ORDER A.R. Tiwari, J. -- 1. Cardinal Gibbons, in his address in 1909, ruminated that "Reform must come from within, not from without. You cannot legislate for virtue". The theme of instant cases is that at one stage Vice Chancellor (V.C.) of the Devi Ahilya Vishwa Vidyalaya (DAVV) Indore played the role of a donor patterned on a point -- ''You give me application, I promise you admission" in MBA (Full-Time) two year (Modular) Course, under "My quota". If that is so, what sin the counsel raised the question the appellants and the like of them committed when they slipped under the promise and, so lulled chose to view it as lucrative and to become the donees. Virtue on both the sides perhaps took leave for some time. VC led the students to tread on forbidden path without bothering for inhesion of institution seemingly on inner voice alone. Now if it was wrong from 'within', how can it be right from 'without'? Little later the same VC directed the Director to cancel such admissions without disclosing or documenting reasons and the Director in his turn, orchestrating the tune, issued the consequential order ostracizing as many as 72 students who had secured admission under the so-called discretionary quota of the Vice Chancellor. Six more students suffered the same fate from the category of Employees quota. Out of these 72, some students, left in lurch, filed writ petitions before Single Bench and obtained interim orders against implementation of the consequential order. On hearing both sides, Single Bench dismissed those petitions by common order on 6.3.96 rendered in W.P. No. 1227/95. Some of the unsuccessful petitioners of W.P. No. 1233/95 (LPANo.25/96), W.P. No. 1271/95 (LPA No. 30/96), W.P. No. 1250/95 (LPA No. 31/96), W.P. No. 1248/95 (LPA No. 28/96), W.P. No. 1250/95 (LPA No. 26/96), W.P. No. 1240195 (LPA No. 32/96), W.P.A. No. 1271/95 (LPA No. 40/96), W.P. No. 1227/95 (LPA No. 27/96), W.P. No. 1294/95 (LPA No. 38/96), W.P. No. 1227/95 (LPA No. 58/96) and W.P. No. 1240/95 (LP A No. 77/96) have then filed these Letters Patent Appeals under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the order dated 6.3.96 and obtained stay at their own risk. On show-cause notice, Respondents have filed reply in oppugnation. On consent, we heard these appeals at length for final disposal. This common order governs the disposal of these LP Appeals. 2. On show-cause notice, Respondents have filed reply in oppugnation. On consent, we heard these appeals at length for final disposal. This common order governs the disposal of these LP Appeals. 2. Factual matrix lies in a narrow compass. The Institute of Management Studies (IMS) run by DAVV conducts inter alia the course of MBA. For this course, scheduled to commence from July, 1995, institute initiated Selection Process by inviting applications from eligible candidates till 17.12.94. A brochure, containing gist and guidance, was published. Provision for written test, group discussion and personal interview carrying marks 30, 15 and 15 respectively was made. Minimum 40% marks in written test were fixed as essential to qualify for interview. Out of 3321 candidates, only 522 were chosen for group discussion and personal interview. Except the appellant Ku. Deblina Mukherjee of LPA No. 38/96, petitioner in WP No. 1294/95 secured required marks in written test. She too found place only in waiting list. Process of selection ended on 30.6.95. Thereafter, VC granted admission to 17 under 'Employees quota' and to 72 under his discretionary quota. Sequel to this, these 89 fortunates deposited fee on various dates in July/August, 1995 and joined the course of 95-97. It seems that one member of the Executive Council threatened stem action. Thereafter, VC inexorably asked the Director of IMS to cancel admission of 72 students, who deposited fee on 31.7.95, (five), 5.8.95 (Eighteen) 14.8.95 (Eleven) and 16.8.96 (Thirty seven) and was transferred from MFA to MBA (one), on 6.9.95. Pursuant to this, Director notified on notice-board on 12.9.95 that admission of these 72 students made under Vice-Chancellor discretionary quota in MBA (Full Time) Two Year (Modular) course stands cancelled as per orders issued by VC, DA VV, Indore. These two orders of6.9.95 and 12.9.95 did not spell out reasons for such a step. Writs were filed for issuance of WRIT of Certiorari to quash order of cancellation of admission to MBA in IMS of DAVV, Indore on prodigious number of grounds such as (1) Violation of principles of natural justice, (2) Hostile discrimination in that candidates of other quotas were retained and Article 14 was infringed thereby, (3) Doctrine of promissory estoppel, (4) Infringement of fundamental right to education under Article 21 and (5) Equitable grounds. Respondents contested and controverted the grounds. Respondents contested and controverted the grounds. The learned Single Judge dealt with all these grounds with a great deal of industry and held the same to be inutile and futile in peculiar facts and thus, dismissed the petitions. 