Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 204 (CAL)

Tarasankar Chakraborty v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

2009-03-06

DEBASISH KAR GUPTA

body2009
Judgment : DEBASISH KAR GUPTA, J. (1) The subject matter of challenge in the first writ application being W.P. No.1093(w) of 2008 is the inaction on the part of the Regional Transport Authority to issue Stage Carriage Permit(Mini Bus) on Route No.17 from Balgachia to Salt Lake in favour of the petitioner against vehicle No.WB-11B/0336. (2) The subject of challenge involved in the second writ application being W.P. No.1098 (W) 2008 is inaction on the part of the Regional Transport Authority, Howrah to issue Stage Carriage vehicle No.WB-11B/0351. (3) Since same point of law is involved in both the above writ applications which is to be decided on the basis of identical facts and circumstances, both the writ applications are taken up for final disposal analogously with the consent of the parties. (4) The fact of the case involved in the above writ applications in a nutshell are as follows: The writ petitioners in both the writ applications submitted their respective applications dated May 10, 2005 to the Regional Transport Authority, Howrah for granting Stage Carriage Permit (Mini Bus) on Route no.17 from Balgachia to Salt Lake. Those applications were taken up in the board meeting of the respondent no.2 on May 22, 2007. The respondent no.4 issued offer letters dated June 14, 2007 to both the writ petitioners granting permanent Stage Carriage permit for plying Mini Buses on the above route subject to fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in the above offer letters. One of the conditions of the above offer letters was to file documents mentioned therein within the aforesaid time of 30 days. The writ petitioners, in their turn submitted communications dated June 14, 2007 (received by the respondent authority on July 13, 2007) accepting the aforesaid offers as also informing that the steps to procure vehicles had been taken by both the petitioners in terms of the above offer letters. But the delivery of the vehicles would made within three months. Thereafter, both the writ petitioners deposited Rs.520/- each in the office of the respondent no.2 on August 3, 2007. It would be evident from the receipts issued to the writ petitioners in acknowledgment of the aforesaid payments bearing nos. But the delivery of the vehicles would made within three months. Thereafter, both the writ petitioners deposited Rs.520/- each in the office of the respondent no.2 on August 3, 2007. It would be evident from the receipts issued to the writ petitioners in acknowledgment of the aforesaid payments bearing nos. 0660540 dated August 3, 2007 and 0660538 dated August 3, 2007 respectively that the petitioners were allowed to deposit above fees by an order dated August 2, 2007 passed by the Regional Transport Officer, Howrah (Annexure P-4 at page 31 respectively in both the writ applications.). Both the petitioners submitted further representations dated August 13, 2007 to the respondent no.4 praying for extension of period of validity of the offer letters under reference for further three months on the ground of delay in delivering new suitable vehicles to them by the manufacturer. Thereafter, both the writ petitioners received delivery of Bus Chassis bearing No. LP 712EX/BS-III cylinders from Tata Motors and both of them submitted their respective Registration Nos. WB-11B/0336(BS-III) and WB-11B/0351(BS-III) against their offer letters bearing memo nos. 1797/MV and 1792/MV respectively both the dated June 14, 2007 on Route no.17(Mini Bus) from Balgachia to Salt Lake. But the respondent authorities sat tight over the matter of issuing permits to the writ petitioners to enable them to ply their aforesaid respective vehicles (Mini Bus) on Route No.17 from Balgachia to Salt Lake. (5) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the reasons for inaction on the part of the respondent authorities in issuing the Stage Carriage Permit under reference were not disclosed to the respective petitioners at the material point of time. But a ground was taken in the affidavit-inopposition filed on behalf of the respondent authorities that the applications for extension of time under reference were not accompanied by fees in terms of Schedule "A" to the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that though the aforesaid fees were not paid by the respective petitioners at this time of submitting their applications for extension of time, requisite fees were deposited subsequent in terms of Schedule "A" to the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989(hereinafter referred to as the said Rules 1989) on August 3, 2007. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that though the aforesaid fees were not paid by the respective petitioners at this time of submitting their applications for extension of time, requisite fees were deposited subsequent in terms of Schedule "A" to the West Bengal Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989(hereinafter referred to as the said Rules 1989) on August 3, 2007. It is further submitted that it would be evident from the receipts bearing no.E 660540 and E 0660538 dated August 3, 2007 that time of the offer letters had been extended by the order of the Regional Transport Officer, Howrah dated August 2, 2007. Therefore, according to the petitioners, there was promise/assurance on the part of the respondent authority to issue Stage Carriage Permits under reference to the petitioners on compliance of the conditions which had been mentioned in the respective offer letters dated June 14, 2007. Production of new vehicles as per specifications mentioned therein within the extended period was one of the above conditions. Drawing the attention of this court towards the provisions of Rule 141 of the said Rules 1989, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that such extension was for six months from the date of issuing offer letters. Drawing the attention of this court towards the representations dated November 13, 2007 and December 11, 2007, it is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that all the documents mentioned in the concerned offer letters dated June 14, 2007 were months from the date of issuing the offer letters dated June 14, 2007. (6) It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the provisions of Section 211 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act, 1988) empowers the Central Government or the State Government, as the case may be, to make Rules under the said Act, 1988 for levy of such fees in respect of applications, amendment of documents, issue of certificates, licences, permits, test, endorsements, counter signatures, authorisations, supply of statistics or copies of documents or orders and for any other purpose or matter involving the rendering of any service by the officers or authorities under the above act or any rule made thereunder as may be considered necessary. (7) It is submitted that the said Rules 1989 were enacted by the Government of West Bengal in exercise of powers conferred under Section 211 of the said Act, 1988. Proviso 2 Rule 141 of the said Rules 1989, provides that the concerned Transport Authority granting the permit might for reasons to be recorded in writing relax the condition as to possession of the vehicle by ownership for such period as it might consider reasonable but in any case not beyond six months from the date on which the permit was granted. The aforesaid Rule did not prescribe filing of an application for extension of time for relaxation of the above condition together with prescribed fees. The attention of this court is drawn to Schedule "A" to show that the above schedule prescribed amount of fees to be realised by the Transport Authorities under the said Rules, 1989. (8) Drawing the attention of this court towards notification no.4026-WT/6-13/2005 dated October 5, 2005, it is submitted purportedly issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 211 of the said Act, 1988. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that by virtue of the above notification, as sum of Rs.500/-was payable for extension of validity of an offer letter for Stage Carriage Permit or Contract Carriage Permit. By virtue of such notification the list shown in Schedule "A" to the said Rules, 1989 was amended by inserting a new entry under the heading " Application" for extension of validity of an offer letter for Stage Carriage or Contract Carriage Permit. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that since the said Rules 1989 was amended in exercise of powers conferred upon the State Government under the provisions of Section 211 of of validity of an offer letter for Stage Carriage or Contract Carriage permit. According to the petitioners since nothing was provided in Rule 141 for imposing the fees for extension of validity of an offer letter for Stage Carriage or Contract Carriage Permit, the procedural law as prescribed in Schedule "A" to the said Rules, 1989 could not be amended independently for imposing the fees under reference. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that imposition of application fee was non-est in the eye of law. It is further submitted on behalf of the petitioners that imposition of application fee was non-est in the eye of law. Therefore, no one was under obligation to pay fees to submit application for extension of validity of an offer letter for Stage Carriage or Contract Carriage Permit. (9) Relying upon the aforesaid facts, it is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that on the basis of promise/assurance held by the respondent authorities in the matter, the writ petitioners altered their positions to their prejudice, i.e. by investing a sizeable amount of money in purchasing vehicles under reference, getting those vehicles registered with the respondent no.2 on payment of registration fees and insurance fees as also other investments. According to the petitioners the doctrine of promissory estoppel stands in the way of refusal to issue Stage Carriage Permits under reference to the writ petitioners. (10) The other limb of submission on behalf of the petitioners is this assuming that the provisions of Rule 141 of the said Rules, 1989 empowers the State of West Bengal to impose fees for making an application for extension validity of an offer letter for Stage Carriage or Contract Carriage Permit. Neither the provisions of Rule 141 of the said Rule, 1989 nor the new entry (application) prescribed that such application should be accompanied by the prescribed fees of Rs.500/-. In other wards the above provisions did not stand in any way in making payment of fees for extension of validity of such an offer letter subsequent to filing application for extension of the validity of such an offer letter. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in the instant case the fees for extension of the validity of offer letters under reference were paid subsequent to the filing of applications on the basis of the orders dated August 2, 2007 from Regional Transport Authority being the competent officer in accordance with the provisions of Sub-rule(j) of Rule 2 of the of the said Rules, 1989. (11) SCC 156, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that when the statute indicated that the action be taken in a particular manner it must be done in that manner and in no other way. Reliance is also placed on the decision of J.N. Ganatra Vs. Morvi Municipality reported in (1996) 9 SCC 495 in support of the above submission. Reliance is also placed on the decision of J.N. Ganatra Vs. Morvi Municipality reported in (1996) 9 SCC 495 in support of the above submission. Relying upon the decision of Saiyad Mohammad Bakar EL-Edroos Vs. Abdulhabib Hasan Arab and Ors. reported in (1998) 4 SCC 343 , it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a procedural law is always in aid of justice, not in contradiction or to defeat the very object which is sought to be achieved. Relying upon the decision of State of Nagaland Vs. Lipok Ao and Ors. reported in (2005) 3 SCC 752 , it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that when substantial justice and technical approach are pitted against each other the former has to be preferred. Relying upon the decision of Madras Port Trust Vs. Hymanshu International reported in AIR 1979 SC 1144 , it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that it is the settled principles of law that when the Government or public authority takes up a technical plea, the court has to decide and if the plea is well founded, it has to be upheld by the court, but such a plea should not ordinarily be taken up by a Government or a public authority, unless of course, the claim is not well-founded and by reason of delay in filing it, the evidence for the purpose of registering such a claim has become unavailable. Reliance is placed on the decision of S. D. G. Pandarasannidi vs. State of Madras reported in AIR 1965 SC 1578 to submit that by way of issuing the notification dated October 5, 2005 the substantial right of the petitioner to deposit application fee for extension of validity of the offer letter should not be taken away. Relying upon an unreported decision of a Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Smriti Ranjan Bose Vs. State of West Bengal ( in re. Relying upon an unreported decision of a Single Bench of this Court in the matter of Smriti Ranjan Bose Vs. State of West Bengal ( in re. W.P. No.16612(W) of 2003), it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that while interpreting the provisions of Rule 141 of the said Rules, 1989 it has already been decide by a Single Bench of this court that if any application for extension of time to produce vehicle is filed before expiry of 30 days, if such application is even dismissed after the expiry of 30 days, the respondent authority should permit the applicant to comply with the terms mentioned in the offer letter within the period of 30 days after communication of such order of dismissal. Reliance is further placed on the decision of Rahul on behalf of the petitioners that in case of rejection of his application for extension of the period of offer letter, a period of 30 days as provided in Rule 141 of the said Rules 1989 should have been given to the petitioner but in this case the offer letter has not lost its force. (12) On the other hand it is submitted on behalf of the State respondent that on the basis of applications dated May 10, 2005, the respondent no.2 took a resolution dated May 22, 2007 granting permits under reference to the petitioners subject to fulfilment of the conditions stipulated in the offer letters dated June 14, 2007. Thereafter, the offer letters stood lapse in accordance with the provisions of Rule 141 of the said Rules, 1989 due to non-production of the vehicle within 30 days as also due non-filing of an application for extension of the validity of offer letters together with the application fees as provided in Schedule "A" to the said Rules, 1989. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondents that by virtue of the notification no.4026-WT/613/2005 dated October 5, 2005 the Schedule "A" to the said Rules 1989 had been amended in exercise of powers conferred under Section 211 of the said Act, 1988. This Schedule prescribed for payment of Rs.500/- at the time of filing of application for extension of the validity period of offer letter. According to the respondents neither the above provision was under challenge nor the above provision was complies with. This Schedule prescribed for payment of Rs.500/- at the time of filing of application for extension of the validity period of offer letter. According to the respondents neither the above provision was under challenge nor the above provision was complies with. Therefore, the writ petitioner did not deserve granting of any relief in this writ application. (13) Having heard the Learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and after taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case