JUDGMENT SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, J. 1. Batch of writ petitions seeking quashing of letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 have been filed by the petitioners claiming themselves sub-lessees with respect to a part of land under Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005. Since a common question of law is involved in all the writ petitions, with the consent of the counsel appearing for the parties, all the writ petitions have been heard together and are disposed of by a common order. When the matter was taken up for hearing, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General raised an objection that a copy of the rejoinder affidavit filed by the respondent M/s Tata Steel Limited has been served only yesterday and therefore, he needs time for filing reply to the same. The counsel for the petitioners raised serious objection to the prayer for adjournment and submitted that in view of previous order passed by this Court, the matter may be heard today. Mr. Binod Kanth, the learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent M/s Tata Steel Limited stated at bar that the rejoinder affidavit filed by M/s Tata Steel Limited may be ignored. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case leading to issuance of letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 are summarised thus; A memorandum of agreement was signed between the Provincial Government and M/s Tata Steel Limited on 08.07.1909 with respect to an area of 3564.63 acres of land. About 3564.63 acres of land was acquired by the erstwhile Government under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, out of which an area of 3509.90 acres was conveyed to M/s Tata Steel Limited through a deed of conveyance registered on 19.01.1912. Thereafter, memoranda of agreements dated 09.07.1918 and 18.10.1919 were also signed between the parties. After the memoranda of agreements dated 09.07.1918 and 18.10.1919 were signed between the parties, a deed of conveyance with respect to 12214.74 acres of land was executed in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited. The total land thus conveyed, in absolute ownership, in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited was 15,725.05 acres. M/s Tata Steel Limited constructed a Steel Plant and developed a planned township in the vicinity. After the State Government initiated proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, a series of litigations ensued which ultimately ended in insertion of Sections 7D and 7E in the Bihar Land Reforms Act. M/s Tata Steel Limited constructed a Steel Plant and developed a planned township in the vicinity. After the State Government initiated proceedings under the Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950, a series of litigations ensued which ultimately ended in insertion of Sections 7D and 7E in the Bihar Land Reforms Act. Thereafter, an agreement of lease was executed by the erstwhile State of Bihar in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited on 04.08.1984 and subsequently, an Indenture of Lease dated 01.08.1985 was executed in favour of M/s Tata Steel Limited. Initially, the lease was executed for a period of 40 years with effect from 01.01.1956, with a provision for further extension for a period of 30 years, at the option of M/s Tata Steel Limited. After the said period of lease expired on 31.12.1995, M/s Tata Steel Limited exercised its option for renewal by letter dated 03.08.1995. The State of Jharkhand extended the period of lease for another 30 years by executing an Indenture of Lease which was registered on 20.08.2005. By a deeming provision incorporated in Section 7E of the Act of 1950, the leases granted by M/s Tata Steel Limited were recognised as subleases, on payment of fair and equitable rent, on terms and conditions to be settled by the State Government. The Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005 also contained a similar provision for sublease of land by M/s Tata Steel Limited in favour of any person, with the prior approval of the lessor, that is, the State Government and a provision is incorporated in Clause 8 of the lease-deed. Vide Resolution dated 06.12.2005, an Appropriate Machinery Committee was set up by the State of Jharkhand for expeditious disposal of cases of sublease in terms of Cabinet decision dated 19.08.2005. The petitioners submitted applications to M/s Tata Steel Limited to allot and/or sublease a piece of land in the area held by M/s Tata Steel Limited under the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005. M/s Tata Steel Limited forwarded the proposals to the Appropriate Machinery Committee and the proposals were considered by the Appropriate Machinery Committee in its meeting held on 09.03.2007. After the approval of the proposals by the Appropriate Machinery Committee, the respondentM/s Tata Steel Limited requested