S. D. SHAH, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the action of the respondents in not appointing the petitioner as Examiner for the Post-graduate Examination in the subject of M. D. (Medicine) and in selecting respondent Nos. 3 and 4 as Examiners of P. G. Examination in M. D (Medicine) ( 2 ) FEW facts giving rise to this petition need be stated : (I) The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste. He is holding Post-graduate degree in M. D.- (Medicine ). Pursuant to selection conducted by the Gujarat Public Service Commission he was selected for the post of Assistant Professor of Medicine and was appointed on the said post in Govt. Medical College at Surat on 1-1-1979. On 5/11/1982 he was promoted to the post of Associate Professor of Medicine. On 2/01/1989 he was promoted as Professor and Head of Department of Medicine. On 1 4/03/1991 election for the post of Chairman of Board of Studies was held and he came to be elected as Chairman of Board of Studies. By virtue of his office as Chairman of Board of Studies under Section 47a of South Gujarat University Act 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) he has become the member of Examiners Committee. (II) The case of the petitioner is that by virtue of his post of Chairman of Board of Studies he had become the member of Examiners Committee and the list of Examiners was required to be prepared by the said Committee. It is the further case of the petitioner that when such list is prepared by the Examiners Committee the same is required to be rooted through the Academic Council and thereafter it is required to be placed before the Vice Chancellor for his approval who may either approve or modify the same for reasons to be recorded in writing. Based on this procedure it is the case of the petitioner that for the examinations to be conducted in the year 1991-92 the examiners were to be appointed and various meetings of the Examiners Committee were convened and were adjourned and/or postponed from time to time. It is his further case that the last meeting of Examiners Committee was held on 18th October 1991 The next next meeting was convened on 30/10/1991. However on 29/10/1991 Mr. It is his further case that the last meeting of Examiners Committee was held on 18th October 1991 The next next meeting was convened on 30/10/1991. However on 29/10/1991 Mr. Y. B. Mehta Dean of the Faculty of Medicine expressed his inability to attend the said meeting and he addressed a letter dated 30/10/1991 stating that the said meeting of 30/10/1991 be postponed since it was not possible for him to attend that meeting due to sudden demise of his relative. Prior thereto on 29/10/1991 a letter was also addressed by the University informing the petitioner that the meeting of 30/10/1991 was cancelled. The meeting of 30/10/1991 was admittedly not held. It appears that thereafter the meeting was not held and the Dean of Faculty of Medicine Mr. Y. B. Mehta has addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor informing that old panel of examiners with stated modification should be approved. It should also be noted that the petitioner has also written a letter dated 30th October 1991 to the Vice-Chancellor suggesting his own panel of examiners for the examinations in the year 1991 The Vice-Chancellor has thereafter proceeded to consider the recommendations both of Mr. Y. B. Mehta the Dean of Faculty of Medicine as well as of the petitioner and has thereafter appointed the panel of Examiners for the subject of Medicine. It is this decision of the Vice-Chancellor which is under challenge in this petition. ( 3 ) MR. S. V. Parmar learned Advocate for petitioner has challenged the action of the Vice-Chancellor mainly on the following grounds : (I) The method adopted by the Vice Chancellor of South Gujarat University in appointing the panel of Examiners for the subject of M. D. (Medicine) is repugnant to the provisions of Section 47a of the said Act inasmuch as the condition precedent for the exercise of power by the Vice-Chancellor under the said section did not exist in this case and secondly because he has denied the authority (the Examiners Committee) its meaningful role in making the list of Examiners. (II) The Vice-Chancellor was not justified in resorting to the emergency power concerned upon him by Section. (II) The Vice-Chancellor was not justified in resorting to the emergency power concerned upon him by Section. 