3. It is stated at the Bar that against 100 seats (30 for Regular and 70 for Modular Programme) as many as 360 candidates were admitted as under-- a) Regular Course 28 b) Modular" 69 c) DAVV quota 25 d) Sponsored seat (Peerless Finance India) 1 e) Foreign/NRI/NRI Sponsored candidate 147 f) Employees quota 17 g) VC Discretionary quota 72 h) Foreign student 1 Total 360 Out of these, admissions of 78 (VC Discretionary quota 72 and Employees quota 6) students stood cancelled as noted above. 4. We have heard Shri GM Chaphekar, learned Semor counsel with Smt. Meena Chaphekar in LPA Nos. 25/96, 30/96, and 31/96, Shri KG Maheshwari and Shri Asudani in LPA No. 28/96, 26/96, 32/96 and 40/96, Shri TN Singh in LP AN o. 27/96 Shri Kohli in LP A No. 38/96, Shri A.M. Mathur, learned Senior counsel with Shri Shrivastava in LPA No. 53/96 and Shri SC Bagadia in LPA No. 77/96. We have also heard Shri B.L. Pavecha, learned senior counsel with Shri A. Saleem for Respondents who submitted that certiorari is unavailable. 5. Shri Chaphekar submitted that order warranted interference as points of estoppel, arbitrariness fouled by Art. 14 and violation of principles of natural justice are erroneously negatived and order of cancellation of admission, bereft of reasons, is untenable in law. He placed reliance in AIR 1996 SC 432 (Anil Baipadithaya and others v. State of Karnataka and others), 1996 SCC (2) 103 (Nitasha Paul v. Maharishi Dayanand University, Rohtak and others) and AIR 1970 SC 1039 (The Board of High School and Intermediate Education UP and others v. Kumari Chitra Shrivastava and others). Shri Maheshwari contended that principles of natural justice are violated, discrimination is visible. Similar beneficiaries of previous year continue their studies, loss is irretriveable and appellants of LPA Nos. 26/96 and 40/96 secured admission of change of faculty only and application for amendment is moved for securing justice. Shri TN Singh urged that the appellant had the eligibility under Sports Category as well and application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed. 26/96 and 40/96 secured admission of change of faculty only and application for amendment is moved for securing justice. Shri TN Singh urged that the appellant had the eligibility under Sports Category as well and application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure is filed. He contended that endorsement on application dated 29.5.95 (Annexure R/3) was inconsequential in this regard and the application placed on record was not considered by the Single Bench. Shri Kohli submitted additionally that admission had rested on merit as the appellant figured in the list to secure the seat. Shri Mathur and Shri Bagadia adopted the general argument and argued that cancellation of admission was a harsh step too detrimental to the interests of the students. 6. Shri Pavecha, on the other hand, dexterously dubbed the aforesaid contentions as non-meritorious and urged that admissions, contrary to brochure and select list, have no validity in law and the same door which brought in should take the appellants out. In such cases, he submitted soberly that law offers no sojourn or solatium. 7. In the welter of agitated controversy and in the face of walloped step, we propose to deal with common ground of violation of principles of natural justice imprimis. It is urged as common ground that steps were taken by the VC to infamize the institute and impose masculation on students. The essence is that it is no way to talk of limpidity on unilateral basis without chance of contest via proper notices. 8. In AIR 1988 SC 481 (Aarti Gupta and others v. State of Punjab and others), it is indicated that "The standard of medical profession should not be compromised in national interest" and that ''high standard of efficiency should be maintained." In our view, this should equally apply to other faculties as well. In AIR 1992 SC 1858 (Miss. Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka and others), It is held that right to education is concomitant to fundamental right. Both the sides are aware of errors. Yet law cannot thrive on flaw and can offer no choice on likes and dislikes with slogan or sermon conveyed by Bussy-Rabutin in letter to Mme de Sevigne in classic terms that ''when we have not what we like, we must like what we have". It is apt to remember that one wrong is not righted by another wrong. Yet law cannot thrive on flaw and can offer no choice on likes and dislikes with slogan or sermon conveyed by Bussy-Rabutin in letter to Mme de Sevigne in classic terms that ''when we have not what we like, we must like what we have". It is apt to remember that one wrong is not righted by another wrong. Simple