the panchayat the members of the panchayat would have no authority to pass a resolution terminating or extending their term Further sub-sec. In my view when the Legislature has specifically provided that the term of the Executive Committees shall be two years and that of the Social Justice Committee shall be co-extensive with the term of the panchayat the members of the panchayat would have no authority to pass a resolution terminating or extending their term Further sub-sec. (2) of Sec 111 provides for constitution of committees other than Executive Committee or Social Justice Committee. With regard to the other committees the term is not prescribed by the Act and the Taluka Panchayat is permitted to make regulations for the procedure to be followed by such committee. This would indicate that for the statutory committees which are required to be constituted under the Act the panchayat has no jurisdiction to reduce their term determined by the Act. A general right conferred by Sec 116 of the Act to modify or cancel the resolution would not include right to modify the term specified under the Act. If this is accepted then it would mean that the general body of the panchayat has a right to override the statutory provision. ( 18 ) THE Division Bench of this Court in the case of Nandlal v. V. B. Buch Collector Mehsana [1973] 14 GLR 903 had an occasion to interpret similar provisions of the Gujarat Municipalities Act. The Court held that there is no section in the Act empowering the general board to reduce the term of office of the President once determined under Sec. 33 sub-sec. (1) and by necessary implication such power could not be found to have been conferred upon the general board by any other provisions of the Act including Sec. 51 sub-sec. (12) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act which empowers the general board to modify or cancel the resolution. Section 51 (12) of the Gujarat Municipalities Act is similar to Sec. 116 of the Panchayats Act. ( 19 ) LASTLY the learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that without hearing the elected persons i. e. those persons who are elected the meeting held on 30/06/1987 the Additional Development Commissioner has passed the impugned order and therefore it is illegal. With regard to this contention it should be noted that Additional Development Commissioner had issued a show cause notice through the Taluka Panchayat. With regard to this contention it should be noted that Additional Development Commissioner had issued a show cause notice through the Taluka Panchayat. In the said show cause notice the Secretary of the Taluka Panchayat was directed to place it in the meeting of the Panchayat. The meeting of the Taluka Panchayat was held on 2/03/1988 In the said meeting the petitioners remained present. The show cause notice was discussed and the decision was taken and Resolution No. 24 was passed to the effect that under Sec. 116 of the Gujarat Panchayats Act the resolution dated 27/03/1987 was modified and it is further stated that the resolution dated 30/06/1987 was approved by the majority on that day. The meeting also decided to inform the Additional Development Commissioner to that effect. With regard to Resolution No. 24 the petitioners have participated in the discussion. Therefore it can be said that notice of the hearing is served to the petitioners through the Taluka Panchayat. Further it is also an admitted fact that members of the Social Justice Committee continued to function till the petition was filed. Only because of stay order from this Court they could not function. The Development Commissioner had stayed the operation of the resolution dated 30/06/1987 by his order dated 5/10/1987 Inspite of the stay order minutes of the resolution dated 30-6-1987 were confirmed in the meeting held on 2-3-1988. Therefore if the petitioners were aggrieved by the show cause notice and the stay order granted by the Development Commissioner the petitioners could have approached the Development Commissioner for modification. From the aforesaid facts it cannot be said that the order passed by the Additional Development Commissioner is without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. Further as the resolution passed by the panchayat on 30/06/1987 is without any authority of law in my; view the order passed by the Additional Development Commissioner does not call for any interference. ( 20 ) IN the result the petition is rejected rule discharged with no order as to costs. . ( 21 ) THE interim relief granted by this Court to continue for a period of fifteen days from today. Rule discharged. .