Judgment : The petitioner is a partnership firm registered under the provisions of the Partnership Act, 1932. It made an application dated 4-10-2002 to the then Chief Executive Officer of the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Bangalore (for short, ‘KIADB’) for allotment of 50 acres of land for its housing project in the Industrial area formed by the KIADB in a area of 241 acres of land at Mammigatti and Narendra Villages of Dharwad Taluk, Dharwad District. It made another application dated 18-11-2002 seeking allotment of 17 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 76 of Belavadi Village, Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District for similar purpose. 2. The KIADB in its meeting held on 17-6-2003 decided to allot 50 acres of land at Mammigatti and Narendra Villages of Dharwad Taluk in favour of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs per acre subject to obtaining necessary clearances from Hubli-Dharwad Urban Development Authority (HDUDA) and other Competent Authorities for its proposed project. In the said meeting, it was also decided to allot 17 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 76 of Belavadi Village, Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District in favour of the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. The petitioner has produced copies of the agenda notes and the resolution of the KIADB dated 17-6-2003 as per Annexures-A and B respectively. The 2nd respondent issued a letter of allotment dated 15-7-2003 communicating to the petitioner the decision taken by the KIADB in respect of allotment of land at Mammigatti and Narendra Villages and the terms and conditions of allotment such as cost of the land, time schedule for implementing the project, mode of allotment i.e., lease-cum-sale, obtaining necessary clearance from the local authorities etc. The petitioner has produced a copy of the allotment letter at Annexure-C.3. As per Clause 3(iii), the petitioner was required to remit a sum of Rs.250 lakhs towards cost of the land at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs per acre within 180 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. If the payment was not made within the stipulated period of 180 days, interest at the rate of 15.5% would be levied on the amount due. By another letter dated 18-9-2003 issued from the office of the 2nd respondent to the petitioner, the details of the land allotted in terms of survey numbers were furnished. If the payment was not made within the stipulated period of 180 days, interest at the rate of 15.5% would be levied on the amount due. By another letter dated 18-9-2003 issued from the office of the 2nd respondent to the petitioner, the details of the land allotted in terms of survey numbers were furnished. In terms of the compliance of one of the terms prescribed by the KIADB, the petitioner filed an application with the required fee before the HDUDA seeking approval of the layout proposed to be developed by it. It is the case of the petitioner that the Joint Director. Town Planning Authority, Dharwad, by his letter dated 8-1-2004 accorded his approval for the layout for being developed in an area of 11.38 acres. However, the Joint Director, Town Planning Authority, Dharwad, by a subsequent letter dated 23-1-2004 cancelled the approval granted earlier on the ground that the lands in question did not come within its jurisdiction keeping an option open to the petitioner to approach the jurisdictional village panchayat for necessary approval. The petitioner further contends that it received a reminder dated 5-5-2005 from the Zonal office of the KIADB, Dharwad, for payment of the land cost together with interest. At that point of time, the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (for short, ‘the KPTCL) had intended to put up 4 high tension lines in the area allotted to it and thereby the allotment made to the petitioner would be reduced to 25-30 acres. In this regard, the petitioner by a letter dated 30-6-2005 addressed to the Assistant Secretary, KIADB, Zonal Office, Dharwad, while narrating the said facts requested him to make arrangements to measure the actual land available after deducting the land required for the power transmission project, if any and make good of the allotment of land so lost in the same area. The petitioner has produced a copy of the letter sent by it as per Annexures-F and G. It is further contended that due to the problems faced in getting the clear picture of the location of the land, the petitioner could not proceed to get the layout plan approved by the jurisdictional village panchayat and get the applications processed for the sanction of loan by the petitioner’s bankers which insisted for submission of approved plane from Competent Authority. It is the case of the petitioner that the respondents without taking any action on the request made by the petitioner vide letter dated 30-6-2005, without informing the petitioner have proceeded to allot about 28 acres of lands in favour of the KPTCL out of which