Judgment 1. The petitioner is a registered association under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act and the members of the petitioner association are the allottees of houses, flats and plots under the Erode West Neighbourhood Scheme (Phase-I) developed by the Tamil Nadu Housing Board under a layout, which consists of various sizes of housing plots and buildings, namely HIG (High Income Group), MIG (Middle Income Group) and LIG (Low Income Group). After formation of the above said layout, the Tamil Nadu Housing Board took steps for construction of houses in the year 1986 and after completion, made advertisement for allotment of plots and the constructed house. Pursuant to the said advertisement, public at large and the members of petitioner association have purchased the plots cum house on payment of tentative costs. Pursuant to the said purchase, the respondents have executed lease cum sale agreement in favour of the allottees. For the purpose of determining the cost of the plots and buildings allotted to the members of the petitioner association, the cost of the lands which had been paid towards compensation on acquisition of the said lands, was taken into consideration and therefore, no final cost was determined and only tentative cost was fixed. 2. The Land Acquisition Officer fixed the cost of the lands which were acquired for the purpose of formation of Erode West Neighbourhood Scheme, at Rs.6.00 per sq.ft. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the land owners sought for reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of compensation. The I Additional Sub Court, Erode, while disposing the LAOP, enhanced the compensation from Rs.6.00 to Rs.14.00 per sq.ft. Aggrieved by the said enhancement of compensation, the Special Tahsildar (Land Acquisition), Neighbourhood Scheme, Erode preferred appeal before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court, while disposing the appeal, restored the compensation towards land cost at Rs.6/- per sq.ft. which was originally fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer. Thereafter, the matter was taken on appeal before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1760 and 1761 of 2004 and by order, dated 30.9.2010, the Supreme Court, confirmed the land cost at Rs.6/-, however, allowed the appeal with respect to interest on solatium under Section 23(2) and additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act. 3. Thereafter, the matter was taken on appeal before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.1760 and 1761 of 2004 and by order, dated 30.9.2010, the Supreme Court, confirmed the land cost at Rs.6/-, however, allowed the appeal with respect to interest on solatium under Section 23(2) and additional compensation under Section 23(1A) of the Act. 3. According to the petitioner, the members of the association, having taken possession of the property based on the allotments, have been pursuing the matter with the respondents for execution of the sale deed in their favour, stating that they are willing to pay the appropriate land cost and all other charges which are legally payable. On 22.02.2002, the petitioner association had made a representation to the respondents, stating that though 14 years have lapsed, the respondents have not executed the sale deeds in their favour despite the fact that they are ready and willing to pay all the charges which are legally payable. For the said representation, the respondents had replied on 14.03.2002 stating that the matter is sub judice before this Court in respect of fixation of land cost and necessary action would be taken for executing the sale deeds after receipt of the orders from the Court. Consequently, the respondents Board sent letter on 3.7.2002 to one of the members of the petitioner association, calling upon him to pay the revised and differential land cost which was replied by the petitioner association on 29.7.2002. Similar demands were made by the respondents Board on 8.8.2002, 2.1.2003 and 3.8.2005. While the correspondence was going on, a Writ Petition in W.P.No.29252 of 2004 was filed by the petitioner association, praying for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus, to direct the respondents to fix final cost for all the plots under Phase I of Erode West Neighbourhood Scheme by taking into consideration of the land cost awarded by this Court in A.S.No.364 of 1994 decided on 17.10.2003. While disposing the above said writ petition, by order dated 28.4.2009, a direction was issued by this Court to the respondents Board to fix the land cost and furnish all detailed working sheets to each of the allottees. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "12. While disposing the above said writ petition, by order dated 28.4.2009, a direction was issued by this Court to the respondents Board to fix the land cost and furnish all detailed working sheets to each of the allottees. The operative portion of the said order reads as under: "12. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed on the following terms: (a) The respondents are directed to fix final cost for all the plots under Phase I of Erode West Neighbourhood Scheme by taking into consideration the land cost awarded by this Court in A.S.No.364 of 1994 etc. batch of cases and maintenance of the scheme from June 1986 to July 1988; (b) The respondents are directed to furnish all detailed working sheet to each of the allottee within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, requesting them to make payment, the final cost within a prescribed time; (c) The petitioners upon receipt of the notice for payment of final cost from the respondents shall make payment of the final cost; (d) The respondents within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of the final cost, shall execute necessary sale deeds in favour of the members of the petitioner Association and present them for registration. The respondents may also incorporate at last in the respective sale deed that the sale consideration received by them is subject to the final determination of the cost in the appeal pending before the Honourable Supreme Court of India and that the members of the petitioner association shall be obliged to make payment of any differential amount if the compensation awarded in A.S.No.364 of 1994 etc. batch of cases is enhanced. It can also make it clear in the sale deed that the respondents shall have a charge on the property to the extent of differential cost as an unpaid vendor...." Thereafter, it appears that the above said order could not be complied with by the Housing Board and, therefore, the respondents/Board filed W.P.M.P.No.848 of 2009 seeking extension of time, which was granted up to 15.2.2010. 4. Thereafter, by proceedings in No.C2/32018/09, dated 11.11.2009, the Financial Advisor of the 2nd respondent Board has fixed the tentative final land and development cost at Rs.1,27,300/- per ground as on 31.10.1992 and the same was communicated to the members of the petitioner association. 4. Thereafter, by proceedings in No.C2/32018/09, dated 11.11.2009, the Financial Advisor of the 2nd respondent Board has fixed the tentative final land and development cost at Rs.1,27,300/- per ground as on 31.10.1992 and the same was communicated to the members of the petitioner association. The Executive Engineer sent a series of communications on 1.12.2009 to the individuals calling upon them to pay various amounts as per the notice, which includes payment towards differential land cost. The petitioner/association in response to the same raised certain queries as to how the difference in the land cost was arrived at. Subsequently, the respondents have been issuing communications to the members of the petitioner association to pay the differential land cost, interest, penal interest, left out charges, etc. 5. Not satisfied with the nature of the improper demand and in consonance with their plea inter alia that there is a basic error in the land cost calculation the present writ petition is filed specifically pleading that in spite of a specific clause in the Lease-cum-Sale Agreement dated 25.10.1990 which provides for execution of the sale deed by fixing the price on the basis of development charges, cost of amenities, cost of buildings, etc., except compensation towards land acquisition, the respondents have not complied with the terms of the agreement and are demanding exorbitant amount towards differential land cost and also on other heads. In such backdrop, the notices issued on 1.12.2009 are challenged. 6. It is the specific case of the petitioner/association that they have already paid the land cost originally fixed and they are willing to pay the differential cost as and when it is finalized in the land acquisition proceedings, which is finalized by the Supreme Court, however, in the meanwhile, the respondents have not executed the sale deed in terms of paragraph (17) of the agreement, which reads as under: "17. The Lessor agrees to sell the property more particularly described in the schedule hereunder to the Lessee for such price as the Administrative Officer or the Lessor may at any time in his sole discretion fix and at which time the Administrative Officer or the Lessor is entitled to consider details regarding development charges, cost of amenities, cost of buildings, etc. and whether the price of the land acquired under the Land acquisition Act together with suitable modifications thereto by the local laws become final by a conclusive adjudication thereon by the concerned Tribunals and Courts, the final decision of the Administrative Officer or the Lessor to the final price of the Property as determined under these presents is conclusive and binding on the Lessee and the Lessee should agree to purchase the property from the Lessor at the said price on the terms and conditions hereinafter mentioned. Excepting the fixation of price with reference to the claim or compensation adjudicated or awarded by Courts finally and conclusively with regard to the lands acquired under the scheme, the Lessor shall fix the price of the property after taking into consideration the development charges, cost of amenities and buildings, etc., within a period of three years from the date of allotment and which price is subject only to a revision on account of excess compensation if any awarded by Courts for the land as aforesaid." (emphasis supplied.) This clause is reiterated by the petitioner's Counsel to state that the Housing Board failed to act in terms of the above said clause and therefore, they are at fault. 