Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1106 (GAU)

R. K. Mekro v. State of Nagaland

2006-12-12

MAIBAM B.K.SINGH

body2006
JUDGMENT M.B.K. Singh, J. 1. This is to dispose of WP(C) No. 83(K) 06 and WP(C) No. 145(K) 06, wherein common and related question of laws and facts are involved. 2. Upon hearing Mr. C.T. Jamir, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. L.S. Jamir, learned Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate as well as Mrs. Y. Longkumer, learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the Government respondents in respect of both the cases and on perusal of materials before the Court, the following facts are ascertained: (i) The petitioner was appointed as Executive Officer of the Nagaland State Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited, hereinafter referred to as MARCOFED, vide order No. NLF/ESTT-1/87-88/2042-43 dated 15.04.89 and his service was regularized by the Board of Directors on 31.01.91 vide order No. NLF ADM-1/Pt-11/90-91. (ii) In pursuance of the decisions taken by the Board of Directors of MARCOFED in 81st and 82nd meetings held on 04.06.02 and 27.08.02 respectively and with concurrence of the Registrar, the Chairman of MARCOFED passed an order No. ATM-4/2002/1985-89 dated 11.04.02 awarding officiating promotion to the petitioner as Managing Director of MARCOFED. (iii) While working as the Managing Director, the petitioner was replaced by one Shri Johny Rengma and the post held by the petitioner was re-designated as Executive Director vide order dated 04.12.03. (iv) The petitioner challenged the order dated 04.12.03 by filing WP(C) No. 63(K) 04 and during the pendency of the said case the order dated 04.12.03 was modified by an order dated 21.07.04 and thereby demoting the petitioner to the post of Executive Officer. (v) Being aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the said order dated 21.07.04 in WP(C) No. 127(K) 05 and the said order was suspended by this Court on 05.08.05. (vi) On 11.11.04, one Shri GB. Chetri was appointed as a Managing Director of MARCOFED after terminating the appointment of said Johny Rengma and consequently the said WP(C) No. 63(K) 04 became infructuous. However, the petitioner was not allowed to hold the charge of Managing Director, MARCOFED. (vii) The petitioner challenged the appointment of Shri GB. Chetri as the Managing Director of MARCOFED by filing WP(C) No. 241 (K) 04. (viii) On 5.5.5, one Smti. However, the petitioner was not allowed to hold the charge of Managing Director, MARCOFED. (vii) The petitioner challenged the appointment of Shri GB. Chetri as the Managing Director of MARCOFED by filing WP(C) No. 241 (K) 04. (viii) On 5.5.5, one Smti. Imtila Jamir, who is respondent No. 5 in WP(C) No. 83(K) 06, was transferred and appointed as the Managing Director of MARCOFED and the petitioner challenged the said appointment by filing another case being WP(C) No. 140(K) 05. (ix) Three writ petitions being WP(C) No. 140(K) 05, WP(C) No. 241(K)04 and WP(C) No. 127(K) 04 were disposed of on 08.11.05 by a single bench of this Court by allowing them and holding that in view of the Government notification dated 12.11.96 under which, inter-alia, the post of Managing Director, MARCOFED was to be filled on deputation by an officer belonging to Nagaland Civil Service, the said Smti. Imtila Jamir and Shri GB. Chetri as well as the petitioner were not eligible to hold the post of Managing Director, MARCOFED. (x) The petitioner filed a writ appeal being W.A. No. 50(K) 05 challenging the view of the single bench about the ineligibility of the petitioner to hold the post of Managing Director on the basis of the said notification dated 12.11.96 by contending that the said notification was not applicable to the petitioner, an employee of MARCOFED. (xi) On 09.12.05 a division bench of this Court while dealing with an application in connection with WANo. 50(K) 05, passed an interim order suspending the demotion order dated 21.07.04 on finding that the said notification dated 12.11.96 was prima facie ultra vires of the provisions of Cooperative Society Act and Rules. (xii) The Governor of Nagaland was pleased to rescind the said notification dated 12.11.96 by issuing another notification being No. PAR-2/NCS/Pt dated 07.02.06 and to order that the post of Managing Director, MARCOFED might be filled up in terms of Bye Laws of MARCOFED as might be annexed from time to time. (xiii) A division bench of this Court disposed of W.A. No. 50(K) 05 on 6.3.06 with an observation that the petitioner/appellant was at liberty to challenge the notification dated 07.02.06 in a fresh writ petition in view of the cancellation of the notification dated 12.11.96. The interim order passed with reference to W.A. No. 50(K) 05 was also vacated. (xiii) A division bench of this Court disposed of W.A. No. 50(K) 05 on 6.3.06 with an observation that the petitioner/appellant was at liberty to challenge the notification dated 07.02.06 in a fresh writ petition in view of the cancellation of the notification dated 