the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur to process the proposals for seeking approval of the State Government. After the approval of the proposals by the Appropriate Machinery Committee, the respondentM/s Tata Steel Limited requested the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur to process the proposals for seeking approval of the State Government. The State Government granted its approval on certain terms and conditions and communicated the same to the Deputy Commissioner, East Singhbhum and the same has been communicated to the petitioners also. The petitioners were put in possession and agreement for subleases were executed between M/s Tata Steel Limited and some of the petitioners on different dates. The petitioners thereafter, paid rent for each financial year, though under protest, to M/s Tata Steel Limited. The petitioners thereafter, took necessary steps for construction over the land covered under the sublease and in many cases substantial construction has been completed. The petitioners thereafter, paid rent for each financial year, though under protest, to M/s Tata Steel Limited. The petitioners thereafter, took necessary steps for construction over the land covered under the sublease and in many cases substantial construction has been completed. The necessary details in all the writ petitions are detailed below:- S. No. Case No. Date & Letter of Approval Communication of Approval by Deputy Commissioner Date of Possession (DOP)/ Date of Agreement for sub-Lease Purpose of sub-lease Area In acres Payment and amount paid (in rupees) 1 W.P.C. No. 6138 of 2012 3465/Ra dated 26.09.08 10.10.2008 DOP:31.01.09 Extension of Educational institute 4.89 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 9,53,550.00 2 W.P.C. No. 6139 of 2012 3281/Ra dated 18.09.06 26.09.2006 DOP:31.01.09 Extension of Educational institute 6.80 Year: 2006- 07 Amount: 13,26,000.00 3 W.P.C. No. 6163 of 2012 1719/Ra dated 15.05.08 05.06.2008 DOP:24.06.08 DASL: 14.08.08 Shopping Mall multiples 5.46 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 55,96,500.00 4 W.P.C. No. 6165 of 2012 757/Ra dated 26.02.08 28.02.08 DOP:04.03.08 DASL: 14.06.08 Hotel 1.96 Year: 2007- 08 Amount: 7,47,250.00 5 W.P.C. No. 6176 of 2012 3858/Ra dated 17.11.08 01.12.08 DOP:02.01.09 DASL: 07.10.09 Shopping mall multiplex and hotel 2.00 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 8,37,500.00 6 W.P.C. No. 6177 of 2012 3545/Ra dated 16.10.08 03.11.08 DOP:14.01.09 DASL: 02.05.11 Convention Centre 1.00 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 4,18,750.00 7 W.P.C. No.6199 of 2012 1844/Ra dated 08.06.07 19.06.2006 DOP:27.08.07 Multiplex 3.12 Year: 2007- 08 Amount: 31,98,000.00 8 W.P.C. No. 6205 of 2012 3544/Ra dated 15.10.08 06.11.08 DOP:13.12.08 Banquet hall 0.60 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 2,62,500.00 9 W.P.C. No.6230 of 2012 2575/Ra dated 27.06.08 05.07.08 DOP:27.08.08 Multi Level parking retail and hotel 0.21 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 2,15,250.00 10 W.P.C. No. 6243 of 2012 4239/Ra dated 31.12.07 16/17.01.08 DOP:10.03.08 Shopping Mall, multiples and hotel 2.00 Year: 2007- 08 Amount: 7,62,500.00 11 W.P.C. No. 6257 of 2012 2560/Ra dated 26.06.08 14.07.08 DOP:23.07.08 For construction of religious educational institution 0.75 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 1,14,375.00 12 W.P.C. No. 6287 of 2012 1959/Ra dated 02.06.08 12.06.08 DOP:06.09.08 (Note: The petitioner is in fact in possession of the premises since 25.02.1963 Commercial and parking purpose 0.104 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 1,06,600.00 13 W.P.C. No.6292 of 2012 2576/Ra dated 27.06.08 -------- DOP:26.09.08 (the petitioner is in fact in possession of the premises since 1962-63) Commercial and parking purpose 0.10 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 1,02,500.00 14 W.P.C. No. 6305 of 2012 192/Ra dated 22.01.09 28.02.09 DOP:10.04.09 DASL: 06.07.09 (The petitioner is in fact in possession of the premises since 01.02.1964 Commercial and Parking 0.123 Year: 2009- 10 Amount: 1,41,450.00 15 W.P.C. No. 6319 of 2012 12564/Ra dated 26.06.08 02.07.2008 DOP:05.08.08 Hotel 0.60 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 2,51,250.00 16 W.P.C. No. 6320 of 2012 2577/Ra dated 27.6.08 05.07.08 DOP:08.09.08 Commercial Complex 2.00 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 8,37,500.00 17 W.P.C. No.6671 of 2012 3142/Ra dated 01.08.08 14.08.08 DOP:17.11.08 Multiplex Shopping Mall 1.75 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 7,32,812.00 18 WPC No. 6681 of 2012 2026/Ra dated 11.06.08 21.06.08 DOP:29.08.08 Multiplex-cum- IT Park 3.64 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 15,24,250.00 19 W.P.C. No. 1244 of 2013 2595/Ra dated 28.06.08 05.07.08 DOP:27.08.08 DASL: 16.06.09 Cold Storage 0.62 Year: 2008- 09 Amount: 2,59,625.00 20 W.P.C. No. 1909 of 2013 2530/Ra dated 03.08.06 14.08.06 DOP:12.02.07 DASL: 14.06.08 Factory 10.09 Year: 2006- 07 Amount: 29,63,938.00 3. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent-State of Jharkhand took similar stand in all the cases stating that for examining the irregularity in the matter of subleases to the petitioners and others and for examining the loss of Government revenue, the Government got the matter enquired into by Member, Board of Revenue, Jharkhand who submitted his report indicating certain irregularity and loss of revenue. In view of the report of the Member, Board of Revenue, the Government directed vide letter dated 17.09.2012 to ensure that the geographical condition of the lands in question does not change. M/s Tata Steel Limited vide letter dated 22.09.2012, sent a compliance report to the Deputy Commissioner. It is stated that the recommendation for subleases is under enquiry and therefore, the State Government has rightly issued directions for stoppage of construction work. 4. A rejoinder to the counter-affidavit of the respondent-State of Jharkhand has been filed by the petitioners denying that the State of Jharkhand is the paramount owner of the land in question. It is stated that the respondent-State of Jharkhand in its capacity as a lessor is bound by the procedure laid down in the lease-deed with regard to grant of subleases. The report dated 12.10.2010 is illegal and without jurisdiction and any action taken in pursuance thereof also must be held illegal and without jurisdiction. In absence of any statutory provisions or the rules, an anonymous complain cannot be made basis for conducting an enquiry. Even if it is assumed that there has been some irregularity in the matter of grant of subleases, that by itself does not make the grant of approval in favour of the petitioners, illegal or unlawful. The plea that the State Government suffered revenue loss is baseless and unfounded as the rent sought to be realised from each sub-lessee is in terms of Government's own policy decision. Sections 7D and 7E contemplate grant of sublease for industrial, commercial, residential or for such other purposes on payment of fair and equitable rent. The action of the State Government is not only arbitrary, harsh and disproportionate, it follows civil consequences including severe financial losses, without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 5. Sections 7D and 7E contemplate grant of sublease for industrial, commercial, residential or for such other purposes on payment of fair and equitable rent. The action of the State Government is not only arbitrary, harsh and disproportionate, it follows civil consequences including severe financial losses, without any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. 5. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent M/s Tata Steel Limited stating that the lease-deed recognised that, “for the development of the town and for the supply and maintenance of services, aforesaid and diverse civic amenities to the town of Jamshedpur, the lessee incurred a huge expenditure and the burden of a large deficit after the recovery made from the recipients of the services” and therefore, the State thought it necessary in public interest that, “the development and services should continue to be undertaken and rendered by the lessee as hitherto at its cost and mode of management and realisation of charges for services so rendered in the manner followed so far”. In Clause 17 of the Indenture of Lease, the services of municipal nature has been assigned to the respondent M/s Tata Steel Limited. M/s Tata Steel Limited enjoys discretionary right to propose further subletting of the vacant land to various categories of utilisation, in consonance with all round development of the town. After the last renewal, M/s Tata Steel Limited revisited the requirement of town and accordingly, forwarded proposals for subleases for setting up malls and multiplexes which were approved by the State Government. The report dated 12.10.2010 is full of infirmities and illegalities. The findings, conclusions and suggestions in report dated 12.10.2010 are based on nonexistent facts and assumptions. Letters dated 22.09.2012 and other 56 letters, all dated 13.10.2012 as well as letter dated 28.10.2012 were issued to M/s Tata Steel Limited and the petitioners to which M/s Tata Steel Limited gave a comprehensive reply on different issues raised in the said letters. Again, vide letter dated 03.11.2012, M/s Tata Steel Limited has furnished separate replies to all 56 letters. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Mr. Again, vide letter dated 03.11.2012, M/s Tata Steel Limited has furnished separate replies to all 56 letters. 6. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 7. Mr. A.K. Ganguli, the learned Senior Counsel appearing in W.P.