11 (4) of said Act inasmuch as he himself has created a situation for exercise of said power and he was not justified in resorting to that power when the procedure stipulated by Section 47a of the Act could have been legitimately followed and panel of examiners could have been awfully appointed. (III) The resort to Section 11 (4) of the said Act is nothing but ideal illustration of colourable exercise of power by the statutory authority inasmuch as something which could not have been done directly by the Vice-Chancellor is sought to be done by him indirectly and it is nothing but fraud on the Statute. (IV) The appointment of the Examiners by the Vice-Chancellor was in clear violation of directions of the Medical Council of India and it is also vitiated by class bias on the part of the Vice-Chancellor and Mr. Y. B. Mehta inasmuch as there was a systematic exercise on their part to exclude a person of Scheduled Caste from the panel of Examiners namely the petitioner. ( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Parmar it would be necessary to set out the relevant provisions of the Act herein and also few other relevant facts pointed out in the memo of Spl. C. A. as well as in the various affidavits filed by the parties. Before adverting to the factual submissions it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions of the Act. (i) The South Gujarat University Act 1965 inter alia provides for establishment and incorporation of teaching and officiating University at Surat in the State of Gujarat. Consistent with the provisions contained in Article 15 of the Constitution of India Section 6 (1) of the said Act provides that no person shall be excluded from any office of the University or from membership of any of its authorities or from admission to any degree diploma or other academic distinction or course of study on the sole ground of sex race creed caste class place of birth religious belief or political or other opinion. Reference to this Section is made since Mr. S. V. Parmar has referred to and relied upon this Section. Section 11 of the Act deals with powers of the Vice- Chancellor. Reference to this Section is made since Mr. S. V. Parmar has referred to and relied upon this Section. Section 11 of the Act deals with powers of the Vice- Chancellor. The Vice-Chancellor is the principal executive and academic officer of the University. As a principal executive officer it is his duty to ensure that the Act Statutes Ordinances Regulations and Rules are faithfully observed and he shall have all powers necessary for this purpose. Section 11 (4) being relevant is reproduced hereinbelow : 11 In any emergency which in the opinion of the Vice-Chancellor requires that immediate action should be taken he shall take such action as he deems necessary and shall at the earlier Opportunity thereafter furnish information regarding his action to such officer authority or body as would have in the ordinary course dealt with the matter. (b) When action taken by the Vice Chancellor under this sub-section affects any person in the service of the University such person shall be entitled to prefer an appeal through the said officer authority or body to the Syndicate within one month from the date on which such action is communicated to him. It becomes clear from the aforesaid provision that in any emergency which requires immediate action the Vicechancellor is empowered to take such action as he deems necessary. The language of Section 11 (4) is sufficiently wide and comprehensive to take within its scope and ambit every action which may be considered necessary by the Vice-Chancellor in any emergency. The wide amplitude of that power is not required to be restricted when the repository of that power is the principal executive and academic officer of the University. ( 5 ) THE other provision to which reference need to be made is Section 15 of the Act which deals with the authorities the University. The Board of Studies is one of the authorities of the University under Section 1 (vi) of the said Act. The petitioner as stated hereinabove is the elected Chairman of the Board of Studies and is thus the Head of one of the Authorities of the University. Section 25 deals with Deans of Faculties. The Dean of Faculty is the principal executive authority of the faculty and he is responsible for the due observance of the Statutes Ordinances and Regulations relating to the faculty. Section 47-A deals with Examiners Committee. Section 25 deals with Deans of Faculties. The Dean of Faculty is the principal executive authority of the faculty and he is responsible for the due observance of the Statutes Ordinances and Regulations relating to the faculty. Section 47-A deals with Examiners Committee. Since the main grievance of the petitioner centres round this provision same is quoted in extensive :47 There shall be formed every year a committee for each faculty for the. purpose of drawing up the list for appointments to University Examiners consisting of : (i) The Pro-Vice-Chancellor Ex-Officio Chairman; (ii) The Dean of the concerned Faculty; (iii) The Chairman of the Board of Studies and (iv)Two members of the Board of Studies nominated by the Vice-Chancellor for the year. (2) The list of Examiners prepared by the Committee shall be placed through the Academic Council before the Vice-Chancellor for his approval who may either approve or modify the same for reasons to be recorded in writing. (3) The procedure to be followed by the Committee shall be such as may be prescribed by Statutes. From the aforesaid provision it becomes clear that every year a Committee of Examiners for each faculty to be formed for the put pose of drawing up the list for appointments to the University Examiners. The said Committee is to consist of Pro-Vice-Chancellor Dean of the Faculty Chairman of Board of Studies and two members of the Board of Studies nominated by the Vice-Chancellor. In this case since there is no Pro-Vice-Chancellor the Committee was to