JUDGMENT :- 1. These writ petitions are filed against the notification issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, dated 29.4.2011 as challenged in W.P.No.13608 of 2011; the public notice issued by the fourth respondent in W.P.No.13607 of 2011 (Larsen and Toubro (L&T), Krishnagiri-Walajahpet Tollway Private Limited) pursuant to the notification of the Government of India dated 5.10.2010 as challenged in W.P.No.13607 of 2011; and again the notification issued by the Government of India dated 5.10.2010 as challenged in W.P.No.13091 of 2011. 2. As per the said notification and the public notice respectively, especially in respect of the notification dated 5.10.2010 challenged in W.P.No.13091 of 2011, and pursuant to an agreement entered by the National Highways Authority of India with M/s.Larsen and Toubro, Krishnagiri-Walajahpet Tollway Private Limited, Chennai – 600 089 for the development, operation and maintenance of the existing four lane section from Km 0.000 to Km 148.300 (Project Chainage) (Krishnagiri – Walajahpet Section) of the National Highway No.46 in the State of Tamil Nadu to six lane divided carriage-way on design, build, finance, operate and transfer basis, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 8A of the National Highways Act, 1956 (for brevity, "the Act") read with the National Highways Fee (Determination of Rates and Collection) Rules, 2008 (for brevity, "the Rules, 2008") and in supersession of the notifications of the Government of India, Ministry of Shipping, Road Transport and Highways dated 3.5.2005 and 1.2.2006, the Central Government has notified the revised levy and collection fees from the mechanical vehicles used in the said section and authorised the said contractor, viz., Larsen and Toubro (L&T), Krishnagiri-Walajahpet Tollway Private Limited, termed as Concessionaire to collect the amount notified from the date of commercial operation or publication of the said notification, whichever is later, till the termination and the said notification is challenged by the petitioner in W.P.No.13091 of 2011 (Vellore District Bus Owners' Association). 3. 3. Pursuant to the said notification, the Concessionaire (Larsen and Toubro (L&T) Krishnagiri-Walajahpet Tollway Private Limited) has issued a public notice in respect of said Km 0.000 to Km 148.300 in the form of two schedules, one schedule for the user fee at Vaniyambadi Toll Plaza for Km 46.800, viz., for Km 0.000 to Km 73.000, and another schedule for the user fee at Pallikonda Toll Plaza for Km 98.520, viz., for Km 73.000 to Km 148.300, which is as follows: SCHEDULE OF THE USER FEE AT VANIYAMBADI TOLL PLAZA (K.M.46.800) FOR KM 0.000 TO K.M. 73.000 Sl.No. Category of Vehicle Single DailyPass MonthlyPass Trip (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) 1 Car, Jeep, Van or Light Motor 55 85 1855 Vehicle 2 3 4 Light Commercial Vehicle, Light 90 135 Goods Vehicle or Mini Bus Bus or Truck 190 285 Heavy Construction Machinery (HCM) or Earth Moving Equipment (EME) or Multi Axie 295 445 Vehicle (MAV) (Three to six axies) 2995 6280 9845 5 Oversized Vehicle (Seven or 360 540 11985 more axies) SCHEDULE OF THE USER FEE AT PALLIKONDA TOLL PLAZA (K.M.98.520) FOR KM 73.000 TO K.M. 148.300 Sl.No. Category of Vehicle Single DailyPass MonthlyPass Trip (1) (2) (3) (4) 1 A Car, Jeep, Van or Light Motor Vehicle 55 85 2 Light Commercial Vehicle, Light Goods 95 140 Vehicle or Mini Bus 3 Bus or Truck 195 290 Heavy Construction Machinery (HCM) or 4 Earth Moving Equipment (EME) or Multi Axie 305 455 Vehicle (MAV) (Three to six axies) (5) 1915 3095 6480 10160 5 Oversized Vehicle (Seven or more axies) 370 555 12370 andthis is challenged in W.P.No.13607 of 2011 by the petitioner therein, viz., Confederation of Surface Transport Tamil Nadu. 4. 4. Likewise, in respect of National Highway from Km 33+130 to Km 93+000 (Hosur – Krishnagiri Section) of National Highway number NH-7 in the State of Tamil Nadu, pursuant to the agreement entered with HK Toll Road Private Limited, Mumbai, who is the Concessionaire under the agreement, by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 8A of the Act read with the Rules, taking into consideration the expenditure involved and the interest on the capital invested, reasonable return, volume of traffic and the period of said agreement between the Authority and the Concessionaire, the Concessionaire was authorised to levy and collect fees from the date of commercial operation on the mechanical vehicles for the use of the said section by imposing the levy as follows: Sl. 1 2 Vehicle Category A Car, Jeep, Van or Light Motor Vehicle Light Commercial Vehicle, Light Goods Vehicle or Mini Bus General Timings Single Return Monthly Journey Journey Passes (2 Trips) (50 Trips) 50.00 75.00 1630 80.00 120.00 2635 Local Traffic (Monthly Pass) 190 3 4 5 Bus, Truck 165.00 250.00 5515 Heavy Construction Machinery (HCM) or Earth Moving Equipment (EME) or 260.00 390.00 8650 Multi Axie Vehicle (MAV) (Three to Six axies) Oversized Vehicles (Seven or more 315.00 475.00 10530 axies) which is challenged in W.P.No.13608 of 2011. 