Research › Search › Judgment

Madras High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 686 (MAD)

C. Tharmaraj v. The Director of Drug Control

2008-02-26

S.NAGAMUTHU

body2008
Judgment :- 1. W.P.No.24789 of 2007 and W.P.No.11529 of 2005: The petitioner is the proprietor of a pharmacy known as Mamuni Ayurvedic Pharmacy at Mangalathan Vilai, Mangarai Post, Kanyakumari District. The petitioner obtained a valid licence in the Form 25-D under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 from the Director of Drugs Control, Chennai for manufacturing and selling the Ayurveda Medicines which are listed in the licence itself, namely, Kanakasavam, Jeeraka Aristam and Asoka Aristam. The validity period of the said licence is between 31.10.2000 to 31.12.2001, subject to periodical renewal. Subsequently, the licence was renewed up to 31.12.2005. Admittedly, the petitioner has made an application for renewal of the said licence for a further period beyond 31.12.2005 and the same is still pending consideration. 2. The further case of the petitioner is that the police officers having jurisdiction over that area very often interfered with his business unnecessarily on the allegation that the petitioner did not have L2 licence as required under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act 1955. Since the authorities insisted that the petitioner should not prepare any of the above said medicinal preparations as per the Drug licence, the petitioner made an application to the second respondent on 10.07.2002 for L2 licence for manufacture of the above said Ayurvedic Medicines. The second respondent rejected the same by his order dated 13.02.2003. Challenging the said order, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 09.04.2003 before the first respondent. 3. The further case of the petitioner is that pending the appeal for L2 licence, the petitioner went on manufacturing the above stated Ayurvedic preparations, which according to him was done in accordance with the Drug licence issued in Form 25-D. The petitioner further contends that he is legally entitled to prepare the above Ayurvedic Medicines even without the L2 licence. The petitioner has further averred that he is entitled for getting L2 licence from the second respondent. 4. The petitioner has further averred in the affidavit that he made an application for licence under the Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1984 for selling the above Ayurvedic Medicines, which were manufactured by him. 5. The petitioner has further averred that he is entitled for getting L2 licence from the second respondent. 4. The petitioner has further averred in the affidavit that he made an application for licence under the Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparations (Control) Rules, 1984 for selling the above Ayurvedic Medicines, which were manufactured by him. 5. Despite the above position, according to the petitioner, since the respondents herein were interfering with the manufacture and sale of the above stated Ayurvedic Medicines, he filed a writ petition in W.P.No.44586 of 2002, for a writ of mandamus, to forbear the respondents from interfering in any manner with the right of the petitioner to carry on manufacturing and sale of Kanakasavam, Jeeraka Aristam and Asoka Aristam as authorized under the name and style of Mamuni Ayurvedic Pharmacy under Drug licence No.982, dated 22.12.2000, which was renewed up to 31.12.2005. Since the authorities interfered with the business of even the agents of the petitioner, according to him, he had to file another writ petition in W.P.No.21936 of 2003 for a writ of mandamus, to forbear the second respondent and other authorities from interfering with the sale and transportation of the above said Ayurvedic Preparations. The petitioner has further averred that this court directed the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, the first respondent herein to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner dated 09.04.2003 filed against the rejection of the request of L2 licence by the second respondent. 6. In the meantime, several writ petitions filed before the Principal Bench of this Court on the ground that no L2 licence is not required for preparation and sale of Ayurvedic preparations, if once licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in Form 25-D has been obtained, were all disposed of. This court in the said batch of writ petitions held that L2 licence is necessary for manufacture of Ayurvedic Medicines, though the manufacturers have already secured the licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. 7. The petitioner further averred that on 17.06.2004, the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Nagercoil came to his premises and sealed the manufacturing unit on the instructions of the second respondent herein. In the meantime, the appeal was rejected by the first respondent on 30.03.2004 and that order was challenged before this court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.22471 of 2004. 7. The petitioner further averred that on 17.06.2004, the Assistant Commissioner (Excise), Nagercoil came to his premises and sealed the manufacturing unit on the instructions of the second respondent herein. In the meantime, the appeal was rejected by the first respondent on 30.03.2004 and that order was challenged before this court by filing a writ petition in W.P.No.22471 of 2004. In the said writ petition, this court directed the first respondent to pass fresh orders after affording sufficient opportunity to the petitioner. In pursuant of the same, the first respondent by his proceedings D. Dis. P&E I(3)/35577/04, dated 20.01.2005 has passed final order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner. The petitioner challenges the said order of the first respondent in W.P.No.11529 of 2005. 8. The petitioner has filed the other writ petition in W.P.No.24879 of 2007 for a writ of mandamus, to direct the second respondent to remove the seal from the premises of the petitioner and to permit him to manufacture and sell Ayurvedic Medicines, namely, Kanakasavam, Jeeraka Aristam and Asoka Aristam through his agents in the name and style of Mamuni Ayurvedic Pharmacy at Mangalathan Vilai, Mangarai Post, Kanyakumari District under licence No.982 issued by the first respondent. 9. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondents 1 to 3. 10. Admittedly, in this case, the licence issued under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 in favour of the petitioner for manufacture of Kanakasavam, Jeeraka Aristam and Asoka Aristam, which are all Ayurvedic Medicines expired on 31.12.2005. The petitioner has made an application for renewal of the same and the same is under consideration of the first respondent. Under Proviso 2 to Rule 156 of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, the licence shall be deemed to be in force so long as the application for renewal is under consideration of the authority. In this case, since the application for renewal of the license beyond 31.12.2005 is admittedly under consideration of the first respondent, it shall be deemed that the petitioner has got a valid licence in Form 25D to manufacture Ayurvedic Medicines, namely, Kanakasavam, Jeeraka Aristam and Asoka Aristam. 11. In this case, since the application for renewal of the license beyond 31.12.2005 is admittedly under consideration of the first respondent, it shall be deemed that the petitioner has got a valid licence in Form 25D to manufacture Ayurvedic Medicines, namely, Kanakasavam, Jeeraka Aristam and Asoka Aristam. 11. Now the question is whether the rejection of L2 license sought for by the petitioner under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 by the second respondent and confirmed by the first respondent is valid in law and whether it requires interference at the hands of this Court or not. 12. Section 6 of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 requires that a licence should be obtained by a person who is engaged in the production or manufacture of any dutiable goods or of any specified component parts or ingredients of such goods or of specified container of such goods or of labels of such containers except under the authority and in accordance with the terms and conditions of a licence granted under the said Act. In this case, there is no dispute that the above said three medicinal preparations fall within the scope of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 195. Therefore, for the purpose of production or manufacture of the above preparations, a licence is required to be obtained under Section 6 of the said Act. 13. Let me now refer to Rules 82 and 84 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1955, which deal with the procedure and grant of licence. They are as follows: "82. Procedure for obtaining licence: (1) Every person desiring to engage in operations requiring the possession of a licence shall apply in writing every year for a licensee or for renewal thereof to the licensing authority who shall be- (i) the Excise Commissioner in the case of a bonded manufactory or warehouse; (ii) inother cases such officer as the State Government may authorize in this behalf. (2) If any person desires to have more than one kind of licence he shall submit a separate application for every such licence. (3) Where the applicant has more than one place of business he shall obtain a separate licence in respect of each such place of business. (2) If any person desires to have more than one kind of licence he shall submit a separate application for every such licence. (3) Where the applicant has more than one place of business he shall obtain a separate licence in respect of each such place of business. Rule 84: Grant of licence: (1) On receipt of the application, the licensing authority may make such inquiries for verification of the details stated in the application and also such other inquiries as it deems necessary. If the authority is satisfied that the conditions for the grant of the licence applied for have been complied with, it shall grant the applicant an appropriate licence. (2) In fixing the quantity of alcohol while issuing the license under sub-rule (1) to any manufacturer, licensing authority shall satisfy itself about the requirements of alcohol of that manufacturer and if that authority is of the opinion, that the quantity of alcohol asked for is not in conformity with the bona fide needs of the manufacturer, it shall either reduce or refix the quantity of alcohol as it may deem fit. 14. A close reading of Rules 82 and 84 would go to show that granting a licence under these Rules is not automatic, as it is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner. On receipt of the application, the licensing authority is required to make such enquiries for verification of the details stated in the application and also such other enquiries as it deems necessary. The form of application has been prescribed in the Rule itself, which requires various details to be given. The enquiry as provided under Rule 84 is of two kinds. The first kind is to verify about the correctness of the details furnished in the application. The second kind of enquiry is in respect of other matters which the authority deems necessary. Therefore, before passing any order on an application made by a person seeking for L2 licence, the authority is required to hold necessary enquiries and then to pass an order stating the reasons as to why either the licence is granted or rejected. 15. Rule 94 requires to be referred to which is as follows: "94. Therefore, before passing any order on an application made by a person seeking for L2 licence, the authority is required to hold necessary enquiries and then to pass an order stating the reasons as to why either the licence is granted or rejected. 15. Rule 94 requires to be referred to which is as follows: "94. The applicant to be in possession of the requisite licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940- No licence for the manufacture of medicinal and toilet preparations or renewal of such licence shall be granted to an applicant unless he holds the requisite licence under that Act, for the manufacture of the said medicinal preparations." 16. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, since he has deemed to be in possession of a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, he is eligible for licence under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 as indicated in Rule 94. 17. A counter affidavit has been filed by the first respondent, wherein, the first respondent has stated that the petitioner has not followed the conditions imposed on the Drug licence strictly. But the said contention of the first respondent does not require any consideration in this writ petition since I am not asked to deal with the question as to whether the petitioner is entitled for renewal of the licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act or not. 18. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the respondents would take me extensively through the order passed by the second respondent and also the order passed by the third respondent. The reading of the orders passed by the respondents would go to show that the petitioner manufactured the alleged Ayurvedic Medicines, though, he did not possess the L2 licence, as required under Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. It is needless to say that as held by a Division Bench of this Court in a batch of writ petitions in C. Thiagarajan v. State of Tamil Nadu dated 19.04.2006 for manufacturing or for production of any Ayurvedic Medicines, though the petitioner has obtained a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, he requires to obtain a licence under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 for manufacture. The petitioner even in the affidavit has admitted that he manufactured the above preparations without such L2 licence. The petitioner even in the affidavit has admitted that he manufactured the above preparations without such L2 licence. In my considered opinion, the said manufacture itself is illegal, which disqualifies the petitioner from getting the licence as held by the respondents 1 and 2. But the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner manufactured only in pursuant to the interim order made by this Court. The learned counsel has brought to my notice the interim order of this Court in W.P.M.P.No.12582 of 2005 in W.P.No.11529 of 2005 (present writ petition) dated 22.06.2005. This Court has passed the following order: "There will be an order of interim injunction in view of the order dated 18.04.2005 in WAMP Nos.1511 to 1513 of 2005 in WA Nos. 795 to 797 of 2005 to the effect that the petitioners would be entitled to continue the business in accordance with the license conditions till the drug license granted by the drug controller is in force. It not, it is open to the respondents to proceed further in accordance with law." 19. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is only by virtue of the said interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner manufactured the above Ayurvedic Medicines and he was selling the same from 02.08.2006 onwards. Verification of records shows that this writ petition was filed on 06.03.2005. The affidavit of the petitioner was sworn on 16.03.2005. Even in the affidavit, the petitioner has stated that he was manufacturing these Ayurvedic Medicines from the year 2000 onwards in pursuant to the drug licence. Thus, it is patently clear that without L2 licence, though it is required under the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, the petitioner was manufacturing those Ayurvedic Medicines from the year 2000 onwards. In my considered opinion, the said act of the petitioner is illegal and the same is against the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. 20. Rule 87 of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1955 has got some relevance which is to be discussed at this stage: "87. In my considered opinion, the said act of the petitioner is illegal and the same is against the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955. 20. Rule 87 of Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1955 has got some relevance which is to be discussed at this stage: "87. Revocation and suspension of licence-(1) Any licence granted under these rules may be revoked or suspended by the licensing authority if the holder, or any person in his employ, is found to have committed a breach of the conditions thereof or of any of the provisions of the Act or these rules or has been convicted of an offence under Section 161, read with Section 139 or with Section 116 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860)." Even in a case where licence has been granted, if the licensee violates any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules, then the licence is liable to be revoked. If a conjoint reading of Rule 87 and 84 are made, it will make it clear that one of the essential qualifications for getting the licence under the Rules shall be that the person who seeks for such a licence should not have violated any of the provisions of the Act. In this case, admittedly, the petitioner violated the provisions of the Act and thus has disqualified himself from getting L2 licence. 21. According to the respondents, the enquiry held by them as required under the Rules revealed that under the guise of preparing Ayurvedic Medicines, the petitioner prepared spurious liquor and was selling the same to the public. Several complaints were received from Tharanikottai, Nellivilai, Kalluvilai, Mundalavillai, Pilavettivilai and other villages that the petitioner was manufacturing and selling alcoholic bewerages under the guise of Ayurvedic Medicines and five persons by name J. Jeyakumar, Chellasamy, Sathiyadas, Sellaiyan and Sellathurai died, who consumed the said preparations. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Thuckalay, along with the Assistant Commissioner of Excise made a search of the premises of the petitioner on 17.06.2004, during which 12480 litres of Black Liquor were recovered. According to the respondents, what was recovered is not a medicinal preparation and it is only a black liquor. On a subsequent check made by the police, a case in Crime No.66 of 2006 has also been registered against the petitioner for the possession of the illicit liquor. According to the respondents, what was recovered is not a medicinal preparation and it is only a black liquor. On a subsequent check made by the police, a case in Crime No.66 of 2006 has also been registered against the petitioner for the possession of the illicit liquor. Having considered all the above aspects, according to the learned Additional Advocate General, the licence as requested by the petitioner was not granted. 