Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 221 (KER)

Radhakrishnan Nair v. State Of Kerala

2008-03-28

V.GIRI

body2008
Judgment : An order issued by the Government as G.O(MS) No.142/06/Home dated 28.2006 and consequential direction issued by the Director General of Police are the subject matter of challenge in these Writ Petitions except W.P.(C) Nos.3941, 3980 and 9355 of 2008, wherein, petitioners have sought for an implementation of the said Government Order. In the other Writ Petitions, petitioners impugn the order either in whole or in part. There is a frontal challenge to the order as such in W.P. (C) No.38177 of 2007 and therefore I propose to refer to the facts in the said Writ Petition in the first instance. 2. As stated above, petitioners have really sought for implementation of the Government Order in W.P.(C) No.3941 of 2008 and two other Writ Petitions. Though there is no contention that there is reluctance on the part of the Government to implement the order issued by the Government, apparently, Writ Petitions came to be instituted in circumstances where the implementation of the order was kept in abeyance pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.30559 of 2006 and 26164 of 2006. In effect, the fate of W.P.(C) No.38177 of 2007 and other Writ Petitions, which impugn the Government order, should govern the fate of the aforementioned three Writ Petitions. 3. Petitioners in W.P.(C) No.38177 of 2007 are Head Constables working in Kannur. They entered service as Police Constables in Armed Reserve on 27.1984. First petitioner was shifted to the local wing as Police Constable on 16.1988 and the 2nd petitioner was shifted to the local wing as Police Constable on 16.1988. Petitioners were promoted as Head Constables on 18.2005 and 9.2005 respectively. Exhibit P1 is the provisional seniority list of Police Constables (Local) eligible for promotion as Head Constables as on 25.2000. Respondents 4 and 5 are placed far below the petitioners in Exhibit P1. They are juniors to the petitioners in the cadre of Head Constables. The promotion post to that of Head Constable is Assistant Sub Inspector. Promotions are effected the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on the basis of seniority in the cadre of Head Constable. If it is so affected, petitioners would naturally be promoted ahead of respondents 3 and 4. 4. While so, Government issued G.O(MS) 142/2006/Home dated 28.2006 - Ext. P2 order. Promotions are effected the post of Assistant Sub Inspector on the basis of seniority in the cadre of Head Constable. If it is so affected, petitioners would naturally be promoted ahead of respondents 3 and 4. 4. While so, Government issued G.O(MS) 142/2006/Home dated 28.2006 - Ext. P2 order. The justification for the order as such is expressed in the first two paragraphs thereof, which read as follows: "In order to bolster the sagging morale of Police Personnel who have not benefited by promotions for long periods, the Director General of police has put forth proposal before Government for consideration wherein it has been suggested to designate the Police Constables who have put in a total service of 15 years as Head Constable and the Head Constables who have a total service of 23 years as ASls without incurring any additional expenditure on such change over. Government have broadly examined the proposal and are pleased to accord sanction to designate the Police-Constables (15 years service) as Head Constables and Head Constables (23 years service) as Assistant Sub Inspectors on the following terms and conditions. 5. The terms and conditions relating to designating a Police Constable as Assistant Sub Inspector is contained in the said order and it would be advantageous to extract in entirety the order, which reads as follows: B. ASSISTANT SUB INSPECTOR (GRADE) I. For designating a Police Head Constable who has put in 23 years of service in any District Police General Executive Branch (Local Police) as Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade) the following conditions will apply, (V that he must have completed a total of 23 years of service on the 1st January of the Calendar year, excluding the training period; (ii) That he must be drawing pay on a pay scale equal to or higher than that of an Assistant Sub Inspector; (iii) A Head Constable who has been designated as Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade) will be promoted to the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector as and when his turn comes in the regular line of promotion unless he is found ineligible. II. Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade) will be the personal rank of the persons so designated. III. II. Assistant Sub Inspector (Grade) will be the personal rank of the persons so designated. III. (i) The person so designated will be eligible to wear the uniform of Assistant Sub Inspector; (ii) He will not be eligible for higher pay and allowances other than what he would have received had he not been designated as Assistant Sub Inspector; (iii) He will be accommodated among the available sanctioned post in the rank of Head Constable; .