question is whether VC possessed the right to do and undo a thing at will and whether affected persons, even If unmerited beneficiaries, can be denied hearing in the matter. Respondents plead that opportunity of hearing shall now be an exercise in futility. Can an issue be prejudged in this manner when appellants claim that they have cause to show on the points chronicled below? and to plead and pursuade the authorities to withdraw the order, dubbed as arbitrary and discriminatory and to decide not to give admissions to any-one under discretionary quota of VC contrary to procedure and brochure in future. And can a maleficient order be clamped so arbitrarily? Can admitted candidates be compelled to go out while VC, author of such a situation stayed in.? (i) 147 candidates admitted under NRI Category without payment in foreign currency contrary to brochure and selection are retained. (ii) Similar admissions of previous year are not demolished. (iii) Admissions given on transfer of faculty are also cancelled. (iv) Merit basis and sports category are ignored. (v) Students, losing prospects elsewhere on account of such admissions later dubbed as illegal or illogical, are exposed to suffer irreparable loss. (vi) VC should submit the case to Chancellor for proper decision and guidance in view of past precedent of such admissions in case of disagreement. (vii) 'Likes should be treated alike'? 9. If things have gone wrong, correction becomes inevitable. Formation and reformation should call the tune. But as we said in the beginning, reformation has to spring from within. Virtues need to be adhered to as way of life and vices have to be shuned and spurned. And, as voiced by Gibbons, virtue is not a subject to be legislated. 10. Admissions are said to rest on fulcrum of discretionary quota of VC. As to discretion, Lord Mansfield stated in classic terms in John Wilkes Case (1770) 4 Burr 2528, that it has to be governed by law and guided by rules, not by humour. And, as voiced by Gibbons, virtue is not a subject to be legislated. 10. Admissions are said to rest on fulcrum of discretionary quota of VC. As to discretion, Lord Mansfield stated in classic terms in John Wilkes Case (1770) 4 Burr 2528, that it has to be governed by law and guided by rules, not by humour. In these cases, admissions are granted and cancelled without disclosure of reasons. 11. Two factors stare in the face – a) Same office held by same person directed cancellation without disclosing reasons in the order. b) General order, occasioning civil and evil consequences, is passed and sought to be enforced without show-cause notice and opportunity of hearing and precious little attention to aspect that normally exparte satisfaction of author of the order was not enough, was bestowed. 12. The learned Single Judge negatived the plea of violation of principles of natural justice vide paras 6 to 16 of the order under impugnment. We have given our anxious consideration to the reasonings and decisions referred to therein. 13. Order of VC dated 6.9.95 is extracted below- "Director, Institute of Management Studies, DAVV, Indore is directed to cancel all the following admission in MBA (Modular) Full time Programme for the session 1995-97 which were ordered under Vice-Chancellor discretionary quota:" 14. Order of the Director is reproduced below -- "Admission of following students made under Vice Chancellor discretionary quota in M.B.A. (Full Time) Two year (Modular) course stands cancelled as per orders issued by Vice Chancellor, D.A.V.V., Indore." 15. Lord Denning put it elegantly in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union: (1971 (1) All ER 148 and Supreme Court stated in Khudi Ram's case (1975) 2 SCR 832 = AIR 1975 SC 550 that in a Government of laws ''there is nothing like unfettered discretion immune from judicial reviewability." Fairness, founded on reason, is the essence of the guarantee epitomised in Art. 14. If the power has been exercised improperly or mistakenly so as to impinge unjustly on legitimate rights or interests of the subject, then Courts must so declare. The Courts stand between the executive and the subject alert, alert to see that discretionary power is not exceeded or misused. Lord Atkin highlighted that aspect. Liver Sidge v. Anderson (1942) AC 206 is instructive and indicator of the amplitude of the power available with the Courts." 16. The Courts stand between the executive and the subject alert, alert to see that discretionary power is not exceeded or misused. Lord Atkin highlighted that aspect. Liver Sidge v. Anderson (1942) AC 206 is instructive and indicator of the amplitude of the power available with the Courts." 