12.11.96. The interim order passed with reference to W.A. No. 50(K) 05 was also vacated. (xiv) After disposal of the said W.A. No. 50(K) 05, the petitioner filed one of the present writ petitions being WP(C) No. 83(K) 06 praying mainly for quashing the said notification being No. PAR-2/NCS/Pt dated 07.02.06 and the demotion order dated 21.07.04. Further prayer of the petitioner is for allowing him to hold the charge of Managing Director of MARCOFED by passing appropriate orders or directions. (xv) When the petitioner submitted a representation dated 14.6.06 to the Chairman of MARCOFED apprising him about the suspension of the demotion order dated 21.07.04 and requesting to allow him to hold the charge of Managing Director of MARCOFED on the basis of 81st and 82nd Board of Directors resolutions and the decision of the Court about the ineligibility of Smti. Imtila Jamir to hold the post of Managing Director, the Chairman referred the representation of the petitioner to the Board of Directors and the Board in its 85th meeting on 16.6.06, vide resolution No. 9 on agenda 12, wherein the Secretary to the Government of Nagaland, Cooperation Department, the Registrar of Cooperative Societies, Smti. Imtila Jamir and Shri Johny Rengma were present, decided to support the Government in contesting pending case and declared that the Board was not having competence to make appointment to the post of Managing Director. A copy of the said decision of the Board in its 85th meeting held on 16:6.06 is annexed as Annexure-XII to the writ petition i.e.,WP(C)No. 145 (K) 06. (xvi) On 15.07.06, in pursuance of the decision taken by the Board in its 85th meeting, the Chairman, MARCOFED issued office memorandum No. NLF/Chairman/2005-06/375-77 dated 15.07.06 authorizing Shri T.V. Zhimo, respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 145 (K) 06 to look after the affairs of the day to day functioning of the MARCOFED till the appointment of regular Managing Director. (xvi) On 15.07.06, in pursuance of the decision taken by the Board in its 85th meeting, the Chairman, MARCOFED issued office memorandum No. NLF/Chairman/2005-06/375-77 dated 15.07.06 authorizing Shri T.V. Zhimo, respondent No. 4 in WP(C) No. 145 (K) 06 to look after the affairs of the day to day functioning of the MARCOFED till the appointment of regular Managing Director. (xvii) The petitioner filed the other writ petition being WP(C) No. 145(K) 06 praying for quashing the said decision/resolution of the Board of Directors in its 85th meeting on 16.6.06, vide resolution No. 9 of agenda No. 12, the office memorandum dated 15.07.06 and praying for directing respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to implement the decision of Board of Directors made in its 82nd meeting. 3. The question as to who is eligible for appointment/nomination as the Managing Director of MARCOFED, by whom Managing Director of MARCOFED may be appointed or nominated or who is competent to appoint/nominate the Managing Director of MARCOFED and manner/mode in which the said appointment/nomination is to be made are involved in these two writ petitions. 4. According to the petitioner, having regard to the provisions of Rule 35(iv) and Rule 36 of the Assam Cooperative Society Rules, 1953 read with Rule 26(1)(7) of the Bye Laws of MARCOFED, the Board of Directors MARCOFED is competent to appoint a Managing Director of MARCOFED with concurrence of the Registrar and as such, awarding of officiating promotion to him as a Managing Director of MARCOFED, in pursuance of the decision taken by the Board of Directors with concurrence of the Registrar vide order No. ATM-4/2002/1985-98 dated 11.04.02 issued by the Chairman of MARCOFED was valid. Further, according to the petitioner, he is entitled to hold the post of Managing Director, MARCOFED and gets confirmation to the said post under Rule 16 of the Service Rules of MARCOFED. Moreover, according to the petitioner, though Rule 12(8) of the Bye Laws of MARCOFED empowers the Government to appoint the Managing Director, the said Rule 22(8) is to be read subject to Section 35 of the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949 and as such the Government cannot appoint any person in the Society unless there is an application of the registered society for deputation of a Government official to the service of the society. It is the case of the petitioner that the said notification dated 07.02.06, the order dated 21.07.04 issued by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Kohima, the resolution No. 9 of Agenda No. 12 passed in the Board of Directors 85th meeting held on 16.6.06 and office memorandum dated 15.7.06 issued by the Chairman of MARCOFED are not sustainable in the eyes of law. 5. On the other hand, according to the Government respondents, the Board of Directors has no authority either to appoint or to approve the appointment of Managing Director of MARCOFED and it is only the Government of Nagaland or the Registrar, Cooperative Societies who can make appointment to the said post of Managing Director. Further, according to the Government respondents, the petitioner is not eligible under the relevant Bye-Laws to hold the post of Managing Director, MARCOFED and Section 35 of the Act is not to be read with Rule 22(8) of the Bye-Laws. Moreover, according to the Government respondents, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned notification, order, resolution and office memorandum. 