lands, some of the survey numbers are overlapping with the lands allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner sent a letter dated 12-1-2007 addressed to the 3rd respondent requesting him to get the land measured afresh and furnish a sketch indicating the details of the land available so as to enable it to get the layout finalized and obtain necessary financial assistance form his bankers for being paid towards the cost of the land. A copy of the said letter is produced at Annexure-K. The petitioner has not received any replies from the office of the KIADB with regard to his request for measurement of land, availability of land and furnishing of sketch indicating available lands. It is further contended that to the shock of the petitioner and without any prior notice by a letter dated 5-3-2007, respondent 2 has informed the petitioner that the allotment made to the petitioner stood cancelled on expiry of 6 months from 15-7-2003, forfeiting the EMD of Rs.10,000/-. The petitioner has produced a copy of the letter at Annexure-L. Therefore, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief. “(a) Issue a writ/order/direction in the nature of a writ of certiorari quashing the order bearing No.IADB/14573/5127/06-07, dated 5-3-2007 passed by the respondent 2 against the petitioner vide Annexure-L to this writ petition. (b) any other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity”. 4. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed their statement of objections. It is contended that an extent of 241 acres of land in Mammigatti and Narendra Villages of Dharwad Taluk adjoining NH 4 was acquired for forming a housing layout for the benefit of industries coming up at Dharwad Growth Centre. There were several requests for allotment of land in this area. The petitioner had also made a request for allotment of land stating that he was willing to take up a housing project. A request made by the petitioner was considered by the Board in its meeting held on 17-6-2003. There were several requests for allotment of land in this area. The petitioner had also made a request for allotment of land stating that he was willing to take up a housing project. A request made by the petitioner was considered by the Board in its meeting held on 17-6-2003. It was decided to allot 50 acres of land located next to Kayakanagara at Narendra and Mammigatti Villages of Dharwad taluk to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs per acre subject to condition that they should obtain necessary clearance for their project from HDUDA and other authorities. The Board also took a decision to allot 17.20 acres of land in Sy. No. 86 of Belvadi Village, Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District, in favour of the petitioner at negotiated rate of Rs.80,000/- per acre. Pursuant to the Board Meeting dated 17-6-2003, the petitioner was issued with an allotment letter dated 15-7-2003 as per Annexure-accordingly. The allotment letter contains terms and conditions of allotment Amongst others, allotment was on lease-cum-sale basis for a period of 6 years or till formation of housing layout whichever is earlier. The price of the land was fixed at Rs.5 lakhs per acre. The petitioner was required to remit a sum of Rs.250 lakhs within 180 days from the date of letter of allotment to the office of the 3rd respondent. The petitioner was further required to pay the lease rent at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per acre per annum with liability to pay interest on over due amount. The amount of Rs.250 lakhs towards the land cost was payable within 180 days from the date of the letter and could be extended by a 6 months beyond stipulated 180 days subject to payment of interest at 15.5% on the amount due solely at the discretion of the Board. The possession of land was to be handed over only after receiving the full payment,. It is further provided that failure to fulfill any of these standard terms and conditions and to take possession of land within 30 days from the date of receipt of the letter would result in cancellation of allotment and forfeiture of EMD. This letter dated 15-7-2003 was received by petitioner and he accepted the allotment and conditions in the said letter. Even nearly four years of acceptance of allotment, the petitioner has not made payment of any amount towards the land cost. This letter dated 15-7-2003 was received by petitioner and he accepted the allotment and conditions in the said letter. Even nearly four years of acceptance of allotment, the petitioner has not made payment of any amount towards the land cost. The petitioner did not evince interest in complying with the terms of allotment. The petitioner made a request for furnishing the sketch of the land allotted to him on 25-7-2003 and 2-8-2003. In order to enable it to implement the project, the Board promptly arranged to give the sketch and other particulars as required by it on 18-9-2003. The respondents 2 and 3 have produced copy of the said letter at Annexure-R1. The petitioner did not pay the amount even thereafter. After waiting for a long period of nearly 2 years, on 5-5-2005, the Assistant Secretary wrote a letter to the petitioner for payment of land cost as per Annexure-F. But, without paying the allotment price the petitioner wrote one more letter dated 30-6-2005 putting forth false excuses. The petitioner was earlier issued with reminders dated 28-10-2003 and 21-5-2004, the reference to which is found in Annexure-F. Even though petitioner was informed to pay the amount it did not pay any amount pursuant to the allotment. For its failure to pay the amount within the period allowed under Annexure-C, the offer of allotment stood cancelled and EMD was forfeited. There was a consistent default and neglect on the part of the petitioner to utilise the land allotted to him and as there was heavy demand seeking allotment, the respondents have taken a decision to inform the petitioner that on his failure to comply with the terms of allotment letter, the allotment stood cancelled on 15-1-2004 itself and it has also been informed about forfeiture of the amount. 5. The respondents 2 and 3 have filed additional statement of objections on 13-11-2007 contending that during the pendency of the writ petition, the Board has taken a policy decision relating to allotment of lands to private developers in Narendra and Mammigatti housing area at Dharwad. An extent of 241.52 acres of land was acquired in Narendra and Mammigatti villages of Dharwad Taluk for formation of housing layout for the benefit of industries coming up at Dharwad Growth Centre. An extent of 241.52 acres of land was acquired in Narendra and Mammigatti villages of Dharwad Taluk for formation of housing layout for the benefit of industries coming up at Dharwad Growth Centre. An extent of 130.10 acres of land has been allotted in favour of six units including an extent of 4.13 acres used by the National Highway Authorities of India. Thus, an extent of 11.42 acres is only left with the Board. Several persons have come up with requests for allotment of land for housing projects proposed by them. The issue of allotment was discussed in the meeting taking note of rapid industrialisation and establishment of important industries in the area. The Board took note of the setting up of manufacturing plants at Dharwad by M/s. Tata Motors, where almost 20,000 people would be employed. In view of the rapid industrial growth it was felt that the companies already allotted land may need housing sites to accommodate their employees. Since the industrial area in developed by the Board itself, it was resolved that a housing layout in the entire available extent of land at Narendra and Mammigatti Villages at Dharwad taluk he developed by the Board itself, so as to cater to the specific requirement of industrial workers in the area. A copy of the resolution dated 6-9-2007 is produced as Annezxure-R2. It is contended that the Board is not in a position to consider the request of private persons or agencies for allotment of lands in Mammigatti and Narendra Housing Area, Dharwad. The entire extent of available land i.e., 11.42 acres will be developed by KIADB itself as decided vide Annexure-R2. 6. The petitioner filed I.A. No. I on 5-6-2007 to implead the Managing Director, KPTCL, Cauvery Bhavan, Bangalore, and the Executive Engineer (Electrical), Major Works Division, KPTCL, Vidyuthnagar, Karwar Road, Hubli, as respondents 4 and 5. The said applications were allowed on 15-6-2007. On 19-7-2007, the interim order granted earlier was modified. Out of 50 acres of land allotted in favour of the petitioner, an extent of 10 acres of land was allotted in favour of respondents 4 and 5 for maintaining space corridor 220 KV transmit power. The respondents 4 and 5 were permitted to carry out their maintenance of space of 220 KV in the said land. 7. Out of 50 acres of land allotted in favour of the petitioner, an extent of 10 acres of land was allotted in favour of respondents 4 and 5 for maintaining space corridor 220 KV transmit power. The respondents 4 and 5 were permitted to carry out their maintenance of space of 220 KV in the said land. 7. I have heard Sri Yoganarasimha, learned Senior Counsel along with Sri B.D. Hegde, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.N. Nanjundareddy, learned Counsel along with Sri C.V. Angadi and Sri P.V. Chandrashekhar, learned Counsel for respondents 2 and 3 and Sri B.S. Kamate, learned Counsel for respondents 4 and 5 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent 1. 8. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner would contend that a resolution was passed by the Board as per Annexure-E, dated 17-6-2003 resolving to allot 50 acres of land located next to Kayakanagar at Mammigatti and Narendra, Villages of Dharwad Taluk in favour of the petitioner at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs per acre. Similarly, the Board has resolved to allot 17 acres 20 guntas of land in Sy. No. 76 of Belavadi Village, Bailhongal Taluk, Belgaum District, in favour of the petitioner at the negotiated rate of Rs. 80,000/- per acre. An allotment letter was issued as per Annexure-C, dated 15-7-2003 allotting 50 acres of land at Narendra and Mammigatti Villages of Dharwad Taluk in terms of the resolution at Annexure-B, dated 17-6-2003 subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner was required to remit a sum of Rs. 250 lakhs towards costs of land at the rate of Rs. 45 lakhs per acre within 180 days from the date of issuance of the allotment letter. If the payment was not made within the stipulated period of 180 days, interest at the rate of 15.5.