consist of four persons. ( 6 ) THE said Committee is required to prepare a list of Examiners after discussion and deliberation. The Committee is expected to consider the eligible claimants and candidates while preparing the list. Once such list is prepared by the Committee the same is required to be placed before the Academic Council. It is simple rooting of the list through Academic Council. Ultimately said list is to be put to Vice-Chancellor for his approval. He has three options i. e. (i) he may approve the list (ii) he may modify the same for the reasons to be recorded in writing. It is thus clear that ultimate authority to appoint the Examiners or to determine the list of Examiners is the Vice-Chancellor. In the process of finalising the list of Examiners the Examiners Committee takes the lead of preparing the list. It is thus clear that ultimate authority to appoint the Examiners or to determine the list of Examiners is the Vice-Chancellor. In the process of finalising the list of Examiners the Examiners Committee takes the lead of preparing the list. Thereafter it is to be placed before Academic Council. The list so rooted through Academic Council comes before Vice-Chancellor for finalisation. It is he who has to approve or disapprove the same. When he disapproves the same or modifies the same he has to record the reasons in writing. He has not to act arbitrarily and capriciously. The reasons for modification must be relevant germane and non-extraneous. Ultimately it is his decision which shall prevail. The function of the Committee and Academic Council is more or less recommendatory. ( 7 ) HAVING adverted to the aforesaid provisions submissions of Mr. S. N. Shelat Ld. Counsel for respondent-University are required to be stated. It is the statutory post submits Mr. Shelat. He has submitted that from 21st October 1991 to 19/11/1991 there was vacation in medical college. From 3/11/1991 to 10th November 1991 the ofoffice of the University was closed because of Diwali vacation. The post-graduate examination was to commence on 29/11/1991. As per schedule the results of the examination were to be declared by 10/12/1991. It is in the context of the aforesaid dates that the action of the Vice-Chancellor is required to be Judged. In his submission ultimate power to decide the list of Examiners is with the Vice-Chancellor. It is he who has to approve or disapprove the list prepared by the Examiners Committee. He has even the power to modify the list for the reasons to be recorded in writing. He therefore submits that since ultimate power is vested in the Vice-Chancellor and since he has ultimately exercised the power of finalising the list of Examiners it shall have to be seen as to whether he has complied with the Section 47a and if not under what circumstances he was required to resort to emergency power under Section 11 (4) of the said Act. ( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submissions it shall have to be kept in mind that there is no dispute about the fact that the ultimate power to prepare the list of Examiners is with the Vice-Chancellor. He has exercised that power and has prepared the list of examiners. ( 8 ) IN order to appreciate the aforesaid rival submissions it shall have to be kept in mind that there is no dispute about the fact that the ultimate power to prepare the list of Examiners is with the Vice-Chancellor. He has exercised that power and has prepared the list of examiners. It is also required to be kept in mind that in all five Committees were to be appointed under the Medical faculty. The meetings were called on 1/10/1991. The meeting was to recommend the names of examiners/paper setters. The said meeting was postponed because of non-availability of Dr. Y. B. Mehta Dean of Medical Faculty. The meeting was once again called on 18/10/1991 for all the five Committees in Medical faculty. The decisions could be arrived at in other four Committees about the Examiners the members of the Committee for Medicine could not ar rive at a final decision and therefore they could not prepare list of Examiners and could not recommend the same to the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner was party to this meeting of 18/10/1991. He has discussed and deliberated upon the proposed names of Examiners for the subject of Medicine. However the members of the Committee could not arrived at a final recommendation to be made to the Vice-Chancellor. In the absence of any final recommendation the said meeting of the committee was adjourned to 30/10/1991. However the petitioner has by his letter informed that no meeting of the Committee should be convened between 21/10/1991 and 19/11/1991. The meeting of 30th October 1991 came to be postponed at the instance of Dr. Y. B. Mehta who was not in position to attend the said meeting because of death of his near relative. Much has been said about the postponement of this meeting. Mr. S. V. Parmar has stated that the meeting of 30/10/1991 was postponed and not adjourned. It was thereafter required to be held. He has further submitted that the letter of said postponement is despatched by the University on 29/10/1991 while Dr. Y. B. Mehta Dean of Medical Faculty has addressed letter