6. MARCOFED is a Cooperative Society registered under the Assam Cooperative Societies Act, 1949. As per provision of Section 31(3) of the Act, though its supreme authority is said to be vested in its general assembly, in certain situations mentioned in the section, the supreme authority in respect of the matters specified in the section shall be vested in the State Government or the Registrar, as may be provided in the Bye-Laws or any person authorized by them in writing, and may extent to the appointment of officers to hold any of the offices of the Society or any persons to be Ex-officio members of the administrative council, managing body or any committee of the society even if not members of the society. The supreme authority of the Government or the Registrar may also exercise in the absence of any loan or service when the Government or the Registrar as the case may be, deem their intervention to be necessary in the interest of the members of the society or of the cooperative movement in general. The Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may fix the salary of such appointed officer and declare it to be a charge on the society. The Government or the Registrar, as the case may be, may fix the salary of such appointed officer and declare it to be a charge on the society. It is also to be noted that as per Section 34 of the Act, the management of every registered society shall vest in the managing body of the society except in the case of the society which for administrative convenience necessitated by reasons such as wide area of portion that responsibility shall vest in an administrative council. The administrative council and the managing body are to be constituted in accordance with the Bye Laws of the society which shall satisfy the composition of such bodies, their powers, functions, duties, method of summoning meeting and procedure. 7. The Registrar is empowered to suspend or dissolve or re-constitute the administrative council, managing body or any committee of a society and also to appoint person/persons to be in full control of the suspended body in the facts and situations by following the procedures mentioned in Sections 36 and 37 of the Act. Further, the State Government is empowered to remove or suspend the administrative council, the managing body or any other committee or body of a registered society in the facts and situation mentioned in Section 39A of the Act. The State Government is further empowered to make such arrangements as may be deemed necessary till the vacancy is filled up in accordance with provisions of the Act or till the termination of the order of suspension whatever the case may be. Section 39B of the Act empowers the State Government to suspend or remove the Chairman, Vice Chairman, the Secretary, any other member or office bearers or employee of a registered society from the office or membership held by him in the facts and situation mentioned therein. In the absence of a Chairman, Vice Chairman etc., either on removal or suspension, the State Government may make such arrangement as may be deemed necessary for discharging the duties, function and obligation of person suspended or removed. Thus, the functioning of a registered society is not wholly independent or autonomous. There are many facts and situations in which the Registrar and the State Government are empower and had to interfere in respect of management of a registered society. 8. Thus, the functioning of a registered society is not wholly independent or autonomous. There are many facts and situations in which the Registrar and the State Government are empower and had to interfere in respect of management of a registered society. 8. Apart from the powers of the State Government and the Registrar to interfere in the management of a registered society, on their own, on being satisfied about the existence of certain facts and circumstances, under Section 35 of the Act, the State Government may, on the application of a registered society and on such conditions as may be determined, depute Government officials to the service of the society for the purpose of managing its affairs and the official shall exercise such powers and perform such duties as may be determined. It is to be noted that Section 35 of the Act deals with a situation quite different from the situations dealt by Section 39A and 39B of the Act. Thus, Section 35 of the Act will not control Sections 39(A) and 39(B) of the Act. It is also to be noted that an overriding power is given to the Registrar for directing a particular society at any time or class of societies to appoint only persons having such qualification as may be prescribed by him from time to time. 9. It is also ascertained that as per Rule 37(1) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Rules, 1953, a Government servant when deputed to the service of a Cooperative Society by the State Government under Section 35 of the Act shall be called the executive officer of a society. Powers and duties of the executive officer of the society are mentioned in Rule 37(2) and Rule 38 of the said Rules of 1953. It is to be noted that in view of the provisions of Rule 37(1) of the Assam Cooperative Societies Rules, 1953, a Government servant deputed to the service of a Cooperative Society by the State Government under Section 35 of the Act shall be the executive officer of the society. Accordingly, a Government servant deputed to the service of a Cooperative Society by the State Government under Section 35 of the Act can never be a Managing Director of the Society. 10. Accordingly, a Government servant deputed to the service of a Cooperative Society by the State Government under Section 35 of the Act can never be a Managing Director of the Society. 10. Section 35A of the Act confers wide power to the Registrar for making direction at any time to a particular society or class of societies to appoint only persons having such qualifications as may be prescribed by him from time to time. 11. Rules 27 and 28 of the said Rules of 1953 provide for election and retirement of Directors in a Primary Society and Non-Agricultural Credit Society respectively. Under Rule 29(g), in order to safeguard and represent appropriate interest in a Cooperative Society, the Registrar has power to appoint all or fraction of the number of members provided in the Bye Laws or appoint additional members to the administrative council or the managing body not exceeding 1½ of the member of elected Directors. As per Rule 30 subject to the provisions of the Rules, every member of a society above the age of 21 years shall be eligible for election or for appointment as member of the administrative council or the managing body. By virtue of Rule 35 of the said Rules of 1953, the administrative council or the managing body shall exercise all or any of the power as may be provided in the Bye Laws, including power as provided in Clause-4 to appoint salaried or non-salaried officer for proper conduct of the business on such terms as to remuneration, security etc. and with such powers and authorities including the power to enter into contracts on behalf of the society as they may deem fit and to define their duties. It is to be noted that the above said provisions empower the administrative council or the managing body to exercise the said power as may be provided in the Bye Laws and not otherwise. 12. As per Rule 22(1) of the Bye Laws of the MARCOFED, the management of the Federation/MARCOFED shall vest in the Board of Directors consisting of 11 elected representatives of the Cooperative Societies of the State in the annual general meeting and 4 nominated representatives of the State Government as mentioned therein. The Managing Director, Nagaland State Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited is found mentioned as one of the 4 nominated representatives of the State Government. The Managing Director, Nagaland State Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited is found mentioned as one of the 4 nominated representatives of the State Government. It is clear that the Managing Director, MARCOFED is a member of the Board of Directors to be a nominated representative of the State Government. 13. As per Rule 8 of the said Rules, 1953, every society is required to make Bye-Laws in respect of the matters mentioned in the said rule. One of the matters is mentioned at Clause (n) of the said Rule 8 as: "the mode of appointment and removal of Directors and office bearers of the society and the duties and powers and the managing body and other committees or bodies which may be formed and specify composition of such bodies their powers and duties." As per definition given in Rule 2(f) of the said Rule. "Director" means a member of an administrative council, managing body or any managing body of a society as the case may be, vested with powers of its management. Further, as per definition given in Section 2(1) of the Act, "office bearer" means a member duly elected by the appropriate body of a registered society according to its Bye-Laws, to any office of such society, including the office of President, Chairman, Vice President, Vice Chairman, Secretary, Managing Director and Treasurer, provided that any officer appointed by the Government to hold charge of any office of a registered society shall be deemed to be an office bearer unless specifically stated to be contrary. Section 2(j) of the Act defines managing body as the body to which the management of the affairs of a registered society is directly entrusted and does not include the administrative council. It is also to be noted that the term, "employee" is quite different from the term office bearer. As per definition given in