JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Both the writ petitions being W.P. (c) No. 217/02 as well as W.P. (c) No. 958/04 filed by the Petitioner contain almost matching prayers which may be quoted herein as under: (a) In W.P. (c) No. 217/02, the following is the prayer: In the premises it is therefore prayed that Your Lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue Rule calling upon the Respondents more particularly the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or other appropriate writ, direction shall not be passed commanding. i) To in lock the 2 (two) rooms situated at Khanapara Marketing Complex belonging to Assam Livestock and Poultry Corporation which including 3 other rooms have been under lawful possession and occupation of the Petitioner under implied Lease terms as per Annexure-A and C and to hand over the possession thereof to the Petitioner. ii) Not to disturb the peaceful possession of the business premises of the Petitioner situated at Khanapara Marketing Complex as he is entitled to undisturbed and peaceful possession of the business premises under the law and/or pass such other order/orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice. AND Upon showing cause and upon hearing the parties Your Lordship would further graciously be pleased to make the Rule absolute- AND In the interim, pending disposal of the instant Writ petition. Your Lordship may further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 not to disturb the peaceful possession of the all business premises of the Petitioner situated at Khanapara Marketing Complex belonging to Assam Livestock and Poultry Corporation Ltd. until further orders from this Hon'ble Court. Your Lordship may further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2, 3, 4 and 5 not to disturb the peaceful possession of the all business premises of the Petitioner situated at Khanapara Marketing Complex belonging to Assam Livestock and Poultry Corporation Ltd. until further orders from this Hon'ble Court. (a) The Petitioners has, in W.P. (c) No 958/04, sought for following reliefs: In the premises aforesaid it is most respectfully prayed that Your Lordship would be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records, issue a Rule calling upon the Respondents more particularly the Respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 and to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of Mandamus and/or other appropriate writ, direction, order shall not be passed commanding- i. To restore the electricity connection to the said premises of the B.K.M. Composite Farm which has been forcefully disconnected by the Respondent authorities on 10.2.04 and or ii. Not to disturb the peaceful possession of the business premises of the Petitioner situated at Khanapara Marketing Complex as he is entitled to undisturbed and peaceful possession of the business premises under the law and/or pass such other order/orders as Your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice. -AND- Upon showing cause and upon hearing the parties Your Lordship would further be pleased to make the Rule absolute. -AND- In the interim, pending disposal of the instant writ petition Your Lordship may further be pleased to direct the Respondent No. 2 to 7 not to disturb the peaceful possession of the business premises of the Petitioner farm situated at Khanapara Marketing Complex belong to the Assam Livestock and poultry Corporation Ltd. and to restore the electricity connection of the Petitioner's farm which has been disconnected by the Respondent authorities on 10.2.04 until further orders of this Hon'ble Court. 2. Since contentions and prayers made in both the writ petitions are almost common and similar and as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the rival parties, both are taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Barman, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Goswami and Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. 3. Heard Mr. B.C. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Barman, learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard Mr. H. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. K. Goswami and Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. S. Banik, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 4. In both the writ petitions, the basic case projected by the Petitioner is that the Petitioner being the partnership farm comprised of by three partners was permitted to develop the premises in question by the then Chairman of the Assam Live-Stock and Poultry Corporation Ltd., Islampur, Guwahati-7, presently situated at Khanapara, Guwahati-22 (for short, 'the Corporation') on lease initially for 25 years and against such monthly rent to be fixed up mutually after developing the land with the sole purpose to set up Poultry/Piggery farm and this happened on 15.12.94 by issuance of the communication (Annexure- 1 to W.P. (c) No. 958/04) to all the three partners by the then Chairman above referred. 5. The communication dated 15.12.94, for the sake of convenience, may be reproduced as under: Date 15.12.1994 To, Sri Dilip Baruah Sri Praneswar Kalita Sri Dwipen Mahanta Khanapara, Guwahati-22. Subsequent to our discussion, you are hereby permitted to develop by earth filling etc. the low-lying/Marshy land situated on the leftside of Marketing Complex Campus at Khanapara of ALPCO and to set up Poultry/Piggery farm on lease for initial 25 years against such monthly rent to be fixed up mutually after developing the land. While investing money from your end for such development, you will strictly follow the instructions of this office and on endorsement of the appropriate authority you will submit the bills to this office for payment subject to supervision and verification. You are also requested to approach MD and other authority for signing the lease Agreement etc. subject to acceptance of our terms and conditions. (Dr. J.M. Buzarbaruah) Chairman Assam Live-stock and Poultry Corporation Ltd. Islampur, Guwahati-7. 6. According to the Petitioner-firm after the development of the premises in question and in terms of the communication dated 15.12.94, they have been pursuing the Corporation to execute the lease deed as suggested in the aforesaid communication itself but the Corporation, either on this plea or that, is not going to honour such request so as to execute the agreement. 7. 7. Since the Corporation has filed to take any steps for execution of the agreement so promised by them vide communication dated 15.12.94 as quoted above, the Petitioner-farm has submitted an undated representation in reply to the letter dated 7.9.96 issued by the General Manager (Commerce) inviting them for final discussion for preparation of agreement, requesting the Corporation to sign the deed of agreement on stamp papers which has been placed before them long ago so as to accommodate then in running their business smoothly. 8. When they have been continuing their possession in the said premises, on 20.7.97 (Annexure-III to W.P. (c) No. 958/04) the Corporation allowed them to take over a sale booth at the same Farm Complex, thereby confirming their possession in the premises in question. It would be convenient to refer to the communicated dated 20.7.97 and the same is quoted herein. Your Ref. No. ALPCO/T/97/023 Date: 20.7.97 Our Ref. No. To M/s. B.K.M. Composite Farm, C/o ALPCO Marketing Complex, Khanapara, Guwahati-22 Sub: Temporary allotment of the Sale booth at Farm Complex, Khanapara. Sir, As per the direction of Managing Director ALPCO Ltd. you are hereby requested to takeover the sale booth at Farm Complex, Khanapara temporarily till the completion of the electrical works of the Khanapara Marketing Complex of ALPCO Ltd. You are also requested to pay the charges of the electrical consumption as per the meter rate of the electrical management committee. After completion of the electrical works of the Khanapara Marketing Complex you are to shifted to the original complex. This is for your kind information and necessary action. G.M. (C) ALPCO. 9. But to the utter surprise and dismay, the Corporation instead of executing the lease agreement as mentioned above, on 9.1.02 through Respondent No. 7, the General Manager (Commercial) accompanied by a good number of police personals and anti-social elements tried to evict the Petitioner with possible force to vacate the premises immediately or to face dire consequences on the failure on their part for vacating the premises and such action of the Corporation compelled the Petitioner to move this Court for which they have to file a writ petition being W.P. (c) No. 217/02 with the prayer mentioned above. 10. 10. This Court in W.P. (c) No. 217/02 vide order dated 16.1.02 while issuing notice of motion, protected the interest of the Petitioner by passing an interim order directing the Corporation not to disturb the possession of the Petitioner in respect of his business premises situated at Khanapara market complex belonging to the Corporation, However, when this interim order was in force, the Corporation disconnected the electric connection to the premises occupied by the Petitioner and against such illegal action, the Petitioner has moved this Court for the second time by filing this instant writ petition being W.P. (c) No. 958/04 with the prayer as already noted above. 11. This Court while admitting this writ petition by its order dated 24.2.04 directed the Respondents not to disturb their possession in respect of the business premises of the Petitioner in view of the earlier interim order dated 16.1.02 passed in W.P. (c) No. 217/02. 12. Both the writ petitions have been keenly contested by the Respondents by filing their respective counters. The Corporation in their counters have categorically and specifically denied all the contentions and averments made in these writ petitions stating that the documents particularly the communication dated 15.12.94 and 20.7.97 are manufactured, fabricated and totally false. According to them, the record does not reveal any such documents claimed to have been issued to the Petitioner. Significantly, the Corporation has taken the stand that the partners of the Petitioner have themselves given a written undertaking on a non-judicial stamp paper on 9.1.97 (Annexure-I to the affidavit filed by the Corporation on 18.5.04) wherein two of the partners Sri Dwipen Mahanta and Sri Praneswar Kalita have categorically stated that they have already vacated the premises in question on 9.1.02 itself and for the purpose of removal of all the perishable goods stocked by them in the premises, permission to vacate was sought upto 4.00 p.m. of 15.1.02. Since the undertaking has been given by the Petitioner-farm themselves this Court shall not entertain both the writ petitions on the basis of the prayers made therein as mentioned above. 13. In the backdrop of the above facts situation, Mr. Das, learned Sr. Since the undertaking has been given by the Petitioner-farm themselves this Court shall not entertain both the writ petitions on the basis of the prayers made therein as mentioned above. 13. In the backdrop of the above facts situation, Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that on the strength of the documents mentioned above i.e., communications dated 15.12.94 and 20.7.97, they have been in continuous possession in the premises in question and the Corporation is estopped from taking any action in view of the promises made in those communications above quoted. Besides, the Petitioner has a legitimate expectation to have continuous possession in the premises for another 15 years remaining period out of 25 years lease period as specified in the communication dated 15.12.94. 14. Argument of Mr. Das is basically found on two legal principles i.e. (i) promissory estoppel and (ii) legitimate expectation. His case is that by virtue of the promises made by the Corporation through the communications dated 15.12.94 and 20.7.97 as clearly referred to above, they are estopped from taking any further action of eviction of the Petitioners from the premises. It is contended that once they have been asked to possess the land by developing the same for a specified period of 25 years with further instruction to execute the necessary documents like lease deed etc. a legitimate expectation is very much available to the Petitioner to the effect that they would be allowed to remain in possession till the expiry of the lease period. Mr. Das has categorically submitted that despite their best effort, the Corporation is not willing to execute the lease deed as promised by the allotment order/communication dated 15.12.94, Surprisingly, the Corporation has not responded till date even to the request made by the Petitioner after the issuance of the letter dated 7.9.96 by the Respondent No. 7 to which a reply have been sent to the Corporation by undated letter. 15. Relying on the communication dated 7.9.96 issued by the Corporation, the learned Sr. Counsel has argued that the said communication clearly goes to show that the Corporation itself has already initiated for finalisation of the agreement between the parties. 16. For ready reference the communication dated 7.9.96 may also be quoted hereunder: Ref. No. ALPCO/223/IL/94/3931 Date: 7.9.96 To, M/s. B.K.M. Composite Farm, Khanapara, Guwahati-22 Sub: Preparation of Final Agreement Ref.: No. 223/IL.94/1655 Dt. Counsel has argued that the said communication clearly goes to show that the Corporation itself has already initiated for finalisation of the agreement between the parties. 16. For ready reference the communication dated 7.9.96 may also be quoted hereunder: Ref. No. ALPCO/223/IL/94/3931 Date: 7.9.96 To, M/s. B.K.M. Composite Farm, Khanapara, Guwahati-22 Sub: Preparation of Final Agreement Ref.: No. 223/IL.94/1655 Dt. Sir, In inviting reference to my letter No. cited above, you are requested to come to this office on 10th Sept./96 for final discussion for preparation of agreement between you and ALPCO. This may be treated as most urgent. Yours faithfully, General Manager Assam Livestock and Poultry Corporation Ltd. Islampur: Guwahati-7 17. To buttress the submissions on the points of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel, the following judicial authorities have been referred to by the learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner: i) (1979) 2 SCC 409 : M/s. Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. ii) AIR 1986 SC 806 : Union of India and Ors. v. Godfrey Philips India Ltd. iii) AIR 1994 SC 988 : Union of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corpn. and Ors. iv) (2005) 1 SCC 625 : Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer and Ors. 18. Objecting vehemently to the submissions advanced on behalf of the Petitioner, Mr. H. Roy and Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Sr. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation as well as the officers under the Corporation in their individual capacity respectively on being arrayed them as party Respondents, have argued that both the documents as noted above and reliance upon which has been emphatically made, are created, manufactured and fabricated. Mr. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel has straightway taken this Court to the communication dated 15.12.94 and has forcefully submitted that this so-called document by which alleged promise was made ex-facie shows that this has been manufactured because the said document does not carry any reference number as normally required in all official communication to form a part of the official records. He has also indicated that this document does not mention any area of the land being allowed to be developed and occupied by the Petitioner. He has also indicated that this document does not mention any area of the land being allowed to be developed and occupied by the Petitioner. According to him, assuming but not admitting that this document is genuine one, it is important to note that when the document itself directed the Petitioner to set up the poultry and piggery farm, no such farm is in existence for the last 12 years in the suit premises. The Petitioner has not carried out any such business of poultry/piggery farm by setting up farm for such purpose. That apart, the communication dated 15.12.94 itself reflects that allowance to develop the land to set up poultry/piggery farm was conditional i.e. subject to singing lease agreement with acceptance of the Corporation's terms and conditions. But till to-day no such lease agreement has ever been executed by the Petitioner's partners. 19. Moreover, coming to the communication dated 20.7.97, it is contended that the record also does not carry any information as regards issuance of this letter. Even if this document is accepted, it will show that the same has permitted the Petitioner for allotment of sale booth only for a temporary period till completion of the electrical works of the complex in question with further information that after completion of the electrical works in complex in question, the Petitioner would be shifted to the complex itself. This shows that it is absolutely a temporary arrangement only and this cannot be a legal ground for claiming any right for promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation. 