only on 30/10/1991 stating that it was not possible for him to attend the meeting of 30/10/1991. He therefore submits that the postponement of meeting was collusive and pre-planned so that no final decision could be reached. I do not find any substance in this submission because on Dr. Y. B. Mehta Dean of Medical Faculty has addressed letter only on 30/10/1991 stating that it was not possible for him to attend the meeting of 30/10/1991. He therefore submits that the postponement of meeting was collusive and pre-planned so that no final decision could be reached. I do not find any substance in this submission because on Dr. Y. B. Mehta orally informing the University of his inability to come on 30th October 1991 the University can address letter dated 29/10/1991 and formal intimation from Dr. Y. B. Mehta may be subsequently received. From this situation it cannot be inferred that the postponement of meeting was deliberated. Much importance is not required to be given to this fact. In my opinion the subsequent events would leave no room for doubt that the Vice-Chancellor has acted justly and fairly and well within his power. ( 9 ) SINCE the Examiners Committee in the subject of Medicine cannot be finalised the list of Examiners Dr. Y. B. Mehta Dean of Medical Faculty has addressed letter dated 1/11/1991 to the Vice-Chancellor stating that the old panel of examiners in Medicine and Psychiatry should be continued. This was the opinion of the Dean of Medical Faculty. Dr. B. D. Parmar the petitioner herein and the Chairman of Board of Studies has on 30/10/1991 addressed letter to the Vice- Chancellor stating therein that the panel of examiners for M. D. (Medicine) should be as per his recommendation thereby suggesting in all four names being that of (i) himself (ii) Dr. R. K. Chavda (iii) Dr. B. R. Yagnik and (iv) Dr. A. B. Kurana. The Vice-Chancellor therefore has before him the recommendation of Dr. Y. B. Mehta Dean of Faculty of Medicine and the recommendation of the petitioner who was the Chairman of the Board of Studies. The Vice Chancellor was also advised by the Dean in his letter dated 1/11/1991 that there was no time left for convening another meeting of the Examiners Committee since the examinations were to commence on 2 9/11/1991 and it was advisable to finalise the panel of Examiners. In that view of the matter the Vice-Chancellor considered the recommendations of the petitioner as well as the Dean of the Medical Faculty. In fact the Vice Chancellor included Dr. R. K. Chavda in the list of examiners as recommended by the petitioner. In that view of the matter the Vice-Chancellor considered the recommendations of the petitioner as well as the Dean of the Medical Faculty. In fact the Vice Chancellor included Dr. R. K. Chavda in the list of examiners as recommended by the petitioner. The recommendations made by petitioner are therefore not ignored by the Vice-Chancellor. He has considered the same. The Vice-Chancellor in his affidavit-in-reply has categorically stated that he has considered the petitioner for appointment as Examiner. What he has to say can be better stated in his own words : on 1/11/1991 the Dean of the Faculty Dr. Y. B. Mehta informed that the old panels for Medicine and Psychiatry and other subjects would be continued. The time was too short and hence another meeting could not be convened. Annexed hereto and marked Annexure A is a copy of the said letter I had also received recommendation for examinership from the present petitioner. I had considered the suggested names of examiners and having given my anxious consideration I have made appointment of respondents No. 3 and 4 as Internal Examiners for the M. L ). Examination scheduled to be held from 29th November 1991. The respondent No. 4 Dr. R. K. Chavda has been recommended even by the petitioner and he has been selected by me for appointment. I therefore submit that the petitioner cannot have any grievance against the appointment of respondent No. 4. Respondent No. 3 is an eminent practising Doctor in Surat and his name has been suggested by the Dean of the Faculty. He is qualified to be Examiner and therefore he has been offered examinership. Both the respondents No. 3 and 4 have not completed the requisite turns. ( 10 ) FROM the aforesaid extract of the affidavit-in reply filed by the Vice- Chancellor it becomes clear that the Vice- Chancellor has duly considered the list submitted by Dr. Y. B. Mehta Dean of Faculty of Medicine as well as one submitted by the petitioner and has even included one of the persons recommended by the petitioner in the list of Examiners. He has not acted arbitrarily or fancifully. He has not acted with any bias for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. In fact the petitioner himself has suggested Dr. R. K. Chavdas name which is included in the panel by the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner now cannot make grievance about. He has not acted arbitrarily or fancifully. He has not acted with any bias for candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste. In fact the petitioner himself has suggested Dr. R. K. Chavdas name which is included in the panel by the Vice-Chancellor. The petitioner now cannot