22. The learned counsel for the petitioner would however contend that the samples seized from the petitioner were sent for chemical analysis and according to the analyst report, they contain self generated alcohol of the value less than 10%. According to him, if it exceeds 10%, then it can be termed as illicit liquor. In my considered opinion, in this writ petition, I cannot make such roving enquiry to give a finding as to whether what was seized by the police from the custody of the petitioner is an illicit liquor or not, since it is a matter to be decided only by the competent criminal court, where the First Information Report is pending. Admittedly, the investigation is going on and if the case of the petitioner that what was seized is not illicit liquor is found to be true, then it goes without saying that the Investigating Officer may not file a charge sheet against the petitioner. Pending investigation, it would not be proper for this Court to go into the niceties of the matter and to give a positive finding as to whether the article seized from the petitioner is illicit liquor or not. 23. The learned counsel for the petitioner would take me through the appeal memorandum. According to him, though as many as five grounds were raised in the appeal memorandum, ground No.4 is very important. The said ground is that the respondents have not chosen to take steps to analysis any sample of medicines so far. In my considered opinion, Rule 84 does not mandate that the enquiry to be held for the purpose of granting license requires that such steps are to be taken to send the articles for chemical analysis. The said ground is that the respondents have not chosen to take steps to analysis any sample of medicines so far. In my considered opinion, Rule 84 does not mandate that the enquiry to be held for the purpose of granting license requires that such steps are to be taken to send the articles for chemical analysis. Since, I have already held that the very manufacture of these alleged Ayurvedic Medicines is contrary to the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955, I need not go into the question whether they confirm to the standards of drugs. 24. There is no controversy in this case that the petitioner had the benefit of the interim order of this Court as extracted above. But the interim order does not say that the petitioner can manufacture or sell the Ayurvedic Medicines without L2 licence. The said interim order cannot be misinterpreted in such a way as if this Court has permitted the petitioner to manufacture the medicines without L2 licence. Assuming that the order of this Court gives way for such an interpretation, proper for the petitioner would have been to bring the same to the notice of this Court and get the order clarified. Neither the petitioner nor the respondents have approached this Court for clarification of the order or for modification of the order. Therefore, in my considered opinion, under the guise of the interim order granted by this Court, the petitioner should not have manufactured the Ayurvedic Preparations for want of L2 licence. 25. The last aspect which requires consideration is Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparation (Control) Rules, 1984. The said rule has been issued in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 54 of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act, 1937. As I have already stated for manufacturing of these preparations, a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and another licence under Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act, 1955 are required. Apart from that, one more licence for selling these preparations is required under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparation (Control) Rules, 1984. For the sake of understanding, Rule 11 is extracted as under: "11. Apart from that, one more licence for selling these preparations is required under Rule 11 of the Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparation (Control) Rules, 1984. For the sake of understanding, Rule 11 is extracted as under: "11. Licences for sales (1) Licences for the sale of spirituous shall be of the following descriptions, namely:- (a) Wholesale licence:-(1) Whole sale licence in Form S.P.XI shall be issued by the Collector- [i] for sale of allopathic medicinal preparations to those holding licences in Forms 20-B and 21-B under the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945; [ii] for sale of any homeopathic medical preparation or any preparation coming under the indigenous system of medicine to a registered medical practitioner or to those holding licence in Form L1 or L2 under the Medical and Toilet Preparations [Excise Duties] Rules, 1956 or a licence under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 [Central Act XXIII of 1940]; and [iii] for sale of other preparations to those possessing such qualifications as may be specified by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise..." A close reading of this Rule would make it abundantly clear that apart from the above two licences, the petitioner should have applied for a licence under the Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparation (Control) Rules, 1984 also before going for selling the manufactured Ayurvedic Medicines. The learned counsel would fairly concede that such an application was made to the authorities under the Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparation (Control) Rules, 1984 by the petitioner, but the same was rejected. Thus, admittedly, the petitioner was never granted any licence under the Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparation (Control) Rules, 1984. But in this case, there is no dispute that the petitioner was selling the manufactured preparations, which in my considered opinion is directly in conflict with the Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparation (Control) Rules, 1984 also. 26. As narrated above, as of now, he is an accused in a criminal case facing the accusation that he has committed offence under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Of course, until the charges are proved, he shall be presumed to be innocent. But, for the limited purpose of considering his request for L2 licence, the pendency of the criminal case is certainly a relevant consideration and on such consideration and on that ground also, the petitioners request of L2 licence is liable to be rejected. 