5. The petitioner in W.P.No.13091 of 2011, which is the Vellore District Bus Owners' Association, is a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, consisting of small stage carriage operators numbering 118, operating in Vellore District. On the other hand, the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.13607 and 13608 of 2011, which is the Confederation of Surface Transport Tamil Nadu, is also a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act stated to consist of members, who are members of surface transport such as trucks, lorries, buses, cars, etc. On the other hand, the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.13607 and 13608 of 2011, which is the Confederation of Surface Transport Tamil Nadu, is also a society registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act stated to consist of members, who are members of surface transport such as trucks, lorries, buses, cars, etc. The list of its members which consists of 52 are Chennai Local Lorry Owner's Association, Tamil Nadu Edible Oil Tanker Lorry Owner's Welfare Association, Guindy Local Lorry Owner's Association, Chennai Railway Goodshed Lorry Owner's Association, Madaras Harbour Lorry Owner's Association, Trailer Owner's Association, Port Contractor Welfare Association, Tamil Nadu Taurus Container Transport Owner's Association, Chennai Trailer Owner's Association, Tamilnadu Sand Lorry Owner's Association Welfare Committee, Tamil Nadu Van Owner's Association, Tamil Manila Mini Lorry Suppliers and Owner's Association, The Trailer Organized Association, Chennai Metropolitan Transporting Agents Association, Chennai Parcel Lorry Owner's Association, Chennai Andra Lorry Commission Agents Association, Chennai Royal Seema Tranporting Agents Association, CMDA Truck Terminal Complex Welfare Association, Southern State Harbour Operator Welfare Association, Northern India Lorry Agents Association, IOC Tanker Lorry Owner's Association, Tamil Nadu Petroleum Tank Lorry Owner's Association, BPC Tanker Lorry Owner's Association, HPC Tanker Lorry Owner's Association, Chennai Goods Transport Association, Chengundram Lorry Owner's Association, Krishnagiri Taluk Lorry Owner's Association, Ranipet Lorry Owner's Welfare Association, Vellore Lorry Owner's Association, Aringnar Anna Sothupakkam Lorry Owner's Association, Cuddalure Lorry Owner's Association, Panrotti Lorry Owner's Association, Thindivanam Taluk Lorry Owner's Association, Kanchipuram Lorry Owner's Association, Arakonam/Surrounding Lorry Owner's Association, Salem District Edible Oil Tanker Lorry Owner's Welfare Association, LPC Cylinder Transport Contractors Association, Railway Clearing and Forwarding Agent Association, Chenglepet Lorry Owner's Association, Maduranthagam Lorry Owner's Association, Thiruvellur Lorry Owner's Association, Mr.O.S.Durailingam, Simha Trading Company, Peace Line Services, Interstate Container Transport Owner's Association, the Chennai Tourist Car Operators Association, Tamil Nadu Omni Bus Owners Association, Heavy & ODC Transporters Association, RMC Truck and Equipment Owners Association, Pondycherry Lorry Owners Association, Pondycherry Goods Transport Association and Pondycherry Lorry Owners Booking Agents Association. 6. While the writ petition association in W.P.No.13091 of 2011 consists of small stage carriage operators numbering 118 members, the writ petitioner Confederation in W.P.Nos.13607 and 13608 of 2011 consists of members who are in their turn associations consisting of various individual owners of vehicles using the road. 7.1. 6. While the writ petition association in W.P.No.13091 of 2011 consists of small stage carriage operators numbering 118 members, the writ petitioner Confederation in W.P.Nos.13607 and 13608 of 2011 consists of members who are in their turn associations consisting of various individual owners of vehicles using the road. 7.1. The writ petitioners have based their claims, while questioning the validity of the notifications, broadly on the grounds that the levying of toll being in the form of fee, it must be proportionate to the services rendered and inasmuch as the notifications proceed as if the revised levy has been made on the basis that the four lane which is in existence is to be converted into six lane, unless and until the conversion of four lane into six lane comes to an end, there is no question of enhancement of toll and therefore, it is without jurisdiction. 7.2. According to the writ petitioners, the toll is a quantum measurable to the services, which include the maintenance, etc., and if it is sought to be revised based on the development or improvement – like in this case conversion of four lane to six lane, the commencement of operation can be only afterwards and therefore, there is no jurisdiction to levy new toll. 7.3. Mr.Palani, learned counsel for the petitioner in W.P.No.13091 of 2011 also would contend that the notification of the year 2005 and even subsequent notifications have been using the word "perpetuity" and therefore, unless and until a new event of laying of six lane comes into existence, the question of imposing a new levy does not arise. 7.4. It is also the submission of Mr.K.Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.13607 and 13608 of 2011, which is a Confederation that the increase in toll is multi-fold, which has no rationale to the service sought to be rendered. The respective counsel relied upon various judgments, including the judgment in JindalStainless Limited v. State of Haryana, [2006] 7 SCC 241 to substantiate their contention that the levy of toll, being in the form of fee, depends upon the nature of service rendered. 7.5. Thus, according to learned counsel for the writ petitioners, there is a prima facie case in favour of the writ petitioners/Associations and the balance of convenience is that even if the writ petitioners lose the writ petitions, the amounts can be recovered. 8.1. 7.5. Thus, according to learned counsel for the writ petitioners, there is a prima facie case in favour of the writ petitioners/Associations and the balance of convenience is that even if the writ petitioners lose the writ petitions, the amounts can be recovered. 8.1. On the other hand, it is the case of the National Highways Authority of India, who was originally the authority maintaining the Highways, that after the introduction of Section 8-A of the Act by the National Highways (Amendment) Act 1995, with effect from 16.6.1995, notwithstanding the powers of the National Highways under Section 7 of the Act, it is entitled to collect and retain fees by specifying in the official gazette by taking note of the expenditure involved in building, maintenance, management and operation and the Central Government may also enter into agreement with any private person in relation to such development or maintenance of the whole or any part of the National Highways. 8.2. It is also submitted that by virtue of the introduction of Rules, 2008, which came into force from 5.12.2008, which is in supersession of the earlier Rules, including the Rules, 1997, the Central Government can levy fees by way of entering into agreement with private concessionaire. The notifications of revised levy, which are impugned, are in accordance with the base rate of fee contemplated under Rule 4 of the Rules, 2008. It is also their case that by virtue of Rules, 2008, there is a power on the part of the Government to revise the rate every year based on the formula contemplated under Rule 5 of Rules, 2008. 8.3. Inasmuch as the publication has been issued in furtherance of the said Rules, 2008, according to the National Highways Authority of India, it is not the revision for the purpose of converting four lane into that of six lane in the concerned places which are in question. It is the case of the National Highways Authority of India that after 1997 the revision is effected now under the Rules, 2008 and inasmuch as nobody has challenged the validity of the Rules, 2008, the notifications issued by the Government as well as the Concessionaires pursuant to the agreements cannot be said to be invalid and therefore, according to the National Highways Authority of India, there is no prima facie case for granting any interim order. 8.4. 8.4. The respondents have also raised a basic issue of maintainability of the writ petitions by associations. Admittedly, both the writ petitioners are associations – in one writ petition the association consists of 118 members and in the other two writ petitions the Confederation consists of various associations, whose members are not known. 8.5. Apart from the non maintainability of these writ petitions, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that even in respect of the balance of convenience inasmuch as the solvency of National Highways Authority of India or Concessionaires with whom the agreements are entered, who are made as respondents, has never been questioned, even if the writ petitioners succeed in the writ petitions, the amounts can always be recovered and on the other hand, if the writ petitions fail, it will be impossible even to trace out the members of the writ petitioners/associations. 8.6. It is also contended on behalf of the respondents that in the highways when hundreds of vehicles are plying, it is humanly impossible to verify every one of the members of the writ petitioners/associations for the purpose of collecting toll and that will be against the public interest. 8.7. Mr.A.L.Somayajee, learned Senior Counsel appearing for one of the Concessionaire (Larsen and Toubro (L&T), Krishnagiri-Walajahpet Tollway Private Limited) and Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the National Highways Authority of India, would contend that the writ petitions are not maintainable relying on various judgments, including TamilagaAsiriyar Kootani, rep. by the General Secretary, V.Annamalai v. The Government of Tamil Nadu, [2005] 3 MLJ 252, apart from Formation of Indian Network Marketing Association v. Apple FMCG Marketing Private Limited, [2005] 2 MLJ 526 and MahinderKumar Gupta and others v. Union of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, [1995] 1 SCC 85. 8.8. Mr.A.L.Somayajee, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Concessionaire as per the agreement has to deposit a major portion of the amount with the National Highways Authority of India and the revision of toll has already come into effect and since the revision has been made as per the Rules, 2008, enormous amount has been deposited with the National Highways Authority of India. According to the learned Senior Counsel, 90% of the amount has been paid to the National Highways Authority of India and it is only 10% of the amount to which the Concessionaire is entitled to as per the Rules, 2008 and therefore, any interim order restraining the collection of revised toll will cause huge damage and loss everyday. It is his submission that the amount deposited with the National Highways Authority has been kept in a separate escrow account and even if the writ petitioners succeed, on production of necessary receipts, the members of the writ petitioners/associations can always recover the amount paid in excess, but in the event of the failure of the writ petitioners, it will be very difficult for the Concessionaires, being the individual contractors, to trace out the members of the writ petitioners/associations for the purpose of collection and that will be causing gross injustice. 9. When the matter came up for admission, this Court by order dated 13.6.2011 made in M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.13607 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.13608 of 2011 has granted an order of status-quo in existence as on 1.6.2006 and that continues as on date. In W.P.No.13091 of 2001, this Court has granted an order of status-quo by order dated 7.6.2011. The Concessionaire in W.P.No.13608 of 2011 has filed a petition in M.P.No.3 of 2011 in W.P.No.13608 of 2011 for vacating the order of stay and the respondents have all filed the counter affidavits. 10. The only point that has to be considered now in the above said context in these cases is as to whether there is any prima facie case made out by the writ petitioners for the purpose of continuation of the order of status-quo and whether the balance of convenience is in favour of the writ petitioners or the respondents, which are sine qua non for the purpose of granting of interim injunction. 11. As elicited above, the writ petitioner in W.P.Nos.13067 and 13068 of 2011, which is the Confederation of Surface Transport Tamil Nadu, even though is a registered association, it consists of members who are themselves associations consisting of various individuals whose names are not disclosed. Likewise, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.13091 of 2011 is Vellore District Bus Owners' Association consisting of 118 members. Likewise, the writ petitioner in W.P.No.13091 of 2011 is Vellore District Bus Owners' Association consisting of 118 members. As to whether the writ petitions by the associations are maintainable or not, even though law is well settled, since this Court has taken up only the interlocutory applications to consider as to whether the interim order should be continued or not, I do not propose to delve deep into the various judgments cited. 12. While considering the prima facie case, one has to decide as to whether the National Highways Authority of India has got any authority for the purpose of imposing this revised toll. The impugned notification issued by the National Highways Authority of India, which is admittedly pursuant to the Rules, 2008, no doubt uses the words "for the development, operation and maintenance of the existing four lane section from Km 0.000 to Km 148.300 (Project chainage) (Krishnagiri-Walajahpet section) of the National Highway No.46 in the State of Tamil Nadu (hereinafter referred to as the said section) to six lane divided carriageway on Design, Build, Finance, Operate and Transfer (DBFOT) basis". 13. As per the agreement entered by the National Highways Authority of India with the Concessionaires, the revised rate has been incorporated as arrived at in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules, 2008 and there is no mention that the revised rate is either for four lane or six lane. Therefore, the agreements make it abundantly clear at least for the purpose of prima facie case that the conversion of four lane into six lane was never the basis for the present increase of toll. 14. The power of the Central Government in entering into such contract or agreement with the Concessionaire has been conferred by Section 8-A of the Act, which was introduced by the National Highways (Amendment) Act 1995, which has come into effect from 16.6.1995. Section 8-A of the Act is as follows: "Section 8-A. Power of Central Government to enter into agreements for development and maintenance of national highways.