make grievance about. the appointment of Dr. R. K. Chavda nor can he say that the Vice Chancellor was in any way biased against the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste inasmuch as despite the fact that Dr. R. K. Chavda belongs to Scheduled Caste he is included in the list of Examiners. In my opinion when the Examiners Committee cannot finally suggest the name of Examiners because of the fact they could not reach unanimity on 18/10/1991 and when the examinations were fast approaching and finalisation of list of Examiners was absolutely essential and when Dr. Y. B. Mehta has informed that further meeting of Examiners Committee could not be convened the Vice-Chancellor has no other option but to resort to his emergency power. It may be mentioned that even otherwise also the power vests with the Vice Chancellor. It was he who was required to finally approve or disapprove the list of examiners. The only condition was that he shall have to consider the list submitted to him by the Examiners Committee. When the Examiners Committee has failed to submit the list the Vice-Chancellor shall have to exercise his power. Even while exercising such power he did take into consideration the recommendations of both Mr. Y. B. Mehta and Dr. B. D. Parmar-the petitioner herein. The Vice-Chancellor thus has acted fairly and Justly and absolutely impartially. He acted well within his power. If he does not act when the Examiners Committee has failed to give the final list of Examiners the work of examining the examinees would be delayed which would create chaos in the working of the University. In such a situation the power under Section 11 (3) was required to be exercised and has rightly exercised by the Vice-Chancellor. It cannot be said that the power could not have been resorted to. In the facts of this case there was no other option left with the Vice-Chancellor but to exercise his emergency power. That power is very wide power In the case of. It cannot be said that the power could not have been resorted to. In the facts of this case there was no other option left with the Vice-Chancellor but to exercise his emergency power. That power is very wide power In the case of. The Vice-Chancellor Jammu University and Another v. Dushinant Kumar Rampal reported in AIR 1977 SC 1146 dealing with the identical provision namely Section 13 (4) of Jammu and Kashmir University Act 1969 the Supreme Court observed as under :sub-SECTION (4) of Section 13 is general in terms and provides that the Vice-Chancellor shall be entitled to take such action as he deems necessary in any emergency which in his opinion calls for immediate action. It does not talk specifically of an order of interim suspension of a teacher but the width and amplitude of the language of the provision would clearly include action by way of interim suspension of a teacher when there is in the opinion of the Vice Chancellor an emergency calling for immediate action. The respondent contended that the power to order interim suspension is a quasi-judicial power and it would not be comprehended within the language of sub-Section (4) of the Section 13. But this contention is clearly fallacious and the premise on which it is based is unsound. It is not correct to say that an order of interim suspension is a quasi- Judicial order and in any event the language of sub-Section (4) of Section 13 is sufficiently wide and comprehensive to take within its scope and ambit every kind of action which may be considered necessary by the Vice-Chancellor in an emergency and there is no reason why such action should not include making of an order of interim suspension. The Vice Chancellor therefore clearly had power under Section 13 sub-Section (4) to make an order of interim suspension if he thought it necessary to make such an order in an emergent situation which in his opinion called for immediate action. The respondent sought to contend that at the date when the order of suspension was passed there was no emergency which called for immediate action on the part of the Vice-Chancellor and therefore the foundation for taking action under Section 13 sub Section (4) was wanting and the order of suspension could not be justified under that provision. The respondent sought to contend that at the date when the order of suspension was passed there was no emergency which called for immediate action on the part of the Vice-Chancellor and therefore the foundation for taking action under Section 13 sub Section (4) was wanting and the order of suspension could not be justified under that provision. But this contention cannot be entertained by us since it has not been taken as a ground of challenge in the writ petition. Whether or not there was an emergency requiring immediate action on the part of the Vice-Chancellor is entirely a question of fact and if the respondent wanted to contest the validity of the exercise of power by the Vice-Chancellor under Section 15 sub-Section (4) in making the order of suspension he should have pleaded in the writ petition that the order of suspension was outside the power conferred under Section 13 sub-Section (4) as there was no emergency. ( 11 ) THE wide amplitude of emergency power is thus