27. Of course, until the charges are proved, he shall be presumed to be innocent. But, for the limited purpose of considering his request for L2 licence, the pendency of the criminal case is certainly a relevant consideration and on such consideration and on that ground also, the petitioners request of L2 licence is liable to be rejected. 27. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the conclusion arrived at by the respondents that the petitioner is disqualified to acquire L 2 licence is not based on any acceptable evidence and therefore, this Court could consider the materials available on record in order to test whether the view taken by the respondents is correct or not. In my considered opinion, it is not at all possible for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence by converting this Court into an appellate authority. The scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to interfere in such matters is very limited. 28. In {(2004) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES -682 (RANJEET SINGH Vs. RAVI PRAKASH), the Honourable Supreme Court has considered the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has held that unless the order of the statutory authority is patently erroneous, the High Court cannot interfere with the same. The Honourable Supreme Court has further held that if two opinions on the same materials are reasonably possible, the finding arrived at one way or the other cannot be called a patent error. The relevant portion of the said judgment is as follows:- "A perusal of the judgment of the High Court shows that the High Court has clearly exceeded its jurisdiction in setting aside the judgment of the appellate Court. Though not specifically stated, the phraseology employed by the High Court in its judgment goes to show that the High Court has exercised its certiorari jurisdiction for correcting the judgment of the appellate Court. In SURYA DEV RAI Vs. RAM CHANDER RAI reported in {(2003) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES - 675), this Court has ruled that to be amenable to correction in certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed by the Court or authority on whose judgment the High Court was exercising jurisdiction, should be an error which is self-evident. In SURYA DEV RAI Vs. RAM CHANDER RAI reported in {(2003) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES - 675), this Court has ruled that to be amenable to correction in certiorari jurisdiction, the error committed by the Court or authority on whose judgment the High Court was exercising jurisdiction, should be an error which is self-evident. An error which needs to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments or by indulging in a long-drawn process of reasoning, cannot possibly be an error available for correction by way of writ of certiorari. If it is reasonably possible to form two opinions on the same material, the finding arrived at one way or the other, cannot be called a patent error. As to the exercise of supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution also, it has been held in {(2003) 6 SUPREME COURT CASES -675)} that the jurisdiction was not available to be exercised for indulging in reappreciation or evaluation of evidence or correcting the errors in drawing inferences like a court of appeal. The High Court has itself recorded in its judgment that "considering the evidence on the record carefully" it was inclined not to sustain the judgment of the appellate Court. On its own showing, the High Court has acted like an appellate Court which was not permissible for it to do under Article 226 or Article 227 of the Constitution." 29. In view of the settled position of law as extracted above, in the given cases since a particular view has been taken by the respondent on appreciating the materials available before them in these writ petitions, I cannot re-appreciate the evidence to take a different view. 30. For all the reasons, in my considered opinion, the rejection of the request of the petitioner for licence by the second respondent, which was confirmed by the first respondent is perfectly in accordance with law, which does not require any interference at the hands of this Court. Therefore, W.P.No.11529 of 2005 is liable to be dismissed. Since I have held that the petitioner cannot run the business without L2 licence, the prayer made in W.P.No.24789 of 2007 cannot be granted and so the said writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 31. W.P.No.16420 of 2005: The allegation against the petitioner in W.P.No.16420 of 2005 are similar to the allegations in the writ petitions discussed earlier. Since I have held that the petitioner cannot run the business without L2 licence, the prayer made in W.P.No.24789 of 2007 cannot be granted and so the said writ petition is also liable to be dismissed. 31. W.P.No.16420 of 2005: The allegation against the petitioner in W.P.No.16420 of 2005 are similar to the allegations in the writ petitions discussed earlier. In this case also, the petitioner had only drug licence and he has manufactured Ayurvedic medicines without L2 licence and he has sold the preparations without the proper licence under the Tamil Nadu Spirituous Preparation (Control) Rules, 1984. It is also stated that the petitioner manufactured illicit liquor. For all the reasons, I find no reason to interfere with the order passed by second respondent, which was confirmed by the first respondent. Therefore, W.P.No.16420 of 2005 is also liable to be dismissed. 32. In the result, all the writ petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.