16. The contention in support of the order of cancellation of admission is that reason is supplied in the returns. In this submission it is overlooked that the validity of order is to be judged by its contents and not with the aid of later embroidery. In AIR 1978 SC 451 (Mihinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others), it is held that : "When a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. AIR 1952 SC 16 , Rel. on." -x- -x- -x 17. Three points are clear. One -- The order of VC and consequential order of the Director do not embody reasons. Two -- Validity cannot be supplemented by reasons supplied in the returns. Three -- Documentation of reasons in an administrative action is essential part of the system. In AIR 1990 SC 1984 (S.N. Mukherjee v. Union of India), it is held that- "The object underlying the rules of natural justice "is to prevent miscarriage of justice" and secure "fair play in action." As pointed out earlier the requirement about recording of reasons for its decision by an administrative authority exercising quasi-judicial function achieves this object by excluding chances of arbitrariness and ensuring a degree of fairness in the process of decision-making. Keeping in view the expanding horizon of the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion that the requirement to record reason can be regarded as one of the principles of natural justice which govern exercise of power by administrative authorities." -x- -x- -x- 18. What is noticeable in these cases is that no one, claiming superior eligibility nor more merit vis-a-vis those who secure? admissions, approached the Court for incineration of the admissions on the linchpin of breach of their rights. What is noticeable in these cases is that no one, claiming superior eligibility nor more merit vis-a-vis those who secure? admissions, approached the Court for incineration of the admissions on the linchpin of breach of their rights. Situation is born of suo motu action by the same person who granted admissions. In AIR 1990 SC 1222 (Thaper Institute of Engineering and Technology, Patiala v. Abhinav Taneja and others), it is held that -- "Since the respondent-students stand already admitted, and the more meritorious students cannot now avail of the seats given to the respondents due to lapse of time, we do not propose to interfere with their pursuit of the course. It is for this reason that we are dismissing the appeals" -x- -x- -x- 19. On heaving the grievance in chorus, we come close to view that points catelogued above, as urged by the counsel for the appellants (para No.8) and position of law and logic should have been left to be considered in conformity with principles of natural justice by the concerning authority which is expected to secure fair play in action and to prevent miscarriage of justice. Reasoned order entailing even same consequences, if held apt, can be passed consistent with principles of natural justice. 20. We insist upon observance of principles of natural justice in view of special facts herein because in other countries also the Courts have insisted that administrative authority should record reasons. In Phelps Dodge Corporation v. National Labour Relations Board (1940) 85 Law Ed. 1271, it is observed that "administrative process will best be indicated by clerity in its exercise." Grounds upon which the administrative agency acted are required to be clearly disclosed and adequately sustained (Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chenery Corporation (1942) 87 Law Ed 626). In John T. Dunlp V. Walter Backowski (1975) 44 Law Ed 2nd 377, it is observed that statement of reasons serves purposes. The Federal Administrative Procedure Act 1946 contained an express provision like section 8 (b) to the effect that all administrative decisions shall indicate reasons or basis. This provision is now contained in section 557 (c) of Title 5 of the United States Code (1982 Edition). Lord Denning M.R. has observed in (1971) 2 QB 175 that "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". This provision is now contained in section 557 (c) of Title 5 of the United States Code (1982 Edition). Lord Denning M.R. has observed in (1971) 2 QB 175 that "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In 1974 ICR 120 (Alexender Machinery Ltd. v. Crabtree) Sir John Donaldson stated that ''failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". In a democratic set up, there ought to be no hedonism on fun or gun. Justice, even at the hands of administrative authority, should appear to be done. 21. Here three factors are at once noticeable- a) Orders do not contain reasons. It is thus, not clear as to why admissions under VC quota needed to be cancelled and admissions under NRI category, 147 in number needed to be saved and left untouched? b) It is not clear as to how admissions of previous year acquired validity? c) It is not clear as to why it became proper to cancel admissions, sustainable on sports category, or on account of permissible transfer of some students, opting for change from other faculty to MBA? We may have felt inclined to sustain the order of the learned Single Judge, but the aforesaid factors pursuaded us to take a different look and view to remit the matter back to University. Law and justice are after all not distant neighbours. 