accepted by the Supreme Court. Once again in the case of University of Allahabad and Ors. v. Amrit Chand Tripathi and Ors. reported in AIR 1987 SC 57 Justice Chinnappa Reddy speaking for the Court dealing with identical emergency provision under U. P. State Universities Act 1973 observed that Section 13 (6) enables the Vice-Chancellor to take such an action as he may deem fit if any matter is of any urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same cannot immediately to be dealt with by any officer or authority or other body of the University empowered by or under the Act to deal with it. The court also found that under Section 13 condition precedent to the Vice-Chancellors action is the necessity for action and the failure to take such action by the authority competent to take such action. This is necessary for action and failure to take action on the part of the authority is relevant consideration. In the present case the Examiners Committee of which the petitioner is the member failed to finally recommend the name of the Examiners. Since the Committee failed it became absolutely essential for the Vice- Chancellor to take action. There was thus undoubted necessity for action by the Vice-Chancellor. In the present case the Examiners Committee of which the petitioner is the member failed to finally recommend the name of the Examiners. Since the Committee failed it became absolutely essential for the Vice- Chancellor to take action. There was thus undoubted necessity for action by the Vice-Chancellor. There can be no better exercise of emergency power than the present one when the Examiners Committee despite discussion and deliberation on 18/10/1991 could not reach unanimity and could not suggest the names of Examiners and therefore the Vice-Chancellor has to act. For exercise of his power under Section 47a when no suggestion or recommendation is made by the Examiners Committee the Vice-Chancellor is not required to unnecessarily wait when action by him was absolutely essential. In my opinion the Vice-Chancellor in the present case was Justified in finally preparing list of Examiners. In so acting he was well within his power both under Section 47a as well as under Section 11 (4 ). While so acting he acted justly fairly and impartially like principal executive and academic officer of the University. In so doing he has not only considered the names suggested by Dr. Y. B. Mehta but also those suggested by present petitioner. One of such persons is even included in the select-list without influenced by the fact that he belonged to Scheduled Caste. There is therefore no bias operating in the mind of the Vice- Chancellor and his decision cannot be voided on such ground. ( 12 ) MR. S. V. Parmar has subsequently raised one another submission. He submits that the decision of the Vice Chancellor is vitiated by the fact that he has taken into consideration irrelevant and extraneous considerations. As stated hereinabove the Vice-Chancellor is the authority to take final decision. The Vice- Chancellor has taken into account the recommendations made by Mr. Y. B. Mehta Dean of Medical Faculty as well as the recommendations made by the petitioner. In the absence of any final panel of Examiners to be suggested by the Examiners Committee the Vice-Chancellor was well justified in taking into consideration the recommendations of the Dean of Medical Faculty as well as the Chairman of the Board of Studies. It cannot be said that the Vice-Chancellor has taken into consideration any it relevant or extraneous considerations. This submission therefore also must fail. It cannot be said that the Vice-Chancellor has taken into consideration any it relevant or extraneous considerations. This submission therefore also must fail. ( 13 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion I do not find any substance in any of the submissions of Mr. S. V. Parmar. It cannot be said that action of the Vice- Chancellor is vitiated by colourable exercise of power. Since ultimate power is with the Vice-Chancellor to prepare the list of Examiners and since the Examiners Committee has failed to submit the list of Examiners for his consideration he was well justified in finalising the list after taking into consideration the recommendations of the Dean of Medical Faculty and those of the petitioner. ( 14 ) AS regards the allegations of mala fides the same are not substantiated and they are required to be rejected. Dr. R. K. Chavda is well included in the list of Examiners. He belongs to Scheduled Caste. Similarly other persons belonging to Scheduled Caste are also included in the list of Examiners and as pointed out by the Vice-Chancellor two persons belonging to Scheduled Caste are included in the list of Examiners. Ultimate object is to see that an ideal panel of Examiners is constituted. Even while achieving such objective the Vice-Chancellor has not acted arbitrarily or unjustly. Allegations of mala fides are therefore required to be rejected. ( 15 ) IN the result since I do not find any substance in any of the submissions made by Mr. S. V. Parmar Ld. Advocate for petitioner the petition deserves to be dismissed and is dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .