JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. 1. By these writ petitions, a claim has been made for award of compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (for short "the Act of 2013"). 2. Learned counsel for petitioners submits that a Notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short "the Act of 1894") was issued on 21st November, 2012. It was published in the newspaper on 21st December, 2012. It was to acquire land for 200 ft. wide road. The declaration under Section 6 of the Act of 1894 was published on 14th March, 2013. The draft award was passed followed by its approval by the Government and its issuance on 6th September, 2013. 3. The Act of 2013 came in effect since 01.01.2014. The amount of compensation was deposited in the court on 13th August, 2015. It was required to be calculated in accordance to the Act of 2013 because it was deposited after 01.01.2014. The respondents deposited the amount of compensation as was determined under the Act of 1894. A prayer is, accordingly, made to direct the respondents to calculate the amount of compensation in accordance to the Act of 2013 and make the payment. To support the argument, reference of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki and Others, AIR 2014 SC 982 has been given. A further reference of the judgment of the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Dayaram Bhondu Koche and Others vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, AIR 2017 Bombay 52 has been given. In the case of Dayaram Bhondu Koche (supra), issue raised herein was considered and decided by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court thus to be applied and, accordingly, writ petitions may be allowed. 4. Learned counsel while giving specific reference of proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, submitted that if award was passed but compensation has not been paid to the majority of land holders then they are entitled for the compensation in accordance to the Act of 2013. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 applies to the present cases, thus prayer made in the writ petitions may be granted. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Rajendra Prasad along with Mr. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 applies to the present cases, thus prayer made in the writ petitions may be granted. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General Shri Rajendra Prasad along with Mr. Atul Singh Chauhan has opposed the petitions. He submits that Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 does not apply to the present cases. It is not a case where award was passed five years or more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013. The award was passed on 6th September, 2013 thus it is not five years prior to the Act of 2013. The proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 would apply, if award was passed five years or more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 and compensation has not been deposited in the account of majority of the land holders. In that case, all the beneficiaries, specified in the Notification under Section 4, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance to the Act of 2013. 6. This proviso is appended to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. The conjoint reading of Section 24(2) with proviso would show that after passing the award, acquisition would not lapse on account of non-payment of compensation if it has been paid to few beneficiaries/land holders leaving majority. In such cases, all the land holders are to be dealt with similarly and, accordingly, compensation is to be paid in accordance to the Act of 2013. The acquisition would lapse only when all the beneficiaries/land holders have not been paid compensation. The proviso has to be applied in consonance to sub-section (2) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 as it cannot be taken as a separate provision, thus harmonious construction of the provision is to be made. 7. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (supra), the Apex Court has not considered the issue aforesaid. The issue therein was quite different. It is taken to be orbiter by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Dayaram Bhondu Koche (supra). The Apex Court, while considering the issue raised therein, made reference of the proviso, virtually by quoting it, thus can be said to be orbiter. No observation on the issue has been made. It is taken to be orbiter by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Dayaram Bhondu Koche (supra). The Apex Court, while considering the issue raised therein, made reference of the proviso, virtually by quoting it, thus can be said to be orbiter. No observation on the issue has been made. If it is taken to be orbiter then Full Bench of the Bombay High Court should have taken proviso below sub-section (2) and not below sub-section (1)(b) because in Para 11 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), proviso has been taken below Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. 8. If proviso would apply even to those cases where award was passed within five years to the commencement of the Act of 2013 then it would be in contradiction to the main provision. A prayer is, accordingly, made to dismiss the writ petitions. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General has given reference of the judgment of this court in the case of Virendra Singh and Others vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, 2016 (3) WLC (Raj.) 454 where similar issue was considered and decided by this court. The specific reference of Paras 47, 65 and 66 has been given thus are quoted hereunder: "47. However, the learned AAG Mr. Prasad for the respondents has submitted that the plea of Section 24(2) was not available to the petitioners of the petitions mentioned in Category-C as the awards in the said petitions were passed after 1.1.09. The plea was also not available to the petitioners falling in the Category-B, who had surrendered their lands in lieu of compensation, with a view to get the benefit of the Circular of the Government for the allotment of the developed land. As regards the petitioners falling in Category-A, he has submitted that a holistic and harmonious reading and construction of Section 24, its sub-sections and proviso was required to be made so as to apply the said provisions contained in Section 24(2) to the proceedings initiated under the Act of 1894 as a whole and not to the proceedings of acquisition of parcels of lands individually or independently. According to Mr. According to Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Section 24(2) would apply only when neither the possession was taken nor compensation was paid in any case for 5 years since passing of the award till the new Act of 2013 came into force. He has relied upon decision in case of Corporation of Calcutta vs. Liberty Cinema, AIR 1965 SC 1107 and in case of Vankataramana Davaru vs. State of Mysore, AIR 1958 SC 255 to submit that all the parts of an Act or a section should be harmoniously construed so that no part of it becomes redundant or result in contradiction or absurdity. Pressing into service, the ratio laid down in various decisions of Supreme Court, on the interpretation of Statutes, he submitted that a proviso is an exception to the main provision and cannot be applied to a foreign territory. According to him, the doctrine of sub-silentio as held in case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi vs. Gurnam Kaur, AIR 1989 SC 38 and in case of Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. and Another, AIR 2012 SC 573 , applies with full rigour in the instant cases. 