(iv) He will be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a regular Assistant Sub Inspector additionally, in such a manner and to such an extent as the Director General of Police may deem appropriate; .(v) He will not be eligible to claim seniority in the cadre of Assistant Sub Inspector on the basis of this designation. The Director General of Police will take immediate action to implement the scheme." 6. TheDirector General of Police issued instructions to the subordinates in consonance with Exhibit P2 and the same has been marked as Exhibit P3. Designations have been effected pursuant to Exhibits P2 and P3 and therefore persons who have completed 23 years of service as Head Constable have been designated as A.S.I. in terms of Ext. P2 order. In the course of such designation Government have not adhered to the inter se seniority of Head Constables in the General Executive Branch (Local Police). This has been challenge in these Writ Petitions. 7. Petitioners contend that though the nomenclature given to the benefit conferred under Ext. P2 is that of a designation, essentially it has all the attributes of a promotion. Promotion post to that of Head Constable is Assistant Sub Inspector and in designating a Head Constable as Assistant Sub Inspector, what is being done is to really promote him as an Assistant Sub Inspector. Promotion to Assistant Sub Inspector is regulated by statutory provisions. Admittedly, promotion is to be effected on the strength of the seniority in the cadre of Head Constable. This is being bypassed, in stipulating that, the length of service as such should essentially be taken as a criteria for determining the eligibility for designation as Head Constables de hors their seniority in the cadre of Head Constable. In effect, therefore, persons like the petitioners, would be required to treat those persons, who are their juniors in the cadre of Head Constable, as Superior Officers. In effect, therefore, persons like the petitioners, would be required to treat those persons, who are their juniors in the cadre of Head Constable, as Superior Officers. Designation is not merely a cosmetic title. Designated A.S.I. is entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a regular A.S.I. In circumstances where the designation has all the attributes of promotion, it should be treated as a promotion as such and consequently whatever be the nomenclature, the benefit in the nature of Ext. P2, if at all granted, must have been done by adhering to the statutory rules as such. Government has acted illegally in overlooking the statutory provisions governing regular promotion to the post of A.S.I. The order is unconstitutional because, it behooves the Government and the Department to overlook the seniority in the cadre in question, and confer a benefit on the juniors in the cadre. This is violative of Art.16 of the Constitution. The stipulation in Ext. P2, which contemplates the entrustment of a designated A.S.I. with the duties and responsibilities of a regular A.S.I., is inconsistent with the general discipline that has to be maintained in the Police Force. .8. Government has filed a counter affidavit and it is their contention that the benefit contemplated under Ext. P2 is not a cadre promotion as such. It is a benefit sought to be granted to the persons who have completed 23 years of service in the force as such. Moreover, the beneficiaries must have been drawing pay on a pay scale equal to or higher than that of an A.S.I. This would obviously happen, only if he is otherwise qualified and eligible to be promoted as an A.S.I. The designation contemplated under Ext. P2 is lacking in the significant attributes of promotion. A designate does not commence his probation in the cadre of A.S.I. merely by reason of the designation. He will not be .eligible to claim seniority in the cadre of A.S.I. on the basis of the designation. He will not be eligible for higher pay and allowances, otherwise attributable to the post of A.S.I. He will continue to be accommodated among the available sanctioned posts in the rank of Head Constable. He will be a Head Constable, as such, in rank and he Will draw the pay in the pay scale applicable to Head Constables. He will not be eligible for higher pay and allowances, otherwise attributable to the post of A.S.I. He will continue to be accommodated among the available sanctioned posts in the rank of Head Constable. He will be a Head Constable, as such, in rank and he Will draw the pay in the pay scale applicable to Head Constables. Since none of the material attributes of a promotion are present in the instant case, statutory rules governing promotion are not, in any manner, contravened by Ext. P2. 