20. It is emphatically submitted by the learned Sr. Counsel representing the Respondents that the Petitioner is in illegal and unauthorised occupation of the premises in question of the Corporation without having any specific demarcation and that too only on the strength of the document dated 15.12.94 which was not issued by the Corporation in its official capacity for which no such document is available in the office record. It is stated that presently the Petitioner is occupying an area of 5 Bighas of prime land in Greater Guwahati without paying any compensation/rent whatsoever till date from the date of their illegal occupation with effect from 15.12.94. According to both the learned Sr. It is stated that presently the Petitioner is occupying an area of 5 Bighas of prime land in Greater Guwahati without paying any compensation/rent whatsoever till date from the date of their illegal occupation with effect from 15.12.94. According to both the learned Sr. Counsel, had this land been legally rented to any person or any other public authority, by this time the Corporation would have been benefited by a huge amount of money to the tune of Rs. 20,00,000/- approximately. Ironically, the Petitioner has not paid anything in connection with that the particular occupation. 21. At this stage, Mr. Das, learned Sr. Counsel has disputed the area of premises and claimed that it is not 5 Bighas of land that they are occupying but only one Bigha of land. 22. It is also contended on behalf of all the Respondents that when the Petitioner through its two partners has given the undertaking on 9.1.02 stating that they have already vacated the land on 9.1.02 itself and by 15.1.02 they would remove their all perishable goods from there, thereafter by approaching this Court through W.P. (c) No. 217/02, they have obtained the interim order on 16.1.02 by suppressing the vital material facts because on that very date they were not actually in possession of the premises in question. 23. Referring to a judicial authority reported in AIR 1994 SC 853 (S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. Mr. Roy, learned Sr. Counsel relying on paragraphs 7 and 8 therein in the case has contended that the Petitioner by obtaining the interim order dated 16.1.02 has played a fraud on the Court as they failed to seek equity with clean hand. Relying on paragraph 8, he has also submitted that the Petitioner seeking the equitable relief under Article 226 of the Constitution, needs to produce the relevant documents failing which the petition is required to be dismissed and also if any advantage is taken by withholding any vital document as in the instant case he has suppressed undertaking given on 9.1.02, the Petitioner shall be guilty of playing fraud on the Court. 24. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (Supra) as under: 7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. 24. Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (Supra) as under: 7. The High Court, in our view, fell into patent error. The short question before the High Court was whether in the facts and circumstances of this case, Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the Court. The High Court, however, went haywire and made observations which are wholly perverse. We do not agree with the High Court that "there is no legal duty cast upon the Plaintiff to come to Court with a true case and prove it by true evidence". The Principle of "finality of litigation" cannot be pressed to the extent of such an absurdity that it becomes an engine of fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants. The Courts of law are meant for imparting justice between the parties. One who comes to the Court, must come with clean hands. We are constrained to say that more often than not, process of the Court is being abused. Property-grabbers, tax-evaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other unscrupulous persons from all walks of life find the Court process a convenient lever to retain the illegal-gains indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood, has no right to approach the Court. He can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. 8. The facts of the present case leave no manner of doubt that Jagannath obtained the preliminary decree by playing fraud on the Court. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage Jagannath was working as a clerk with Chunilal Sowcar. He purchased the property in the Court auction on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He had, on his own volition, executed the registered release deed (Exhibit B-15) in favour of Chunilal Sowcar regarding the property in dispute. He knew that the Appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. He knew that the Appellants had paid the total decretal amount to his master Chunilal Sowcar. Without disclosing all these facts, he filed the suit for the partition of the property on the ground that he had purchased the property on his own behalf and not on behalf of Chunilal Sowcar. Non-production and even non-mentioning of the release deed at the trial tantamounts to playing fraud on the Court. We do not agree with the observations of the High Court that the Appellants-Defendants could have easily produced the certified registered copy of Exhibit B-15 and non-suited the Plaintiff. A litigant, who approaches the Court, is bound to produce all the documents executed by him which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds a vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side than we would be guilty of playing fraud on the Court as well as on the opposite party. 25. At this stage Mr. Das the learned Sr. Counsel representing the Petitioner, rejecting that the Petitioner has not played any fraud on the Court, has drawn attention of this Court to the contentions made in paragraphs 8 and 9 of writ petition being W.P. (c) No. 217/02 wherein it is stated by the Petitioner that on 9.1.02, the officers i.e., Respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 alongwith some police personnel came to their premises and threatened them to vacate the premises immediately and compelled them to sign some blank papers and as such the Petitioner has not made commitment giving any undertaking claiming that they have already vacated the premises in question. The allegation of playing fraud on the Court is, therefore, absolutely incorrect and not tenable in law. 26. Having meticulously scanned the materials available on record including the pleadings exchanged by and between the parties in both the writ petitions and also after hearing learned Counsel for the rival parties extensively, it prima facie appears that the issue raised in both the writ petitions is basically a disputed question of facts. 