I find that admittedly offer letters dated June 14, 2007 were issued in favour of the writ petitioners granting Stage Carriage Permits (Mini Bus) on Route No.17 subject to fulfilment of the conditions prescribed in the offer letters. It is also not in dispute that none of the petitioners was in a position to produce the vehicle as per specifications mentioned in the aforesaid offer letters within the period mentioned in their respective offer letters due situation beyond their control. It is needless to point out that the period of validity of the offer letters was fixed for 30 days in accordance with the provisions of Rule 141 of the said Rules, 1989. Admittedly, both the petitioners submitted their application dated July 13, 2007 i.e. within 30 days from the date of issuing an offer letters under reference accompanied by the application fees prescribed in Schedule "A" to the said Rules, 1989. But the petitioners were allowed to deposit such applications fees on August 3, 2007 in the office of the respondent no.2 by an order dated August 2, 2007 passed by the Regional Transport Officer, Howrah. It is an admitted position that both the petitioners produced the documents mentioned in their offer letters before the respondent no.4 including the documents relating to their ownership of vehicles on December 11, 2007, i.e. within six months from the date issuing offer letters to them. It is evident from the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed on behalf of the respondents that the cause non-issuance of Stage Carriage Permits in favour of the petitioners non-production of the documents in respect of proper vehicles before them within 30 days from the date of issue of offer letter as also non-submission of applications for extension of the validity period of their respective offer letters in accordance with the provisions of Rule 141 read with Schedule "A" to the said Rules, 1989. (14) The first question which falls for consideration of this court is the interpretation of the amended provisions of Schedule A to the said Rules 1989 relating to the payment of fee for submitting an application for extension of the validity period of an offer letter and the time when such fees could be paid. In doing so the provisions of Section 211 of the said Act, 1988 are quoted below: "211. Power to levy fee-Any rule which the Central Government or the State Government is empowered to make under this Act may, notwithstanding theabsence of any express provisions to that effect, provide for the levy of such fees in respect of applications, amendment of documents, issue of certificates, licences,permits, tests, endorsements, badges, plates, counter-signatures, authorisation, supply of statistics or copies of documents or orders and for any other purpose or mater involving the rendering of any service by the officers or authorities underthis Act or any rule made thereunder as may be considered necessary: Provided that the Government may, if it considers necessary so to do, in thepublic interest, by general or Special order, exempt any class of persons from the payment of any such fee either in part or in full." (15) The above provision empowered the Central Government or State Government, as the case may be notwithstanding the absence of any expressed provision to that effect, amongst others, to make Rules for levy of such fees in respect of applications. The said Rule 1989 was made by the prescribed for extension of the period of an offer letter for a period of six months. For proper adjudication of the issue involved in this case the provisions of Rule 141 of the said Rules, 1989 are quoted below: "141. The said Rule 1989 was made by the prescribed for extension of the period of an offer letter for a period of six months. For proper adjudication of the issue involved in this case the provisions of Rule 141 of the said Rules, 1989 are quoted below: "141. Every permit must contain the Registration Marks(s) of the vehicles(s) which shall ply by virtue of the permit granted and during the periodprescribed by the Transport Authority granting the permit in the Offer Letter which shall not normally exceed one month from the date on which the Offer Letter is issued, the grantee must produce the documents in respect of thevehicle(s) showing that he is in possession of the vehicles(s) as owner thereof andthat the change of address of vehicles(s) concerned has been effected within thisState, if previously registered outside this State and that the vehicles(s) is/are not covered by any kind of permit(s): Provided that the Transport Authority granting the permit may allow time up to a limit of four months in respect of a grantee under the Additional Employment Programme or an Ex-Serviceman: Provided further that the Transport Authority granting the permit may for reasons to be recorded in writing relax the condition as to possession byownership for such period as it might consider reasonable but in any case notbeyond six months from the date on which the permit is granted. In such contingency, also, the condition as regards transfer or change of address shall notbe relaxable." Schedule "A" to the said Rules prescribes for the rates of fees to be paid in accordance with various provisions of the said Rules 1989. It is an admitted position that Schedule "A" was amended by the notification No.4026/W.P./6M-13/2005 dated October 