(C) No. 6163 of 2012, after tracing the history how Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005 came to be executed, submits that the bone of contention in the present batch of writ petitions is power of M/s Tata Steel Limited to grant subleases, a power incorporated in Clause 8 of the said Indenture of Lease. Stressing on the words “necessary” and “any person”, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that the right conferred on M/s Tata Steel Limited to sublease any portion of the vacant land is subject to prior approval of the State Government which, in turn, is required to settle the terms of the sublease only. When M/s Tata Steel Limited with a view to cater the present day need of the residents of Jamshedpur decided to part with a portion of land to the petitioners and the proposals for subleases in favour of the petitioners were considered by a 5 Member Appropriate Machinery Committee and the proposal of the Appropriate Machinery Committee was approved by the State Government, the State Government is precluded from issuing directions for seizure of the construction activities, without issuing show-cause notice to the petitioners. It is further submitted that the letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 were issued 6 years after the allotments were proposed and about 4 years after the same were approved by the State Government and in the meantime, the petitioners raised substantial construction by investing huge funds and thus, the least what was required in the matter was to issue a show-cause notice to the petitioners. 8. Mr. Jaideep Gupta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner-XLRI School of Business and Human Resources in W.P.(C) No. 6138 of 2012 submits that a lessee/sub-lessee has a right in law to enjoy the property to the exclusion of all others, during the term of the lease. Recounting the events leading to putting the petitioners in possession, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that on a mere figment of imagination of the alleged irregularity, the directions issued under letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 cannot be issued by the State Government. Recounting the events leading to putting the petitioners in possession, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that on a mere figment of imagination of the alleged irregularity, the directions issued under letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 cannot be issued by the State Government. Contending that the action of the respondent-State of Jharkhand is completely arbitrary, it is submitted that even in contractual matters, the State is not relieved of its obligation to comply with the basic requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution. It is submitted that the agreement for sublease has been executed between M/s Tata Steel Limited and the petitioners and thus, the respondent-authorities cannot restrain the petitioners from exercising their leasehold rights. It is further submitted that the impugned communications suffer from non-application of mind in as much as, individual cases were not examined to ascertain whether the proposal/approval for sublease is tainted by extraneous considerations or misrepresentation. 9. Mr. Debal Banerjee, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner Ashiana Housing and Finance India Limited in W.P.(C) No. 6176 of 2012 submitted that the petitioner has also raised substantial construction and the direction not to continue further construction has caused serious injury to the petitioner. 10. Ms. Aparajita Singh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner P & N Infrastructure in W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012, submits that the petitioner has taken huge loan for construction of multiplexes and it is incurring huge interest thereon. Due to prohibition in interim order dated 07.03.2013 not to create any third party interest, the petitioner is not able to enter into an agreement to sale, so as to realise a part of the loan amount from the intending purchasers. The direction contained in the impugned letters prohibiting further construction has resulted in huge financial loss to the petitioner on account of mounting interest on the loan amount. She has further submitted that agreement for sublease in favour of the petitioner is a registered instrument and it has the effect of a sublease, in law and thus, the petitioner has stepped into the shoes of its lessor which is the lessee under the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005. Since no action in terms of Clause 24 of the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005 has been taken, the respondent State of Jharkhand is not justified in issuing letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012. 11. As against the above, Mr. Since no action in terms of Clause 24 of the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005 has been taken, the respondent State of Jharkhand is not justified in issuing letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012. 