27. 26. Having meticulously scanned the materials available on record including the pleadings exchanged by and between the parties in both the writ petitions and also after hearing learned Counsel for the rival parties extensively, it prima facie appears that the issue raised in both the writ petitions is basically a disputed question of facts. 27. Apart from that, the undertaking dated 9.1.02 annexed to the affidavit filed on behalf of the Corporation on 18.5.04, explicitly reveals that was not a blank paper as asserted by the Petitioner in paragraph 8 to W.P. (c) No. 217/02 but a non judicial stamp paper wherein both the partners namely, Dwipen Mahanta and Prameswar Kalita signed on the allotted space as required to be signed in a non judicial document and as such contention of Mr. Das, the learned Sr. Counsel that they were forced to sign the same blank paper cannot be accepted. The said undertaking even clearly indicates that the Petitioner has already vacated the possession of the land in question on 9.1.02 and in view of the same, the prayer already reproduced above in both the writ petitions cannot also be entertained. 28. On due consideration of the submissions canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner in the backdrop of the attending fact situation discussed above, it is felt that no case for either promissory estoppel or legitimate expectation has been made out in both the writ petitions. In order to apply the doctrine of promissory estoppel, the promise itself must be clear, specific and unambiguous. From an ordinary reading of the communication dated 15.12.94, being the sole basis for such claim, it is revealed that firstly, no area of land was mentioned or demarcated, secondly, permission was only to set up poultry/piggery farm with a direction to strictly follow the instruction of that office and thirdly the 3 (three) partners of the Petitioner were directed to executive the lease agreement. It is, therefore, safely opined that the concept of promissory estoppel cannot be attracted in the given case. 29. Coming to the claim of legitimate expectation for continuous possession of the premises in question and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Doctrine of legitimate expectation is not applicable to the instant case. It is, therefore, safely opined that the concept of promissory estoppel cannot be attracted in the given case. 29. Coming to the claim of legitimate expectation for continuous possession of the premises in question and taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the Doctrine of legitimate expectation is not applicable to the instant case. It is settled law that Doctrine of legitimate expectation can be applied if any decision taken by the authority is found to be arbitrary, unreasonable and not taken in public interest. In the instant case, as evident from the materials available on record that the Petitioner has been in occupation on the basis of the communication dated 15.12.94 the validity of which has been strongly denied and criticised on behalf of the Respondents and on the basis of this disputed question of facts, the Principle of legitimate expectation does not arise. 30. In view of the same, this Court is disinclined to accept the applicability of both the Doctrines i.e., promissory estoppel and legitimate expectation in this case and this Court refrains itself from discussing the cases cited above on the point of those Doctrines. 31. In view of what have been discussed and observed above, this Court is of the view that the entire issue raised herein is a disputed question of facts and in such a case the jurisdiction of this Court needs not to be exercised. 32. In a recent case reported in (2005) 12 SCC 725 (Orissa Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. and Ors. v. Bharati Industries Ors.), the Supreme Court in paragraphs and 9 held as follows: 7 Value of articles lifted by the writ Petitioner is a disputed factual question. Where a complicated question of fact is involved and the matter requires through proof on factual aspects, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. Whether or not the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. As noted above, the writ petition was primarily founded on allegation of breach of contract. Whether or not the High Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would largely depend upon the nature of dispute and if the dispute cannot be resolved without going into the factual controversy, the High Court should not entertain the writ petition. As noted above, the writ petition was primarily founded on allegation of breach of contract. Question whether the action of the opposite parting the writ petition amounted to breach of contractual obligation ultimately depends on facts and would require material evidence to be scrutinized and in such a case writ jurisdiction should not be exercised. 9. In the instant case the High Court has itself observed that disputed questions of fact were involved and yet went on to give directions as if it was adjudicating the money claim in a suit. The course is clearly impermissible. 33. This Court is also of the considered view that the Petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand and they have obtained this interim order by suppressing the material facts and also withholding the factual documents like the undertaking given by them on 9.1.02 as mentioned above. 34. From the foregoing reasons and observation, this Court is of the view that this writ petition is devoid of any merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. Interim order passed earlier in both the writ petitions stand vacated. No costs. Petition dismissed