% would be levied on the amount due. There is no whisper about the cancellation or withdrawal of the allotment in the allotment letter issued by the 2nd respondent for non-payment of land cost within the stipulated period. The allotment as per Annexure-C is in the nature of concluded contract between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner received the letter from the 2nd respondent on 18-5-2005 from the Judicial Office of the KIADB for payment of land cost together with interest. The allotment as per Annexure-C is in the nature of concluded contract between the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3. The petitioner received the letter from the 2nd respondent on 18-5-2005 from the Judicial Office of the KIADB for payment of land cost together with interest. At that point of time, the KPTCL had intended to put up 4 high tension lines in the area allotted to and thereby the allotment made to the petitioner would be reduced to 25 to 30 acres. Therefore, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 30-6-2005 to the KIADB narrating the said facts and requested it to make arrangement to measure the actual land available after deducting the land required for the Power Transmission Project and make good of the allotment of land so lost in the same area. Without taking any action on the request made by the petitioner, the respondents have proceeded to allot about 28 acres of land in favour of the KPTCL out of which lands some of the survey numbers are overlapping with the lands allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner sent a letter on 12-1-2007 to the 3rd respondent requesting it to get the land measured afresh and furnish a sketch indicating the details of the land available so as to get the layout finalized and obtain necessary financial assistance from its bankers for being paid towards the cost of the land. When the matter stood thus, the 2nd respondent has issued a letter at Annexure-L, dated 5-3-2007 stating that the offer of allotment made to the petitioner stood cancelled on the expiry of 6 months from 15-7-2003 and EMD of Rs. 10,000/- paid by it stands forfeited. It is further contended that the order at Annexure-L is arbitrary, illegal and violative of principles of natural justice. During the subsistence of the allotment order made to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent ought not to have allotted a portion of the land in favour of the third party. In response to the terms and conditions of the allotment, the petitioner has taken step to approach the HDUDA for necessary approval which was one of the major terms and conditions of the allotment. He prays for quashing of the order/notice at Annexure-L. 9. In response to the terms and conditions of the allotment, the petitioner has taken step to approach the HDUDA for necessary approval which was one of the major terms and conditions of the allotment. He prays for quashing of the order/notice at Annexure-L. 9. On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents 2 and 3 submitted that the allotment of the land as per Annexure-C, dated 15-7-2003 was subject to certain terms and conditions mentioned therein. The petitioner has not performed its obligations as per the allotment letter. Except payment of caution money of Rs. 10,000/-, it has not deposited Rs. 250 lakhs within 180 days from the date of the said allotment letter Condition No. 7 at the allotment letter provides for extension of time for payment of land cost upto six months during the stipulated period of 180 days subject to payment of interest at 15.5% interest on the amount due solely at the discretion of the Board. The petitioner has not paid the amount even according to the said clause. Therefore, the respondents 2 and 3 have cancelled the allotment. It is argued that the dispute between the parties arises out of a contractual obligations. The petitioners have not contended the violation of any breach of statutory duty by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. Therefore, the petitioners cannot maintain the writ petition. The matter involves factual adjudication. Therefore, they have to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. 10. In the light of the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and respondents 2 and 3, the questions for consideration in this writ petition are as under: “1. Whether the writ lies to enforce a right which is founded on a contract? 2. Whether the petitioners have made out a case for enforcement of the letter of allotment at Annexure-C and quashing of the intimation at Annexure-L, dated 5-3-2007?” 