Judgment :- 1. Aggrieved by the Order in W.P. No. 14183 of 1989, (reported in 1991 Writ L.R. 581, Mishra, J.) the appellant, who was the fourth respondent in the writ petition, has preferred this writ appeal. 2. The 1st respondent in this appeal preferred the said writ petition claiming to be a public interested one, for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Government to revoke G.O.Ms. No. 1625, Revenue dated 29.8.1988 in and by which the appellant was granted exemption from the operation of the provisions of Chapter III of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) in respect of excess land measuring 6,24,035 sq.mts., subject to certain conditions enumerated therein. 3. It is common ground that on account of non-compliadce of the conditions subject to which the impugned G.O., was passed, the Government have taken steps under S 21 (2) of the Act, and the appellant has offered its explanation and the matter is pending with the Government. In view of the above position, the learned Judge, after broadly discussing the issues that arose out of the affidavit and counter-affidavits filed in the said writ petition, ultimately held as follows: — “It is still not possible in the instant case to issue a mandamus or direction to the respondent-State Government and its officers to acquire the excess land in the hands of the fourth respondent unless the proceedings in accordance with S. 21(2) of the Act are concluded. It is, however, unncessary, to examine what the State Government may do in exercise of its power under sub-S (2) of S. 21 of the Act. Can it extend the period of two vears for fulfilling the conditions? The answer may be in the affirma tive, but not without any condition. The condition in such a situation will be to find out whether there was any attempt on the part of the person who had obtained the conditional exemption order to fulfil the conditions or not and if such attempts have been made by him whether it was for the reason beyond his control that the conditions were not fulfilled. The condition in such a situation will be to find out whether there was any attempt on the part of the person who had obtained the conditional exemption order to fulfil the conditions or not and if such attempts have been made by him whether it was for the reason beyond his control that the conditions were not fulfilled. The State Government cannot just at its whim and caprice decide to extend the period of exemption It will have to assign reasons and the reasons must conform to the purpose of the Act being not to allow any person to hold lands in excess of the ceiling area. It will be for that person who obtained an exemption to show that he had good reasons for not implementing or fulfilling the conditions. The State Government, however, cannot substitute any new conditions for the conditions already imposed. It cannot also entertain any new ground for exemption because any such thing done while deciding whether to withdraw the exemption or not, will amount to varying the order of exemption which I have already indicated is not permissible. The Slate Government shall have to adhere to the conditions and require compliance of such conditions by the 4th respondent. Having considered the case for the limited purpose, as aforesaid without entering into the other controversies on the merits of the case, I am of the opinion that this is a fit case in which the State Government should be directed to dispose of the proceedings under S. 21(1) of the Act within a reasonable time in the light of the directions and observations above.” 4. The appellant is aggrieved by the observations of the learned Judge as extracted above in respect of disposal of the subject-matter pending before the Government under S. 21 (2) of the Act. In other words, Mrs Malini Ganesh, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the Government will consider itself bound by the above observations of the learned Judge which will prejudice the rights of the appellant. The Government, learned counsel submitted, must be given a free hand to deal with the matter under S. 21 (2) of the Act in accordance with law without being influenced by the above observations of the learned Judge. 5. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. The Government, learned counsel submitted, must be given a free hand to deal with the matter under S. 21 (2) of the Act in accordance with law without being influenced by the above observations of the learned Judge. 5. We find force in the argument of the learned counsel for the appellant. We may point out that the date for the final disposal of the writ appeal was fixed in the presence of the learned counsel for the appellant and also the learned counsel for all the respondents. However, learned counsel for the first respondent (writ petitioner) was not present when the writ appeal was taken up for final disposal. It is a matter for regret, even the Government Pleader who has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents 2, 3 and 4 was also not present. Except the learned counsel for the fifth respondent, learned counsel for the other respondents were not present at the time of final hearing of the writ appeal. 6. We have carefully gone through the order of the learned Judge. The learned Judge has rightly declined to issue a writ of mandamus as prayed for in view of the pendency of the proceedings under S. 21 (2) of the Act. Having declined and having noticed the pendenc of the proceedings under S. 21(2) of th; Act, the learned Judge was not right in indicating/pointing out the manner in which the Government should proceed further and dispose of the subject matter pending under S. 21 (2) of the Act. Under S. 2I(2) of the Act, it is for the Government to take or decide such action as deemed fit and proper, in accordance with law. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, any observations made by this Court are likely to influence the Government in the disposal of the matter pending under S. 21 (2) of the Act. To that extent, with respect, we are of the view that the Order of the learned Judge has to be modified. 7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, any observations made by this Court are likely to influence the Government in the disposal of the matter pending under S. 21 (2) of the Act. To that extent, with respect, we are of the view that the Order of the learned Judge has to be modified. 7. In the result, while sustaining the ultimate order of the learned Judge directing the disposal of the proceedings under S. 21 (2) of the Act as expeditiously as possible, we hold that the Government would proceed to dispose of that matter independently, in accordance with law, without being influenced by any of the observations made by the learned Judge in Writ Petition No. 14183 of 1989 concerning the disposal of the subject matter pending before them under S. 21 (2) of the Act, in the light of the explanation submitted by the appellant. The writ appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.