5, 2005 inserting an entry, amongst others, prescribing payment of fees to apply for extension of the period of validity of an offer letter. (16) On a bare reading of the above notification it appears that the above amendment was done in accordance with the power conferred by Section 211 of the said Act, 1988 amongst others. Therefore, Rule 141 of the said Rules 1989 provided for making an application for extension of the period of validity of an offer letter and Schedule "A" to the said Rules, 1989, provided for payment of fees as contended therein for making such application. Therefore, Rule 141 of the said Rules 1989 provided for making an application for extension of the period of validity of an offer letter and Schedule "A" to the said Rules, 1989, provided for payment of fees as contended therein for making such application. Since the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 211 of the said Act, 1988 is not under challenge in the present case, this court can put an end to the above discussion by observing only that the provisions of Section 211 of the said Act, 1988 gave adequate and sufficient power to the Central Government or State Government as the case might be, which letter. (17) The above conclusion brings this court to the question of power to enact procedural law without authorisation by substantial law. This court finds that the Central Government or the State Government as the case might be, was the repository of above ancillary and subordinate powers for carrying out the legislative policy laid down by the said Act, 1988, which included the power to determine the rate of fee for filing application for extension of validity period of offer letter to issue Stage Carriage Permit. In this case, such ancillary and subordinate power of fixing the fee for filing the application for extension of validity period of aforesaid offer letter was exercised by the repository of the power, namely the Government of West Bengal. Therefore, whether that relevant entry in Schedule "A" was inserted by the Government of West Bengal without any substantive provision in the Rules is not necessary to be examined. Be that as it may, in the instant case admittedly the fees for filling the application for extension of validity periods of the offer letters under reference were duly paid, though subsequent to filling of the applications but on the strength of orders passed by the Regional Transport Officer. (18) Therefore, provision for payment of fees to make an application for extension of the period of offer letter was well within the competence of the State Government. Therefore, Schedule A to the said Rules 1989 was valid in the eye of law though it is procedural law which is supplementary to the substantial law as prescribed in Rule 141 enabling an applicant of a Stage Carriage Permit to pray for extension within the period of offer letter such fees was prescribed to be paid towards application fees. Therefore, Schedule A to the said Rules 1989 was valid in the eye of law though it is procedural law which is supplementary to the substantial law as prescribed in Rule 141 enabling an applicant of a Stage Carriage Permit to pray for extension within the period of offer letter such fees was prescribed to be paid towards application fees. Therefore, such fee was payable at the time of applying for extension of period of validity. In its ordinary interpretation the same should ordinarily to be paid at the time of filing such application. (19) But this court cannot ignore the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case. Though such fees were not paid by the petitioners at the time of making applications for extension of the period of offer letters, the same were paid subsequently by virtue of the orders dated August 2, (j) of the Rule 2 of the Said Rule 1989 are quoted below: "(j) Regional Transport Officer" means an officer whom the State Government may appoint for any district to perform the function and to discharge the duties ofa Regional Transport officer under the provisions of the Act and these rules:" In view of the above provisions the Regional Transport Officer, Howrah was the competent authority to discharge the duties of Regional Transport Officer, Howrah under the provisions of the said Act 1989 as also the said Rules 1989. Therefore, the petitioners deposited the prescribed fees for filing application for extension of the validity of the offers letters subsequent to the filing to their applications by the orders passed by the competent authority. In order to give harmonious construction to different provisions of the said Rules, 1989, on the basis of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the cases, I find that the provisions of the Rule 141 read with the provisions of Schedule A to the said Rules, 1989 were complied with in the eye of law. (20) I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners that once the applications had been filed for extension of the period of validity of the offer letters by the petitioners in accordance with law, a duty was cast upon the respondent authority to consider the same. Further, in view of the settled principles of law as decided in the matter of Smriti Ranjan Bose Vs. Further, in view of the settled principles of law as decided in the matter of Smriti Ranjan Bose Vs. State of West Bengal(supra), the documents filed by the petitioners