11. As noticed above, the petitioner was allotted 150 acres of land as per the allotment at Annexure-C, dated 15-7-2003 subject to several conditions contained therein. The relevant condition Nos. 2, 3 to 7 which are as under: “2. The price of the land is fixed by the Board at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs per acre. For the purpose of this allotment, your are requested to remit a sum of Rs. 250 lakhs (Rs. The relevant condition Nos. 2, 3 to 7 which are as under: “2. The price of the land is fixed by the Board at the rate of Rs.5 lakhs per acre. For the purpose of this allotment, your are requested to remit a sum of Rs. 250 lakhs (Rs. Two hundred and fifty lakhs only) within 180 days from the date of this letter to the office of the Development Officer, KIADB Zonal Office, Lakkammanahalli Industrial Area, Dharwad. 3. (i) You should pay a lease rent at the rate of Rs. 1,000/- per acre per annum, or part thereof or at such other rates as may be fixed by the Board from time to time. (ii) Interest at 15.5% per annum shall be levied in case the lease rents are not paid within one month from the date on which the lese rents fall due every year. (iii) You should pay the land cost, amounting to Rs. 250.00 lakhs, within 180 days from the date of this letter. If the payment is not made within the stipulated period of 180 days, 15.5% interest would be levied on the amount due. 4. Onyour acceptance of all the terms and conditions indicated herein before and also those mentioned hereinafter, the possession of land will be handed over within 30 days from the date of payment and at the time of taking over possession you should produce the original receipt issued for the payment made to the Engineer in charge of the area. 5. Ontaking possession of land, you shall adhere to the time schedule indicated in the standard conditions appended hereto. 6. Your failure to fulfill any of the standard terms and conditions and also to take over possession of and within 30 days from the date of receipt of this letter result in cancellation of allotment and forfeiture of EMD deposited shall stand forfeited. 7. Extension of time for payment of land cost upto six months beyo9nd the stipulated period of 180 days, can be considered by the Board, subject to payment of interest of 15.5% on the amount due solely at the discretion of the Board”. 12. It is clear from the aforesaid conditions that the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.250 lakhs within 180 days from the date of the letter. 12. It is clear from the aforesaid conditions that the petitioner was required to pay a sum of Rs.250 lakhs within 180 days from the date of the letter. Condition No. 7 provides for extension of time for payment of land cost upto 6 months beyond the stipulated period of 180 days subject to payment of interest at 15.5% on the amount due solely at the discretion of the Board. The case of the petitioner is that there is no whisper about the cancellation or withdrawal in the allotment letter for nonpayment of land cost within the stipulated time. The petitioner has pleaded that it could not pay the amount because of the non-performance its obligations by the 2nd and 3rd respondents. On the other hand, the case put forth by the 2nd and 3rd respondents is that the petitioner has failed to pay the amount within the period mentioned in the letter of allotment. Therefore, the offer of allotment stood cancelled on the expiry of 6 months from 15-7-2003. 13. I am of the view that the contract between the parties is in the realm of a private law. Any dispute relating to the interpretation of the terms and conditions of such a contract cannot be agitated in a writ petition. It is well-settled that the extraordinary jurisdiction of the Court is not a panacea for all the maladies which the litigant may suffer from. When the matter requires factual adjudication, the parties have to approach the Civil Court in order to settle the dispute. 14. In M/s. Radhakrishna Agarwal and Others v. State of Bihar and Others1, the Apex Court has held that where the contracts did not contain any statutory terms or obligations and no statutory power or obligation which could attract the application of Article 14 was involved, no writ or order could issue under Article 226 in such cases to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contracts pure and simple. It has been held thus: “It was the contract and not the executive power regulated by the Constitution, which governed the relations of the parties on the facts apparent in the instant cases. They involved questions of pure alleged breaches of contract. No writ or order could issue under Article 226 in such cases to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contracts pure and simple”. 15. They involved questions of pure alleged breaches of contract. No writ or order could issue under Article 226 in such cases to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contracts pure and simple”. 15. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v Escorts Limited and Others2, the Apex Court has held as under: “If the action of the State is related to contractual obligation or obligations arising out of the Court, the Court may not ordinarily examine it unless the action has some public law character attached to it. Broadly speaking, the Court will examine actions of State if they pertain to the public law domain and refrain from examining them if they pertain to the private law field. The difficulty will lie in demarcating the frontier between the public law domain and the private law field. It is impossible to draw the line with precision and it may not be attempted. The question must be decided in each case with reference to the particular action, the activity in which the State or the instrumentality of the State is engaged when performing the action, the public law or private law character of the action and a host of other relevant circumstances. When the State or an instrumentality of the State ventures into the corporate world and purchases the shares of a company, it assumes to itself the ordinary role of a shareholder, and dons the robes of a shareholder, with all the rights available to such a shareholder. There is no reason why the State as a shareholder should be expected to State its reasons when it seeks to change the management, by a resolution of the company, like any other shareholder”. 16. In Bareilly Development Authority and Another v Ajay Pal Singh and Others1, it has been held thus: “When the contract entered into by the State is non-statutory and purely contractual the relations are no longer governed by the constitutional provisions but by the legally valid contract which determines the rights and obligations of the parties inter se. In this sphere, the parties can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority in the said contractual field. In this sphere, the parties can only claim rights conferred upon them by the contract in the absence of any statutory obligations on the part of the authority in the said contractual field. It is also settled that no writ or order can be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India so as to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple”. 17. In Jagdish Mandal v State of Orissa and Others2, the Apex Court has held as under: “When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice state at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract in bona fide and is in pubic interest Courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tender is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes.” 18. In State of Karnataka and Others v. M. Revanna1, a Division Bench of this Court has held that while enforcing the terms and conditions of the contract, question of equity does not arise. It is further held that the learned Single Judge could not have entertained the writ petition for enforcing the terms of contract on humanitarian consideration. 19. It is thus clear that right which can be enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is either a fundamental right or a legal right. No writ lies to enforce a right which is founded purely on a contract unless it is shown that the action initiated is arbitrary in nature. When the rights are not purely contractual and are partly contractual and partly statutory, writ jurisdiction can be invoked. No writ order can be issued to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple. 20. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Delhi Development Authority, N.D. and Another v Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats and Others2, has no application to the facts of this case. No writ order can be issued to compel the authorities to remedy a breach of contract pure and simple. 20. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Delhi Development Authority, N.D. and Another v Joint Action Committee, Allottee of SFS Flats and Others2, has no application to the facts of this case. In the said case, the Court was considering a contract entered into by the Delhi Development Authority with an allottee which emanates from a statute. The Court has held that such contract can be judicially reviewed not only on the touchstone or Article 14 but also on touchstone of source of power under the statue. That in position in the present case. 21. I am of the view that the parties have to approach the Civil Court for appropriate relief. In view of the answer to the first question as above, it is unnecessary to answer the second point for consideration as the same has to be answered by the Civil Court on appreciation of the evidence of the parties, in case the parties file a civil suit. 22. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismiss. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the Competent Civil Court for appropriate relief in accordance with law. All the other contentions are kept open. 23. As the main matter is disposed of as above, Misc, Writ No. 60827 of 2010 does not survive for consideration and it is dismissed accordingly. No costs.