7. Despite the interim order passed by this Court directing the respondents to execute the sale deed, the respondents did not execute the sale deed and thereafter, a series of orders were passed in a contempt petition and a Committee was formed to look into the grievances of the members of the petitioner/association as well as the plea of the respondents/Board that there were some unauthorized occupants who are seeking benefit of the Court order. That issue was resolved by the Committee and all the genuine allottees were issued sale deeds based on the payments that have been already made and the writ petition was restricted to such of those persons who are actual allottees and the list of such allottees has been filed in the form of an affidavit dated (Nil) July, 2013 and the same is taken on record. It is, therefore, made clear that this order will be applicable only in respect of the members of the petitioner/association as per the affidavit dated July, 2013. 8. It is, therefore, made clear that this order will be applicable only in respect of the members of the petitioner/association as per the affidavit dated July, 2013. 8. At this juncture, it is relevant to note that pending disposal of the main writ petition, this Court passed interim orders, directing respondents 2 and 3 to execute the sale deeds in favour of the members of the petitioner association who have been allotted plots on payment of differential land cost alone and as regards the waiver of interest, the matter has been pending for consideration. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents have preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.1937 of 2012 and the First Bench of this Court, by its order, dated 06.09.2012 dismissed the writ appeal, confirming the order of the learned single Judge, with an observation that the liability of payment of interest by the members of the petitioner association has to be decided by this Court in the main writ petition. 9. The issue that arises for consideration in this case is the rate of interest that is to be paid on the differential land cost consequent to the acquisition and finalization of the land cost in the Land Acquisition Original Petition and appeals before this Court and the Supreme Court, which, by order dated 30.9.2010, finally decided the final land cost at Rs.6/- Per Sq.Ft. 10.1. Mrs.Narmada Sampath, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner association submitted that as per the sale agreement, tentative costs of the plots have been paid and pursuant to the orders of this Court, differential land cost has been paid and sale deeds were also executed. As regards the payment of interest, since the Board has not determined the final land cost within a considerable period and after lapse of several years, the final land cost has been fixed, the allottees are liable to pay the interest on difference in land cost only with effect from the date when the Board actually determined the final land cost and communicated the same to them and not from the date of allotment. 10.2. To further the plea that interest should be demanded on the differential land cost only from the date of intimation, reliance is placed on another Board Circular Memo No.CA.I/33871/88, dated 20.6.1988, wherein it is stated that the sale should be made within a time frame. 10.2. To further the plea that interest should be demanded on the differential land cost only from the date of intimation, reliance is placed on another Board Circular Memo No.CA.I/33871/88, dated 20.6.1988, wherein it is stated that the sale should be made within a time frame. It is contended that the members of the petitioner association have been diligently pursuing the matter for execution of the sale deeds, but in vain. They have filed writ petitions and direction has been issued by the Court as has been mentioned earlier, nevertheless the respondents did not execute the sale deeds in time and therefore they are not entitled to seek interest from the date of allotment as contended by them. She also referred to the clause in the agreement referred to supra. 11. Mr.S.Gomathi Nayagam, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Mr.R.Jayaseelan, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent/Board contended that as and when the land is acquired for the benefit of the housing scheme, payments have been made to the land owners in terms of the order passed in the Land Acquisition Original Petition and also in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in A.S.No.55 of 1992, etc. batch cases, decided on 17.10.2003. It is only for the purpose of finalizing the land cost that the respondents could not execute the sale deed. Though in certain cases the allottees have been given sale deeds, the members of the petitioner association for the reasons best known to them have not chosen to get the sale deeds executed and, therefore, there was no lapse on the part of the Board. 12. The knocking at the doors of this Court by the petitioners earlier in the year 2004 and the present writ petition would clearly establish that they are aggrieved by the nature of calculations arrived by the respondent/Board in demanding amounts under various heads. But the issue of differential land cost and other charges which are payable in terms of the agreement have all been paid and the sale deeds have now been executed insofar as the applicable allottees. The only issue that now remains to be adjudicated and resolved is the claim for interest on the differential land cost. 13. But the issue of differential land cost and other charges which are payable in terms of the agreement have all been paid and the sale deeds have now been executed insofar as the applicable allottees. The only issue that now remains to be adjudicated and resolved is the claim for interest on the differential land cost. 13. According the petitioners, the interest if at all could be claimed only from the date of intimation of the final land cost and there has been no proper intimation of the final land cost because there are two board resolutions, namely (i) Board Resolution No.6.09, dated 30.10.2009, communicated in proceedings No.C2/32018/09, dated 11.11.2009, and (ii) Board Resolution No.6.10, dated 2.4.2012, communicated in Proceedings No.C2/18492/10, dated 16.4.2012. The two proceedings are extracted hereunder for better clarity: "Proceedings of the Financial Adviser, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai – 35. Present: Thiru D.SENGUTTUVAN, B.A., Proceeding No.C2/32018/09 Dated: 11.11.09 Sub: Tamil Nadu Housing Board – Costing – Erode Housing Unit – Fixation of tentative final cost for the Land and development scheme at Nasiyanur Road, Phase I, Erode – Orders issued. Ref: 1. The E.E. & A.D.O., Erode Housing Unit letter No.R4/4543/02, dated 27.7.09 2. Board's Res.No.6.09, dated 30.10.09 ORDER: The Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Unit has submitted the proposal for fixing the final cost for the land and development scheme at Nasiyanur Road, Phase I, Erode. The Board in its Res.No.6.09, dated 30.10.09 has resolved as follows: "Board resolved to approve the recommendations of the Pricing Committee fixing the final land cost at Rs.1,27,300/- per ground as on 31.10.92 for purposes of issue of conditional sale deed. The final land cost is dependent on the outcome of the SLP filed in the Supreme Court" The fixation of tentative final cost of this scheme arrived based on the particulars given by the Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Unit and the recommendation of the pricing committee. In pursuance of the above resolution the tentative final land and development cost is fixed at Rs.1,27,300/- per ground as on 31.10.92 for the above scheme. The Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Unit can take necessary action in that direction and he is also requested to issue conditional sale deed only as per the Board's direction. In pursuance of the above resolution the tentative final land and development cost is fixed at Rs.1,27,300/- per ground as on 31.10.92 for the above scheme. The Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Unit can take necessary action in that direction and he is also requested to issue conditional sale deed only as per the Board's direction. The over head charges as per the approved norms and collection charges at 0.5% may be collected by simple interest at the ruling rate of interest approved by the Board every year. The Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erorde Housing Unit should inform the difference in cost for all the allottees of the scheme within one month from the date of receipt of the proceedings. The allottees may be requested to remit the difference in cost in one lumpsum. Beyond which, interest at the rate of 10% per annum should be collected for the whole amount. The allottees may also be allowed to remit the difference in land and development cost payable by them in equated monthly instalments over a period of 5 years by adopting interest at the rate of 10% per annum. The Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Unit is requested not to alter or modify the layout without the approval of the Board. The conversion if any, should be done only with concurrence of the Board. The expenditure of the scheme should not exceed the cost as furnished by him." "Proceedings of the Financial Adviser, Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Nandanam, Chennai – 35. Present: Thiru M.V.MANOHARAN, B.A., Proceeding No.C2/18492/10 Dated: 16.04.12 Sub: Tamil Nadu Housing Board – Costing – Erode Housing Unit – Fixation of final land and development cost for Nasiyanur Road, Phase I Scheme at Erode – Orders – issued. Ref: 1. Board's Proc.No.S2/67316/91, dated 31.10.92 2. Board's Proc.No.C2/32018/09, dated 11.11.09 3. The E.E. & A.D.O., Erode Housing Unit letter No.P.g./2998/09, dated 18.11.2011. 2. Board's Res.No.6.10, dated 2.4.2012 ORDER: The Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Unit has submitted the proposal for fixing the final Land and development cost for Nasiyanur Road Phase I Scheme at Erode. The fixation of final cost of this cheme is arrived based on the particulars given by the Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Cost and the recommendation of the pricing committee. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Unit has submitted the proposal for fixing the final Land and development cost for Nasiyanur Road Phase I Scheme at Erode. The fixation of final cost of this cheme is arrived based on the particulars given by the Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Cost and the recommendation of the pricing committee. The Board in the Proceeding's in the reference 1st cited has fixed the tentative cost of Rs.28,900/- per ground as on 31.10.92 for the above scheme. The Board in its Res.No.6.10, dated 02.04.12 has resolved as follows: “TAMIL” In pursuance of the above Board's resolution the final Land and development cost for Nasiyanur Road Phase I Scheme at Erode is fixed at Rs.1,29,500/- per ground as on 31.10.92 for the above scheme. The Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Unit has to take necessary action in that direction. The over head charges as per the approved norms and collection charges @ 0.5% may be collected by simple interest at the ruling rate of interest approved by the Board every year. The Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Unit should inform the difference in cost to all the allottees of the above scheme within one month from the date of receipt of the proceedings. The allottees may be requested to remit the difference in cost in one lumpsum, beyond which interest at 10.5% per annum should be collected for the whole amount. The allottees may also be allowed to remit the difference in land and development cost payable by them in equated monthly instalments over a period of 5 years by adopting interest at the rate of 10.5% per annum. The Exe. Engr. & Admn. Officer, Erode Housing Unit is requested not to alter or modify the layout without the approval of the Board. The conversion of land if any, should be done only with concurrence of the Board. The expenditure of the scheme should not exceed the cost as furnished by him. A copy of the note for the Board and working sheet are enclosed. The receipt of the proceedings should be acknowledged at once." 14. From the above board proceedings it is evident that in the first board proceedings dated 11.11.2009, based on the recommendations of the Pricing Committee, the final land cost was fixed at Rs.1,27,300/- per ground as on 31.10.1992. The receipt of the proceedings should be acknowledged at once." 14. From the above board proceedings it is evident that in the first board proceedings dated 11.11.2009, based on the recommendations of the Pricing Committee, the final land cost was fixed at Rs.1,27,300/- per ground as on 31.10.1992. In the second board proceedings dated 16.4.2012, the final land and development cost based on the recommendation of the Pricing Committee has been fixed at Rs.1,29,500/- per ground as on 31.10.1992. The litigation between the first Board proceedings and the second clearly establish that it did not reach finality. The sale deeds were not executed as the final figures could not be arrived. Therefore, it is only on and after 16.4.2012 that the respondent/Board can take a plea for interest. If the earlier Board proceedings was correct, there was no need to revise the cost as on 31.10.1992. 15. The issue which is now raised by the petitioner/association with regard to interest on differential land cost, de hors all other arguments can stand resolved in view of an earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court (to which I was a party) in V.Muralidharan and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, 2007 WLR 710, which decision has been approved by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1805 of 2007, dated 2.9.2008 on almost all issues except on the relevant date for the purpose of claiming interest. In V.Muralidharan case, referred supra, the Division Bench of this Court observed as under: "21. The question now to be decided is what is the period from which interest is payable both in respect of final land cost and capitalisation charge. As for the period from which interest can be claimed is concerned, the final determination of land cost was made on 21.5.2004 with effect from 31.12.2000 as per Board's resolution and it is agreeable to the writ petitioners/allottees. When the demand was made in March, 2001, the final land cost did not reach a finality. It came up for further consideration before the authorities from time to time and only before the Lok Adalat, the parties came to an almost near agreement on the final cost. When the demand was made in March, 2001, the final land cost did not reach a finality. It came up for further consideration before the authorities from time to time and only before the Lok Adalat, the parties came to an almost near agreement on the final cost. Even thereafter respondents did not approve and finalise the land cost and it is only pursuant to the Board's resolution dated 21.5.2004, the final land cost was determined by the respondent and demand notices have been issued from June, 2004. The tenor of the notice dated 10.6.2004 clearly states that the land cost and capitalisation cost should be paid within a particular date, failing which interest