in terms of the offer letters within six months from the date of issuing the offer letters in terms thereof and in view of the fact that their applications for extension of the period of validity of offer letters remaining undisposed, issuing of permits under reference should have been expected as a matter of course taking in consideration the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. And in the event the applications of the writ petitioners are rejected any other reason the petitioners must get further 30 days time for complying with such directions as may be given by the respondent authority. (21) Another aspect of the matter cannot be ignored that admittedly the offer letters dated June 14, 2007 were issued to the petitioners granting Stage Carriage Permits on Route No.17 in their favour. As discussed herein above, the petitioners filed applications for extension of the validity period of the offer letters within the prescribed period. As discussed hereinabove the prescribed fees for making such applications were also paid in accordance with law. But the respondent authority remained silent till the investment of sizeable amounts of money by the writ petitioners for purchasing the vehicles apart from incurring consequential expenses to ply the same on the route for which the Stage Carriage Permits had been granted. The silence on the part of the respondent authority either to issue the stage carriage permits to the petitioners on the route under reference or to reject the applications of the petitioners for granting the same leads this court to draw a presumption in favour of announcing a promises or announcement at the instance of the respondent authority to issue Stage Carriage permits under reference on fulfilment of the prescribed conditions by the petitioners for issuing such permits. From the facts and circumstances of this case as discussed hereinabove, the petitioners altered their positions to their detriment on the basis of the assurance held by the respondent authority. As a result, the doctrine of promissory estoppel comes into operation in this case. At the cause of repetition it is noteworthy that there was no violation of any statutory provision by any of the petitioners as discussed hereinabove. As a result, the doctrine of promissory estoppel comes into operation in this case. At the cause of repetition it is noteworthy that there was no violation of any statutory provision by any of the petitioners as discussed hereinabove. In this regard it may be sufficient to observe that in the matter of Central London Property Trust Ltd. Vs. High Trees House Ltd. reported in (1947)1 KB 130 Lord Denning observed as follows: "But what is the position in view of developments in the law in recent years?The law has not been standing still since Jorden v. Money(I). There has been a series of decisions over the last fifty years which, although they are said to becases of estoppel are not really such. They are cases in which a promise was madewhich was intended to create legal relations and which, to the knowledge of theperson making the promise, was going to be acted on by the person to whom it was made, and which was in fact so acted on. In such cases the courts have said that the promise must be honoured." (22) The principle of recognising promissory estoppel as a legitimate defence in equity was built upon in the matter of Century Spinning Mills and Manufacturing Company Ltd., Vs. Ulhasnagar Municipal Council and Anr., reported in (1970) 1 SCC 582 The relevant portion of the above decision are quoted below: "Public of bodies are as much bound as private individuals to carry outrepresentations of facts and promises made by them, relying on which other persons have altered their position to their prejudice. The obligation arising against and individual out of his representation amounting to a promise may be enforced ex contractu by a person who acts upon the promise: when the law requires that a contract enforceable at law against a public body shall be incertain form or be executed in the manner prescribed by statute, the obligation may be enforced against it in appropriate cases in equity". 21. In view of the above discussions and observations a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent authority to issue Stage Carriage Permits (Mini Bus) to the petitioners on route No.17 from Balgachia to Salt Lake within 30 days from the date of communication of this order provided the petitioners have complied with other terms of the offer letter. 21. In view of the above discussions and observations a writ of mandamus is issued commanding the respondent authority to issue Stage Carriage Permits (Mini Bus) to the petitioners on route No.17 from Balgachia to Salt Lake within 30 days from the date of communication of this order provided the petitioners have complied with other terms of the offer letter. I make it clear that the delay in paying the fees for making applications for extension of validity period of the offer letters under reference as alleged by the respondents will not stand in the way of getting permits under reference. 22. These writ applications are accordingly disposed of. (23) There will be, however, no order as costs. (24) Urgent xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties, as expeditiously as possible, upon compliance with the necessary formalities in this regard.