9. It is further contended that there is a good reason for Government in issuing an order in the nature of Ext.P2. It took into account the bleak prospects of a large number of Head Constables, in the matter of regular cadre promotion as A.S.I. It took into account the fact that persons with 23 years of service have little prospects of farther cadre promotion and ultimately they may lose out in favour of persons, who have less number of total years of service, but otherwise are their seniors in the cadre of Head Constables. The latter may have prospects of a cadre promotion on the strength of the prospects of further service. Taking note of these aspects, Government took a decision to grant a designation to all Head Constables who are otherwise qualified and eligible to be promoted as Assistant Sub Inspectors, but who do not have the prospects of promotion due to dearth of vacancies. The decision was taken at the highest level of the Government. It is intended to lend succour to a large number of persons who have otherwise served the Force and have little else to look forward to. It does not entail any financial commitment on the part of the Government. It does not affect the promotion prospects of any other eligible person. In granting designation, no further artificial classification is resorted to. There is uniformity in the adoption of designation. There is no error of jurisdiction. There is no contravention of statutory provisions and therefore this Court should not interfere under Art.226 of the Constitution, it is contended. 10. Similar submissions have been made by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.3941 of 2008, 3980 of 2008 and 9355 of 2008. 11. I heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar, Smt. V.P. Seemanthini, learned counsel Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, Sri. Aravindakshan Pillai, Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, Sri. 10. Similar submissions have been made by the petitioners in W.P.(C) Nos.3941 of 2008, 3980 of 2008 and 9355 of 2008. 11. I heard learned Senior Counsel Sri. K. Ramakumar, Smt. V.P. Seemanthini, learned counsel Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, Sri. Aravindakshan Pillai, Sri. Pirappancode V.S. Sudheer, Sri. M.K. Pradeep Kumar and Sri. Rasheed on behalf the petitioners in various Writ Petitions and Sri. Nandakumar, learned Senior Government Pleader on behalf of the Government. 12. The principal question that arises for consideration is what is the nature of the benefit that is conferred under Ext.P2 Government Order. Is it in the nature of a promotion or is it in the nature of a benefit? Is it an extra legal benefit or is it merely lending succour to a large number of persons who otherwise enjoy bleak prospects in the matter of regular cadre promotion. Does, the order enable the Government to overlook statutory provisions. Will the implementation of the order, which merely has some attributes of a promotion, but lacking in its material aspects result in infraction of statutory provisions. Does the conferment of the benefit result in violation of any constitutional provisions? .13. The benefit granted under Ext. P2 is what is described therein. It entitles the Police Constables, who have put in 23 years of service, to be designated as Assistant Sub Inspectors. What does the designate derive on such designation. He will be eligible to wear the uniform in the cadre of A.S.I. and he will be entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of a regular A.S.I. these two are the attributes which are projected by the learned counsel fore the petitioners in those writ petitions which challenge the order. How significant are these two aspects. I take note of the fact that the order also makes it clear that the designate will not be eligible for higher pay and allowances in excess of what he would have received, had he not been designated as A.S.I. Leaving a part, certain incumbents drawing higher salary by virtue of grant of time Bound Higher Grade, notwithstanding the fact that he is occupying the post in a lower time scale of pay, higher time scale of pay is one of the attributes of promotion as such. It will be difficult to conceive a situation where consequent upon promotion, the promotee is fitted in a lower time scale of pay. It will be difficult to conceive a situation where consequent upon promotion, the promotee is fitted in a lower time scale of pay. I bear in mind cases where the promotee may not .really derive: or draw any additional wages by virtue of the promotion. That is mainly on account of the fact that the incumbent would have been already granted a time bound higher scale in the lower time scale: But obviously Higher Time Scale is one of the attributes of promotion and that is specifically excluded as a characteristic of the designation granted under Exhibit P2. 14. Secondly, the designate is not eligible to claim seniority in the cadre of A.S.I. on the basis of the designation. In other words he does not commence his service as an A.S.I., by virtue of the designation. He does not commence his probation in the category of A.S.I. by virtue of the designation. He continues to be accommodated in the cadre of Head Constable. In my view, this is also one of the aspects that are inconsistent with normal case of a promotion. In so far as the designation granted under Ext. P2 is concerned, I, therefore, find it difficult to accept the contention of the petitioners, who challenge Ext. P2 order, that the designation granted under Exht. P2 has all the attributes of promotion and should therefore be treated as a promotion itself. 15. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.(C) No.38177 of 2007 submits that there is a serious attempt on the part of the Government to grant benefit to certain class of persons by-passing as such, what he describes as the "statutory scheme and statutory policy" discernible from the provisions of the Special Rules as also the General Rules. Seniority in the cadre of Head Constables, he submits, is admittedly the basis for promotion to the post of A.S.I. The policy of the Government in deciding to treat cadre seniority as a basis for promotion to the post of A.S.I. is reflected in the statutory provisions. Though the nomenclature given to the benefit under Ext. P2 is designation, in effect, the beneficiaries really exercise the powers attached to the promotion post. If that were so, even if the Government wanted to grant the benefit to a large number of persons, Government was not entitled to do so, by passing the statutory scheme as such. Exbt. Though the nomenclature given to the benefit under Ext. P2 is designation, in effect, the beneficiaries really exercise the powers attached to the promotion post. If that were so, even if the Government wanted to grant the benefit to a large number of persons, Government was not entitled to do so, by passing the statutory scheme as such. Exbt. P2 order according to him can only be an executive order and it militates against the statutory rules. If so, even without anything more, it is amenable to judicial review by this Court under Art.226 of the Constitution. He refers to the judgment in State of Karnataka v. K.G.S.D. {(2006) 1 SCC 567), Dayanandalal v. State of Kerala ((1996) 9 SCC 728), Shish Ram v. State of H.P. ((1996) 10 SCC 166), J. & K. Public Service Commission v. Narinder Mohan (Dr.) ((1994) 2 SCC 630) in this regard. 16. If the benefit sought to be granted under Ext. P2 is a promotion the argument would have been impeccable. As indicated above, the benefit granted under Ext.P2, which is described as a designation as an A.S.I. lacks the principal attributes of promotion. No doubt it is a new found creation of the Government. But for the same reason, where the area is not traversed by statutory rules, it is always open to the Government to lay down the guidelines by reason of executive orders. The position is too well settled to warrant a reference to any specific decision. In other words executive instructions may supplement but not supplant statutory rules. The very attribute projected by the petitioners as regards Ext. P2, that it does not confirm to statutory rules as such, in a sense, is its redeeming feature. Conferment of designation as A.S.I. is not governed by statutory rules and therefore the prescription of guidelines in the matter of such conferment by itself does not come into conflict with any statutory scheme. If that be so, Ext. P2, by itself, does not involve any statutory infraction. .17. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj then contends that whatever be the justification offered by the Government in support of the order, the benefit could not have been granted otherwise than by tinkering with the statutory rules. If that be so, Ext. P2, by itself, does not involve any statutory infraction. .17. Sri. Kaleeswaram Raj then contends that whatever be the justification offered by the Government in support of the order, the benefit could not have been granted otherwise than by tinkering with the statutory rules. He refers to the fact that designate under Exhibit P2 is entrusted with the duties and responsibilities of an A.S.I., He refers to the definition of "appointed to a service" under R.2 (I) of Part 1 of K.S. & S.S.R. I am unable to accept this submission. A designate under Exhibit P2 is not entitled to consider himself as a probationer in the cadre of A.S.I. A designate under Ext. P2 is not entitled to draw the salary of an A.S.I. By virtue of the designation he does not acquire the eligibility to be treated as an A.S.I. as such. His designation as an A.S.I. leaves no impact on his promotion prospects to the post of A.S.I. as such. Higher wages are not drawn by reason of the .designation granted under Ext. P2. Accordingly he continues to be accommodated as Head Constable. In that view of the matter, notwithstanding the two aspects, which are highlighted above, I find difficult to accept the contention that the designation granted under Ext. P2 has all the attributes of promotion. Consequently, the possibility of a conflict with the statutory scheme as such really does not arise in the context of the enforcement of Ext. P2. 9.18. Sri. Ramakumar, Smt. V.P, Seemanthini, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, who seek an implementation of Ext. P2 order, submit that the justification offered by the Government in support of Ext. P2 is a matter which merits serious attention of this Court. Sri. Nandakumar, Senior Government Pleader also submits that there was a good reason which persuaded the Government to issue Ext. P2. He refers to such reasons as given in the counter affidavit filed by the Government. Government found that several persons in the General Executive Branch, discharging duties as Constables and Head Constables have bleak promotion prospects. This affects the morale of the Force. Increasing the cadre strength was ruled out for several reasons, financial constraints being prominent among them. P2. He refers to such reasons as given in the counter affidavit filed by the Government. Government found that several persons in the General Executive Branch, discharging duties as Constables and Head Constables have bleak promotion prospects. This affects the morale of the Force. Increasing the cadre strength was ruled out for several reasons, financial constraints being prominent among them. In such circumstances, Government decided that the benefit, which does not have the attributes of promotion as such, but which, at the same time, would act as a morale booster for large number of Constables and Head Constables, could be granted. Ext. P2 is the outcome of the decision. It reflects the policy of the Government. It reflects the larger interest of the Force as such. It is not a mala fide action. 10.19. I find force in the submission. What precisely is the motivating factor, which must have persuaded the Government to issue Ext.P2. On going through Exts.P2 and P3, counter affidavit as also the averments in W.P.(C) 3941 of 2008, it seems to be fairly clear to me, that the Government seems to have been motivated a desire to grant a benefit to large number of persons who otherwise have bleak promotion prospects ahead of them. In doing so, Government was perfectly aware of all the constraints within which it could operate in issuing any executive order. It was also aware of the necessity to refrain from contravening any statutory provision in this regard. It was also aware of the fact that right to be considered for regular promotion enjoyed by the members of the force should not be detrimentally affected by reason of Exbt. P2 order. Following safeguards built in by the Government as part of Ext. P2, in my view, goes along way in demonstrating an application of mind on the part of the Government while issuing Ext. P2:-(1) the benefit sought to be granted under Exbt. P2 accrues to all the Head Constables who complete 23 years of service as such (2) there is no classification among the persons who complete 23 years of service (3) Regular promotion prospects of the persons in service including the beneficiaries under Ext. P2:-(1) the benefit sought to be granted under Exbt. P2 accrues to all the Head Constables who complete 23 years of service as such (2) there is no classification among the persons who complete 23 years of service (3) Regular promotion prospects of the persons in service including the beneficiaries under Ext. P2 is left unaffected by the order (4) the eligibility of a person to be then considered for regular promotion as A.S.I. will not in any manner be diluted either by reason of he being a beneficiary of Ext.P2 or by he falling short thereof. I also take note of the fact that the beneficiaries of this Courts order and those among the Head Constables who are yet to acquire 23 years of service have, all along been being serving as Head Constables, till a given point of time. The grant of designation under Ext. P2 to a particular person or group of persons who complete 23 years of service does not result in a situation that a person, who has been, till that time discharging the duties in a promotion post, is called upon to treat his erstwhile junior as a senior in the cadre. In other words, Ext. P2 will not bring about any detriment to any person who has already been promoted as A.S.I. either on a regular or even on a provisional basis. The designation of a person who was once junior in the cadre of Head Constable leaves no impact on his service conditions either independently or inter se the beneficiaries under Ext. P2. In my view, the above aspects are relevant in determining whether an order passed by the Government which otherwise does not suffer from any statutory infraction and which will have to be treated as one within the competence of the Government should nevertheless be interfered with by this Court. .20. If Ext. P2 order, therefore, reflects what is broadly described as the policy of the Government, and it also purports to confer an even handed benefit to a large number of serving personnel, without indulging in any classification among the beneficiaries and it also does not, on the face of it, affect .the promotion prospects of the petitioners, who impugn the same, what would be the grounds available to this Court to nevertheless interfere with the said order. .21. .21. The observations made by the Supreme Court in Bachan Singh V. Gauri Shankar Agarwal ((1972) 4 SCC 257) cited by Sri. Nandakumar would be apposite in this regard; ."6. The learned single Judge who heard the Writ Petition did not come to a positive conclusion that the order of the Board of Revenue was vitiated by any error of law apparent on the face of the record. The only conclusion that he arrived at was that on the material on record it was possible to urge certain questions of law and therefore it would be proper for the Board of Revenue to examine those questions. This is an untenable approach. Unless a High Court is of the opinion that the order assailed suffers from errors of law apparent on the face of the record it has no jurisdiction to quash that order by having recourse to its certiorari jurisdiction on the ground of error of law. The mere possibility of raising a question of law in a case is no ground