22. In the back-drop of these special facts and feature we are, therefore unable to sustain the reasonings of the learned Single Judge as noted above and find that the decisions as referred, do not apply and thus, do not tilt the balance in favour of the Respondents. Peculiar facts and features, as noted above thus, pursuade us to hold that the order of VC and consequential order of the Director, cancelling admissions relating to discretionary quota of VC, are infirm being bereft of reasons and being violative of principles of natural justice. In view of this holding, it is unnecessary to deal with other points pressed before the learned Single Judge and reiterated before us. In fact, we are of the view that we should refrain from expressing our opinion on any point what-so-ever and leave the appropriate authority free to take decision afresh after show-cause notice and consideration of reply, if any, by a reasoned order. In fact, we are of the view that we should refrain from expressing our opinion on any point what-so-ever and leave the appropriate authority free to take decision afresh after show-cause notice and consideration of reply, if any, by a reasoned order. To avoid prejudice and to this end, conclusions on other points as recorded by the learned Single Judge, shall be treated as non-existent. 23. It is contended before us that Certiorari is available against administrative decisions also and that the Court is obligated to strike down an administrative action which manifests arbitrariness or absence of fairness. (CIT Bombay v. Mohindra ( AIR 1984 SC 1182 - Para 11). Here it is not a case of Mandamus wherein no direction should be sought to perpetuate an illegality, if found in existence. 24. The Brochure -- 1995 -- by erstwhile VC, contains a message Via the letter to "Dear friends" and Welcomes them "to join us in our march towards excellence". Art. 5-A (1) of the Constitution of India, prescribing fundamental duties, also insist upon excellence. If that is the surge of an urge and an avowed object, we fail to understand as to how is this attainable through quota-admissions.? Excellence and quality education are stated to be the Misson. It is notified in this brochure that a limited number of seats are available to admission to Foreign Nationals/NRIS/NRI sponsored candidates. Course fee is indicated as U S $ 3000 (or equivalent in foreign exchange) per annum. Now what does it show.? Is it not a Scheme of putting emphasis on money rather than on merit.? Then how does the number 147 compare with the word "limited".?. Where is the provision for Employees quota.? Who invented, and under what basis, the concept of discretion of VC and discretionary quota of VC.? And how did the discretion extend to 72.? We feel uneasy to notice the "quota system" and provision like NRIs etc. with foreign exchange. 25. Reservation for candidates belonging to SC/ST or backward classes can be understood, but the aforesaid quotas in this size are simply not understandable and need to vanish and be obliterated for future courses i.e. 96-98 onwards in the face of declared terms admissions should rest on merit and manner to attain equality and excellence. Adherence to such quotas is prone to foul the procedure in clear terms. 26. Adherence to such quotas is prone to foul the procedure in clear terms. 26. We found it necessary to observe this in public interest to secure equality, excellence and examplary exercise. 27. In the ultimate analysis, these appeals succeed in part and impugned common order, passed in the aforesaid writ petitions, is dislodged and demolished to the extent of dismissal of the petitions only on the short ground of infirmity in the orders dated 6.9.95 issued by VC and dated 12.9.95 issued by the Director occasioned by absence of reasons and breach of principles of natural justice. The appropriate authority is, however, granted liberty to issue, if it so elects, show-cause notices within 15 days from today to the concerning students and to afford them reasonable opportunity to submit reply within 10 days from receipt against proposed cancellation of admissions on stated grounds. The authority shall then consider reply and make an endeavour to pass reasoned order within one week thereafter under intimation to the affected students, if decision is adverse. We, however, do not direct grant of personal hearing and leave this aspect to the discretion of the authority. Basic rule being that no-one shall be a judge in his own cause (Nemo debet esse judex propria causa), it would be proper if fresh decision is not taken by VC groaning under the weight of structures but by the Executive Council or proper committee or person nominated by VC or the Council for this purpose so as to avoid 'possible criticism' in case of adverse order and to ensure 'fair play in action'. Orders of 6th and 12th are struck down. 28. In view of the view we take on the impugned orders of VC and Director, orders on applications presented by the appellants and Respondents under Order VI Rule 17 and XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in some of these Appeals become unnecessary and as such, these applications shall be treated so disposed of on the ground of being inessential in the context. 