Section 2(h) of the Act, "employee'' means a person not being an office bearer, employed by a registered society on a salary or similar form of remuneration other than advance patronage dividend or payment of goods sold or through such society. As per definition given in Section 2(h) of the Act, "employee'' means a person not being an office bearer, employed by a registered society on a salary or similar form of remuneration other than advance patronage dividend or payment of goods sold or through such society. It is clear that under Rule 8(n) of the said Rules of 1953 it is for the society to make Bye-Laws in respect of, inter alia, the mode of appointment and removal of the Managing Director of the Society, who is a Director as well as an office bearer. It is also to be noted that as per Rule 22(3) of the Bye-Laws, the Board is to remain in office for a period of one year till the new Board is elected. 14. Rule 22(8) of the Bye-Laws is as follows: "The Government of Nagaland shall appoint an officer of the Coop. Deptt. not below the rank of Joint Registrar of Coop. Societies along with his minimum requisite staff at Govt. cost to act as Managing Director for the purpose of managing the affairs of the Federation and exercising powers and performing the duties as specified in the bye-laws or as directed by the Registrar of Coop. Societies, Nagaland." Though the word, "shall" is ordinarily mandatory, it is sometime not so interpreted if the context or the intention otherwise demands. If the above said provision of Rule 22(8) of the Bye-Laws are construed as mandatory, it will be compulsory on the part of the Government to appoint only an officer of the Cooperative Department not below the rank of Joint Registrar of the Cooperative Societies as Managing Director in all situations. Such a view will be in consistent with the supreme authority of the State Government or the Registrar to the appointment of officers to hold any of the offices of the society or to any person to be Ex-Officio members of the Administrative Council, Managing Body or any Committee of the Society in certain situations as provided in Section 31(3) of the Act as well as with the provisions of Sections 35A, 36, 37, 39A and 39B(3) of the Act and also with Rule 29 of the Assam Cooperative Societies Rules, 1953. Moreover, as per Rule 28(A) of the Bye-Laws, not withstanding anything contained in this Bye-Laws the Registrar may at any time appoint the Managing Director of the Federation. Moreover, as per Rule 28(A) of the Bye-Laws, not withstanding anything contained in this Bye-Laws the Registrar may at any time appoint the Managing Director of the Federation. In view of this provision of Rule 28(A) of the Bye-Laws, inspite of anything contained in the Bye-Laws including the provisions of Rule 22(8) of the Bye-Laws, the provisions of Rule 28(A) of the Bye-Laws will have its full operation or the provisions embraced in the non-obstante clause will not be an impediment for the operation of the provisions of Rule 28(A) of the Bye-Laws. In my opinion, in the light of the above considerations, Rule 22(8) of the Bye-Laws only confers a discretionary power to the State Government and its provision should not be construed as mandatory. By doing so, the provision of Rule 22(8) of the Bye-Laws will be consistent with the other provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws mentioned above. 15. In the present case there is a dispute regarding the question if the Board of Directors of the Federation has power to appoint the Managing Director of the Federation. According to the petitioner, the Board of Directors has the power to make appointment of the Managing Director under Rule 26(1)(7) of the Bye-Laws. While specifying powers and duties of the Board of Directors in Rule 26(1) of the Bye-Laws, one of the Sub-clause being No. 7 is as follows: "to appoint, suspend, punish or dismiss all salaried servants of the Federation of the excluding Managing Director of Federation. The appointment and disposal of the Managing Director be subject to the approval of the Registrar of Coop. Societies." No where in the Act, Rules or the Bye-Laws the Managing Director is described as salaried servant. In fact, as per Rule 22(1) of the Bye-Laws, the Managing Director is one of the 4 nominated members of the Board of Directors to be nominated representative of the State Government. Further, as per Section 2(1) of the Act, the Managing Director is one of the office bearer. In fact first sentence of Rule 26(1)(7) of the Bye-Laws itself excludes the Managing Director from being an appointee of the Board of Directors or from being liable to suspension or punishment or dismissal under the order of the Board of Directors. Further, as per Section 2(1) of the Act, the Managing Director is one of the office bearer. In fact first sentence of Rule 26(1)(7) of the Bye-Laws itself excludes the Managing Director from being an appointee of the Board of Directors or from being liable to suspension or punishment or dismissal under the order of the Board of Directors. No