11. As against the above, Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General refers to various clauses of Indenture of Lease dated 20.8.2005 and submits that in the lease-deed itself, several categories of land have been specified and the purpose for which different categories of land can be utilised has also been provided however, the proposals for grant of sublease in favour of the petitioners which has been forwarded, are not in consonance with the object and purpose mentioned in the Indenture of Lease. Referring to Clause 8, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that under Clause 8, M/s Tata Steel Limited can make proposal in respect of “vacant lands” only and any such proposal is subject to the prior approval of the State Government. Upon enquiry, when certain irregularities were detected, the impugned letters were issued to ensure that the geographical condition of the lands in question is maintained. It is further submitted that the State is the paramount owner of the leased land and approval for the sublease has to be accorded by the Revenue and Land Reforms Department. The approval communicated to the petitioners is not the Government decision in terms of Article 166 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, the State Government has every right to review its own decision in the interest of the State. Since the allocation of land in favour of the petitioners appears to be contrary to the terms of Indenture of Lease, before taking any action in the matter, the respondent-State of Jharkhand has rightly directed the petitioners not to raise further constructions. It is further submitted that the right of the State, being the paramount owner, to conduct enquiry in the matter for ascertaining the purpose for which proposal for grant of sublease has been made, cannot be questioned. 12. In reply, on behalf of the petitioners it is submitted that the right of the State to conduct an enquiry in the matter is, in fact, not disputed by the petitioners. However, the manner in which the impugned orders contained in letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 have been issued, affecting the valuable rights of the petitioners, has been questioned in the present proceeding. 13. However, the manner in which the impugned orders contained in letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 have been issued, affecting the valuable rights of the petitioners, has been questioned in the present proceeding. 13. I have carefully considered the submissions of the counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 14. From the affidavits filed in the present proceeding, I gather that there is no dispute in so far as, the recommendation of Appropriate Machinery Committee forwarded to the State Government, is concerned. The learned AAG has submitted that the communication of the approval of the State Government for sublease in favour of the petitioners has been disputed by the respondent-State of Jharkhand, on the ground that the said communication was not the decision of the Government. However, I find that it is not in dispute that the petitioners were put in possession and in several cases, substantial construction has been raised. The direction not to carry further construction would necessarily followed civil consequences to the petitioners. In Mohinder Singh Gill & Another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi & Others, (1978) 1 SCC 405 , the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, “civil consequence” covers infraction of not merely property or personal rights but of civil liberties, material deprivations and non-pecuniary damages also. It is well settled as a fundamental rule of law that, no decision should be taken which will affect the right of a person without first being informed of the case and giving an opportunity of hearing. In State of Orissa vs. (Miss) Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269 , it has been held that even an administrative order or decision, in matters involving civil consequences, must be made consistent with rules of natural justice. In Canara Bank & Others vs. Debasis Das & Others, (2003) 4 SCC 557 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed thus: “(14) The expressions “natural justice” and “legal justice” do not present a watertight classification. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. It is the substance of justice which is to be secured by both, and whenever legal justice fails to achieve this solemn purpose, natural justice is called in aid of legal justice. Natural justice relieves legal justice from unnecessary technicality, grammatical pedantry or logical prevarication. It supplies the omissions of a formulated law. As Lord Buckmaster said, no form or procedure should ever be permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant’s defence. (15) The adherence to principles of natural justice as recognized by all civilized States is of supreme importance when a quasijudicial body embarks on determining disputes between the parties, or any administrative action involving civil consequences is in issue. These principles are well settled. Thus, it is but essential that a party should be put on notice of the case before any adverse order is passed against him. This is one of the most important principles of natural justice. It is after all an approved rule of fair play. The concept has gained significance and shades with time.” 15. In the writ petitions, the petitioners have taken a specific plea that without affording opportunity of hearing, the impugned letters were issued by the respondent-State of Jharkhand. In the rejoinder affidavit to the counter-affidavit filed by the State, the plea of violation of rules of natural justice has again been reiterated by the petitioners. To a pointed query, whether any action in terms of Clause 24 of the Indenture of Lease dated 20.08.2005 has been taken by the State or not, the learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the matter is still at the stage of enquiry and though, he sought information from the concerned authorities, immediately after the last hearing of the cases, he has received no instructions in the matter. However, it is contended that the petitioners have no right in law and therefore, they are not entitled for grant of hearing. It is further contended that there is no sublease existing in their favour and therefore, the contention that they are entitled for peaceful enjoyment of the property till the currency of the subleases, is liable to be rejected. 16. It is further contended that there is no sublease existing in their favour and therefore, the contention that they are entitled for peaceful enjoyment of the property till the currency of the subleases, is liable to be rejected. 16. I am of the opinion that in so far as, the right of the State Government to conduct an enquiry in the matter and examine the proposal for grant of subleases are concerned, the same cannot be challenged by the petitioners however, there is no dispute that the direction to maintain status quo and thus, not to raise further construction, has been issued without hearing the petitioners. Though certain apprehensions were expressed on behalf of the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent M/s Tata Steel Limited asserted that it is the company which is the absolute owner of the lands in question, the broad consensus among the learned counsel for the petitioners is that while permitting the State to conduct an enquiry in the matter, a time schedule may be prescribed and the petitioners also be afforded an opportunity of hearing. Mr. Ajit Kumar, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that during the period the enquiry is to be completed, if the petitioners are permitted to create third party rights, it may lead to serious complications in future and therefore, the interim order dated 07.03.2013 may be extended till the conclusion of the enquiry. The apprehension expressed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand is misplaced and founded on ignorance of settled principles of law. In the first place, there is no restriction in the impugned letters dated 17.09.2012 and 21.09.2012 prohibiting the petitioners from creating third party rights. It is also well settled that an alienation of right, title or interest in the property would be binding only to the extent of right conferred upon the lessee/sub-lessee. 17. Accordingly, without entering into the merits of the matter, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent that, if the State Government decides to conduct an enquiry in the matter, the same must be completed on or before 31.03.2015 and the petitioners would be given individual notices. It is further ordered that the petitioners and M/s Tata Steel Limited would furnish all required informations, if any, sought by the State Government and they would cooperate in expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. It is further ordered that the petitioners and M/s Tata Steel Limited would furnish all required informations, if any, sought by the State Government and they would cooperate in expeditious conclusion of the enquiry. In case, the State Government takes an adverse decision, the same would be communicated to the petitioners with a copy of the enquiry report. 18. The writ petitions are disposed of, in the aforesaid terms. 19. I.A. No. 769 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6163 of 2012, I.A. No. 653 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6176 of 2012, I.A. No. 6633 of 2013 & I.A. No. 4198 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6199 of 2012, I.A. No. 3192 of 2013 in W.P.(C) No. 6305 of 2012 and I.A. No. 756 of 2014 in W.P.(C) No. 6320 of 2012 stand disposed of.