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Central Government may enter into an agreement with any person in relation to the development, maintenance of the whole or any part of a national highway. Section 8-A of the Act is as follows: "Section 8-A. Power of Central Government to enter into agreements for development and maintenance of national highways.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, the Central Government may enter into an agreement with any person in relation to the development, maintenance of the whole or any part of a national highway. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 7, the person referred to in sub-section (1) is entitled to collect and retain fees at such rate, for services or benefits rendered by him as the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify having regard to the expenditure involved in building, maintenance, management and operation of the whole or part of such national highway, interest on the capital invested, reasonable return, the volume of traffic and the period of such agreement. (3) A person referred to in sub-section (1) shall have powers to regulate and control the traffic in accordance with the provisions contained in Chapter VIII of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (59 of 1988) on the national highway forming subject matter of such agreement for proper management thereof." 15. This power of entering into agreement by the National Highways Authority of India is notwithstanding the power of the Central Government for fixing the fees for services or benefits rendered on national highways under Section 7 of the Act. Therefore, the power of the Central Government in fixing the fees and its power of entering into agreement with Concessionaire are not in dispute and it is only the quantum which is disputed by the writ petitioners. Certainly, unless and until the writ petitions are disposed of, especially when it is the categoric stand of the respondents that the quantum has been fixed in accordance with Rule 5 of the Rules, 2008, it cannot be said that the writ petitioners have made out of a prima facie case for the grant of interim injunction or for continuation of the order of status quo. 16. Arguments have been advanced regarding the commencement of COD and appropriate date in accordance with the provisions of the notification by relying upon the notification of the year 2005. 16. Arguments have been advanced regarding the commencement of COD and appropriate date in accordance with the provisions of the notification by relying upon the notification of the year 2005. But the Rules, 2008 are in supersession of the National Highways (Temporary Bridges) Rules, 1964, the National Highways (Collection of Fees by any person for the Use of Section of National Highways/Permanent Bridge/Temporary Bridge on National Highways) Rules, 1997, the National Highways (Fees for the Use of National Highways Section and Permanent Bridge - Public Funded Project) Rules, 1997 and the National Highways (Rate of Fees) Rules, 1997. The words "except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession" have to be prima facie construed as validating the fees already collected under the Rules of the year 1997 till the impugned notification has come into existence. That has to be read along with Rule 1(3) of Rules, 2008, which is as follows: "1. Short title and commencement.- (1) *** (2) *** (3) They shall not apply to agreements and contracts executed and bids invited prior to the publication of these rules." 17. Further, under Rule 4 of the Rules, 2008, the base rate considering the base year 2007-2008 has been taken into consideration for the purpose of revision. The power of annual revision of rate of fee is contemplated under Rule 5 of Rules, 2008 with a formula in Rule 5(3) of Rules, 2008. It is not the case of any of the writ petitioners that the formula followed is arbitrary or illegal. Very strangely, no one of the writ petitioners have chosen to challenge the validity or otherwise of the Rules, 2008. Without challenging the Rules, 2008 which enable the Government to enter into Concessionaire agreements and agreements having been entered and notifications issued pursuant to the said agreements, it is certainly not open to the counsel for the writ petitioners to contend as if prima facie case has been made out. 18. Mr.Palani, learned counsel would heavily rely upon the earlier notification issued by the Highways Authority dated 1.2.2006 in respect of another route, viz., Ambur-Ranipet-Walajahpet Section, to the effect that the rates specified in the schedule annexed are in "perpetuity". According to him, perpetuity means that forever the rate of collection should be the same. 18. Mr.Palani, learned counsel would heavily rely upon the earlier notification issued by the Highways Authority dated 1.2.2006 in respect of another route, viz., Ambur-Ranipet-Walajahpet Section, to the effect that the rates specified in the schedule annexed are in "perpetuity". According to him, perpetuity means that forever the rate of collection should be the same. In my view, the word "perpetuity" used in the notification does not take away the power of the Government in revising the toll and at the most the perpetuity, if the same is in respect of private contract, can be till the period of contract. 