doubt second sentence of the above said provisions creates an impression that in respect of the Managing Director the said power of appointment, suspension, punishment or dismissal may be exercised subject to the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 16. In my considered opinion, merely on the basis of the said impression it will not be correct to conclude that it is only for the Board of Directors to appoint the Managing Director with the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Since the Managing Director is a member of the Board of Directors, the framers of the Bye-Laws would not have intended the Board of Directors to be the appointing authority of its own members. Since the Managing Director is to be a nominated representative of the State Government as per provisions of the Bye-Laws, he is to be nominated/appointed only by the State Government or the Registrar, Cooperative Societies who is the agent of the former and not by any other authority. In my opinion the second sentence of the above said Rule 26(1)(7) of the Bye-Laws only envisages a situation wherein at the instance of the Board of Directors a person may be nominated/appointed as Managing Director by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. 17. Even assuming that Rule 26(1)(7) of the Bye-Laws empowers the Board of Directors to appoint Managing Director with the approval of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies, the petitioner cannot claim any right to function as Managing Director of MARCOFED on the basis of the said order being No. ATM-4/2002/1985-98 dated 11.04.02, issued by the Chairman of MARCOFED awarding officiating promotion. to the petitioner as the Managing Director of MARCOFED. At the relevant time of passing the above said order, the petitioner was an employee of MARCOFED and as such he was governed by the relevant service rules i.e., Nagaland State Cooperative Marketing and Consumer's Federation Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules. to the petitioner as the Managing Director of MARCOFED. At the relevant time of passing the above said order, the petitioner was an employee of MARCOFED and as such he was governed by the relevant service rules i.e., Nagaland State Cooperative Marketing and Consumer's Federation Service Rules, hereinafter referred to as the Service Rules. Nowhere in the service rules it is mentioned that the post of Managing Director is a promotional post of the one holding the post of Executive Officer. There is no any room for assuming that the post of Managing Director is a promotional post mentioned in the Service Rules. In my opinion, in the light of the provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws already considered, the Managing Director of MARCOFED cannot be considered as a member of staff of the Federation and as such, there cannot be any promotion of a member of staff of the Federation as Managing Director and also there cannot be any confirmation under Rule 16 of the service rules of one who has been given promotion illegally. On the basis of the said illegal order passed by the Chairman of MARCOFED on 11.04.02, the petitioner cannot validly claim that he is the Managing Director of MARCOFED and that he is entitled to continue as such till he attains the age of superannuation prescribed in respect of the members of the staff of MARCOFED. It is to be noted that the period of service of a validly nominated/appointed Managing Director of MARCOFED being a member of the Board of Directors will be governed by the relevant provisions of the Act, Rules and Bye-Laws and not by the provisions of the Service Rules relating to retirement from service in respect of the members of the staff of MARCOFED. 18. In my considered opinion, having regard to all the relevant considerations, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs claimed in the two writ petitions. The said order passed by the Chairman on 11.04.02 is not valid in law and as such the petitioner is not entitle to hold the post of Managing Director of MARCOFED on the basis of the said order. The petitioner cannot also claim any right for confirmation to the post of Managing Director in law. The said order passed by the Chairman on 11.04.02 is not valid in law and as such the petitioner is not entitle to hold the post of Managing Director of MARCOFED on the basis of the said order. The petitioner cannot also claim any right for confirmation to the post of Managing Director in law. There is no valid basis for concluding that Rule 22(8) of the Bye-Laws is to be subject to Section 35 of the Act. The said two provisions are to operate in different areas. Further, in my opinion, no interference is called for in respect of the impugned notification dated 07.02.06, impugned order dated 21.07.04, impugned resolution No. 9 of agenda 12 passed in the Board of Directors' 85th meeting held on 16.06.03 and the impugned office memorandum dated 15.07.06. 19. In the result, these two writ petitions are hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.