for interfering with an order impugned." .22. Am I able to find an apparent error of jurisdiction in Ext. P2 to consider it as unconstitutional in the sense that it violates the constitutional protection of any individual who challenges the order? I am not able to do so. May be the wisdom in issuing an order in the nature of Exhibit P2 is open to question. If this court is called upon to consider the grant of a benefit similar to one granted under Ext. P2 it may not arrive at the same conclusion. This Court might have imposed more onerous conditions. This Court might have even considered it unwise to issue an order in the nature of Ext. P2. But that does not empower this Court to interfere with an order in the nature of Ext. P2. In my view, the following observations of the Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar v. State of Haryana (2008) 2 SCC 161) would be apposite in this context. Para. 49 of the said judgment is as follows: ."Whether we apply the negative test or the positive test, the decision making process should veer round the question in regard to the lack of bona fide or an act of arbitrariness on the part of the State. Para. 49 of the said judgment is as follows: ."Whether we apply the negative test or the positive test, the decision making process should veer round the question in regard to the lack of bona fide or an act of arbitrariness on the part of the State. If lack of bona fide or arbitrariness on the part of the State is proved, whether the right is considered to be a vested or accrued right, or otherwise a negative right, the superior court may exercise its power of judicial review. The judicial intervention would, thus, be possible only when a finding of fact is arrived at in regard to the aforementioned acts of omissions and commission on the part of the State and not otherwise." 123. Submission made by the learned senior counsel Sri. Ramakumar, in this behalf, referring to the above judgment of the Supreme Court as also Keshav Chandra Joshi and Others v. Union of India & Ors. (1992 Suppl.(1) SCC 272) have considerable force. 124. Unless this Court is in a position to find that irrational considerations have regulated the decision making process of the Government which led to Exbt. P2, this Court would be slow to interfere with the order in question. This I say so in conjunction with what I have already held namely that the order does not suffer from any statutory infraction and otherwise the order seems to be within the competence of the Government as such. 125. I take note ofthe fact that essentially the Government has adopted the total length of service of a Police Constable or Head Constable, as the case may be, as the basis for determining the grant of benefit under Exbt.P2. I do not think that it is a totally irrational consideration. No doubt in the matter of regular promotion, as rules now stand, it would not be open to the Government to adopt the length of service as a basis at variance from the cadre seniority which is now adopted as the basis for promotion as such. What is effected under Exbt. P2 is not a regular promotion and consequently the said question does not really arise. .26. In the result, I find that the order passed by the Government is within its competence. It does not .infringe any statutory provision. It does not suffer from any unconstitutionality or illegality. What is effected under Exbt. P2 is not a regular promotion and consequently the said question does not really arise. .26. In the result, I find that the order passed by the Government is within its competence. It does not .infringe any statutory provision. It does not suffer from any unconstitutionality or illegality. Therefore I do not find any grounds to interfere with Exhibit P2. 127. But I record herein the submission made by the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Nandakumar that only such persons, who are otherwise qualified to be promoted as an Assistant Sub inspector, shall be granted the designation of an ASI in terms of Exhibit P2. In fact, I also find that this is the purport of the Government Order as such and at any rate, while upholding Exhibit P2 Government Order, I make it clear that only persons, who are otherwise qualified to be promoted as ASI, shall be entitled to be granted the designation as contemplated by Exhibit P2 Government Order. 128. I also take note of the fact that this position has been put beyond any doubt by a subsequent Circular issued by the Director General of Police as per Circular No.1/2007. 129. For all these reasons, all the Writ Petitions except W.P(C) Nos.3941, 3980 and 9355 of 2008 are dismissed subject to the observations made in the preceding paragraph. Contempt of Court Case 386 of 2008 is closed in the light of the disposal of Writ Petition No.38177 of 2007. No further orders are necessary in W.P(C) No.3941, 3980 and 9355 of 2008 in the light of the fact that I have upheld G.O (MS) No.142/06/Home dated 28.2006 and Exhibit P3 Circular No.1/2007 issued by the Director General of Police, except to make it clear that it is open to the Government and the Director General of Police to proceed to implement Exhibit P2 Government Order. The Writ Petitions are disposed of as above.