will be calculated. It is, therefore, clear that the demand itself is prospective. The respondents wanted to conclude the issue only after the Board's resolution and such decision has been communicated in June, 2004 and thereafter. Therefore, the liability of the allottees to pay interest would arise only in default of payment of the amount as demanded by the respondents in June, 2004 pursuant to the Board's resolution dated 21.5.2004. So, the Department cannot charge interest from the date of allotment. Eventhough logically interest should be charged depending upon the date of service of notice, in order to avoid any unnecessary confusion and complication in such matter, on the basis of the fair concession made by the counsel appearing for the petitioners/allottees to the effect that interest can be charged from the date of Board's resolution dated 21.5.2004, we make it clear that interest on the revised land cost as well as capitalisation charges would be payable with effect from 21.5.2004. As already indicated the counsel appearing for the petitioners have fairly conceded that interest can be charged from 21.5.2004. Therefore, the allottees are liable to pay the interest on and from 21.5.2004." In that case, in effect, interest was directed to be paid from the date on which the intimation of final land cost was made pursuant to the Board's resolution dated 21.5.2004. The Supreme Court on the question of interest was inclined to modify the interest portion alone with effect from 1.1.2001 in stead of 21.5.2004 and the reason for modifying that order was that in that case a government order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 2.2.2001 fixing the final land cost and, therefore, that was taken as a relevant date. The Supreme Court on the question of interest was inclined to modify the interest portion alone with effect from 1.1.2001 in stead of 21.5.2004 and the reason for modifying that order was that in that case a government order was passed in G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 2.2.2001 fixing the final land cost and, therefore, that was taken as a relevant date. If not for G.O.Ms.No.63, dated 2.2.2001, the date of the Board's resolution would become the relevant date. 16. In the present case, it is to be noticed that there is no specific government order issued fixing the final land cost as in V.Muralidharan case, referred supra. But what has happened at the respondents' side is that there are two board proceedings one dated 11.11.2009 and another dated 16.4.2012. There is a difference in the amount fixed, namely Rs.1,27,300/- per ground was fixed vide proceedings dated 11.11.2009 and Rs.1,29,500/- per ground vide proceeding dated 16.4.2012. Though at the first blush it may be right to say that the subsequent board resolution should be taken as a relevant date, I am not inclined to take the second board resolution for calculating the interest for the reason that on 11.11.2009 itself the Board, after finalizing the cost, has intimated each one of the allottees by various communications dated 1.12.2009 and that is now under challenge. The petitioners have subsequently paid the differential land cost without prejudice to their claim with regard to interest and therefore, there is no impediment in taking the relevant date for calculating interest as 11.11.2009. 17. The Board's plea for payment of interest based on the board's resolution dated 11.11.2009 is also justified as the differential land cost has been paid by the members of the petitioner association only after the second revision of land cost by the second board's resolution dated 16.4.2012, which had happened consequent to the decision of the Supreme Court. The Board was not at fault in revising the land cost, because it was based on the orders of the Supreme Court. No reason is adduced as to why the members of the petitioner association have not paid the differential land cost under protest pursuant to the board's resolution dated 11.11.2009, which was intimated. They could have raised all the issues after getting the sale deeds executed. 18. No reason is adduced as to why the members of the petitioner association have not paid the differential land cost under protest pursuant to the board's resolution dated 11.11.2009, which was intimated. They could have raised all the issues after getting the sale deeds executed. 18. In that view of the matter, in line with the decision in V.Muralidharan case and the decision of the Supreme Court, referred supra, I have no hesitation to hold that the interest will have to be paid from the date of first board's resolution, namely 11.11.2009. The members of the petitioner association are directed to pay interest on the differential land cost on and from 11.11.2009 and get the endorsement of liability discharged in the sale deeds. It is made clear that the order passed in the present writ petition shall not be a precedent for the purpose of calculating interest insofar as other allottees under the scheme or under any other scheme are concerned whose payment or claim may be factually different from the members of the petitioner association. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No.2 of 2011 is closed.