29. Before saying Q.E.D. in these Letters Patent Appeals, we feel the necessity of adding a word with regard to criticism of and adverse remarks against the VC as contained in the order which is being set aside limited to the extent of dismissal of writ petitions. 29. Before saying Q.E.D. in these Letters Patent Appeals, we feel the necessity of adding a word with regard to criticism of and adverse remarks against the VC as contained in the order which is being set aside limited to the extent of dismissal of writ petitions. It is seen that despite impleadment as Respondent, notice and personal appearance, VC offered no reply before Single Bench despite evident quandary and vicissitude. The learned Single Judge found the conduct vividly vituperable. Elizacook sang – "Better build school rooms for the ''boy" Than cells and gibbets for ''the Man". Man may act differently in different situations as Ter-ence in Pharmia II 4 stated "quot homines, tot sententiae" (So many men, so many minds), but learned Single Judge felt as to what can be done if a person polluting the system seemed unrepentent and unconcerned for the ''boys" , cajoled to "get in" and compelled to "got out". The conscience of the Court seemed visibly disturbed by the state of situation created by VC. After all, cachexy furnished no case or cause to cachinnate. We do not say anything more in regard to remarks and criticism at this stage because of three things – One : Order is set aside only on technical ground with liberty to pass fresh order in conformtiy with principles of natural justice and not on the ground of propriety and validity of admissions, Two : VC did not choose to appear before us to explain his conduct with regard to non-existent discretionary quota so big in size, and Three: His separate LPA on the subject, personal to him, is pending in this Court. The remarks and criticism are thus, left untouched and undisturbed for the present in these Letters Patent Appeals to be considered in appropriate proceedings. To this extent, order shall not be treated as vapid. 30. One concidence is noticeable. VC directed cancellation of admissions on 6.9.95 and Single Bench dismissed petitions on 6.3.96. Sixth is thus, the date which produced adversity and did not bring fluctuation of fortune. Students are, thus, lugged and locked in litigation and topic is still away from terminal point. As scrutinized, the case rested on discretionary quota of VC and then on discretion of VC cancelling admissions without show-cause notices. Sixth is thus, the date which produced adversity and did not bring fluctuation of fortune. Students are, thus, lugged and locked in litigation and topic is still away from terminal point. As scrutinized, the case rested on discretionary quota of VC and then on discretion of VC cancelling admissions without show-cause notices. About discretion Abraham Lincoln remarked to C.A. Dana on 14th April, 1865, as under— "When you have got an elephant by the bind leg and he is trying to run away, it's best to let him run." Exercise of discretion has to be wise, not otherwise. We have, thus, mortalised the orders of cancellation without comments on merits of the matter, but with grant of discretion to proper authority to act properly. We have thus, remitted the matter. Continuity in course shall thus, be subject to the result of show-cause notice, if issued, and at the risk of the students. 31. These Letters Patent Appeals are thus, allowed in terms indicated above, but with no orders as to costs. 32. As we have quashed the orders of 6.9.95 and 12.9.95 in their entirety as infirm and invalid on the ground of absence of reasons and breach of principles of natural justice, we, placing reliance on AIR 1984 SC 629 (Iron & Steel Traders Pvt. Ltd. Bombay v. M.S. Haskiel and another etc.) and ( AIR 1990 SC 2059 (Lt. Governor of Delhi and others v. Const. Dharampal and others), deem it proper to observe to preserve equality and efficacy, that the benefit of this order shall be extendable to all the students covered by the odious orders and situate similarly. It is apt to remember that law is a great leveller. 33. Retain this order in L.P.A. No. 25/96 and place its copy each in the connected L.P.As. as particularised above.