19. The further contention of quid pro quo raised by Mr.Palani, learned counsel, is certainly not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case inasmuch as it has been the categoric stand of the respondents, especially the National Highways Authority of India, that the revision of toll which has been made for the first time after 1997 presently under the impugned notifications which is based on Rules, 2008 is statutory in character and not based on the extension of the road from four lane to six lane. Therefore, the writ petitioners, have not made out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction. 20. As far as the balance of convenience is concerned, Mr.K.Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Confederation consisting of members who are all associations by themselves, would submit that the writ petitioner/Confederation is prepared to give the list and by the computerization the names of the members can be very easily entered in to toll plaza and it would not cause any trouble to others while checking up the members of the writ petitioner/Confederation. 21. I am of the considered view that the balance of convenience has to be construed on the facts of the present case on public interest. When hundreds of vehicles are plying on the route, it is really difficult for the persons manning the toll to search for the members of the writ petitioners/Associations and that would cause greater inconvenience to the public at large by causing traffic congestion. When hundreds of vehicles are plying on the route, it is really difficult for the persons manning the toll to search for the members of the writ petitioners/Associations and that would cause greater inconvenience to the public at large by causing traffic congestion. This I am emboldened to say due to the reason that I do not propose to give any view about the maintainability of the writ petitions, which is still open to the parties to raise at the time of final disposal, even though there are a catena of decisions to show that the association cannot maintain writ petitions, especially when it relates to the individual rights of the members. 22. On the other hand, looking at the problem from another angle, no one of the writ petitioners have raised question of solvency of any of the respondents and the Concessionaires have specifically come with a case that out of the contract amount, 90% of the collection goes to the National Highways Authority of India and in fact, those amounts are deposited in an escrow account and it is only 10% of the amount that is being spent by the Concessionaires for the purpose of maintenance, which includes making the road clean, removal of debris, and other acts of maintenance. It is not the case of the writ petitioners that the Concessionaires are financially not solvent, so that the writ petitioners in the event of succeeding in the writ petitions having paid the revised toll may not be in a position to recover the same. Inasmuch as the major portion of the collection is lying in escrow account, certainly in the event of the writ petitioners succeeding in the writ petitions, on production of any evidence showing the payment of revised amount, certainly the members of the writ petitioners/ associations can collect the amount from the respondents. On the other hand, it is certainly difficult in the event of the dismissal of the writ petitions for the Concessionaires to go in search of the members of the writ petitioners/Associations. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the writ petitioners are not entitled to interim injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.13607 of 2011, M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.13608 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.13091 of 2011 stand dismissed. M.P.No.3 of 2011 in W.P.No.13608 of 2011 stands allowed. For the foregoing reasons, I am of the considered view that the writ petitioners are not entitled to interim injunction as prayed for. Accordingly, M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.13607 of 2011, M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.13608 of 2011 and M.P.No.2 of 2011 in W.P.No.13091 of 2011 stand dismissed. M.P.No.3 of 2011 in W.P.No.13608 of 2011 stands allowed. Since the pleadings are completed and the matter involves public interest, the Registry is directed to post the writ petitions for final disposal during the first week of September, 2011.