65. The proviso being an exception to the main Section 24(2), the same also will have to be interpreted considering the provisions of the Act of 1894 only. Having regard to the said provisions, the court is of the opinion that the legislature appears to have carved out the exception by way of proviso with a view to save certain proceedings from lapsing, when large chunk of land was sought to be acquired by issuing notification under Section 4 or when the appropriate Government had exercised the special powers in cases of urgency under Section 17 thereof. Since Section 17 of 1894 Act permitted the Collector to take possession of any land needed for public purpose, before the Award was made, there could be a situation where possession might have been taken and the compensation might not have been paid after the award for five years prior to commencement of the Act of 2013. Similarly, in case of acquisition of large chunk of lands, the possession of the entire land might have been taken, however, for one reason or the other under Section 30 or Section 31, the compensation in respect of majority of land holdings might not have been paid or deposited in the account of beneficiaries. Similarly, in case of acquisition of large chunk of lands, the possession of the entire land might have been taken, however, for one reason or the other under Section 30 or Section 31, the compensation in respect of majority of land holdings might not have been paid or deposited in the account of beneficiaries. Under such circumstances to save the proceedings from the rigours of lapsing, the Legislature appears to have carved out an exception to the said enactment of Section 24(2) to the effect that in such a situation where an award has been made and compensation in respect of majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of beneficiaries, then all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under Section 4 of the said Act of 1894 shall be entitled to the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013. The expression "compensation in respect of majority land holdings" contained in the proviso implies that the same would apply when there are more than one land holdings covered under the single notification. The proviso is silent about the possession and therefore the possession in respect of all the holdings must have been taken under the Act of 1894. Thus, having regard to the provisions contained in the Act of 1894 and considering the cardinal principles of interpretation of Statutes, the only harmonious and logical interpretation of the proviso to Section 24(2) that emerges is that the proviso to Section 24(2) would be applicable in case of land acquisition proceedings, where large chunk of lands comprising several parcels of lands were sought to be acquired under single notification under Section 4, or where the Government had initiated acquisition proceedings invoking Section 17 of the Act of 1894, and though awards were made, and the possession of such lands was taken, the compensation in respect of majority land holdings was not paid to the beneficiaries, for five years prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 and that in such cases, the proceedings would not lapse as contemplated under Section 24(2) but all the beneficiaries specified in the notification under Section 4 of the Act of 1894 shall be entitled to the compensation in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 2013." 66. The condition with regard to the possession has to be complied with under the main provision as well as under the proviso for saving the proceedings from lapsing. The submission of Mr. Prasad that the proceedings would lapse only if both the conditions namely that compensation has not been paid and possession has not been taken are satisfied, cannot be countenanced. His submission that if compensation has been paid to the majority of the holdings then the proceedings would be continued by payment of compensation as per the provisions of the old Act of 1894 irrespective of the fact that possession was not taken also cannot be accepted, for the simple reason that such an interpretation of the proviso would make main enactment of Section 24(2) redundant and ineffective. The only harmonious and holistic reading of Section 24(2) appears to be that the proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed under Section 24(2) in respect of a particular parcel or parcels of land, where the award under 1894 Act has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 but either possession has not been taken or compensation has not been paid in respect of that particular parcel or parcels of land as the case may be, covered under Section 4 notification, and that the proviso would be attracted when the large chunk of land comprising many holdings, was sought to be acquired either under Section 17 or otherwise, and the possession of such lands was already taken, but the compensation was not paid in respect of majority of the land holdings after the award was made, for five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013." In the light of the arguments and the judgments aforesaid, prayer is made to dismiss the writ petitions. 10. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. The proceedings for acquisition of land were initiated under the Act of 1894. The Notification under Section 4 was issued on 21st November, 2012 followed by declaration under Section 6 on 14th March, 2013. The award was passed on 6th September, 2013. In view of the facts given above, the award was passed just prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 by which the Act of 1894 was repealed. The Notification under Section 4 was issued on 21st November, 2012 followed by declaration under Section 6 on 14th March, 2013. The award was passed on 6th September, 2013. In view of the facts given above, the award was passed just prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 by which the Act of 1894 was repealed. In the background aforesaid, analysis of the arguments has to be made. Section 24 of the Act of 2013 has been referred thus quoted hereunder for ready reference: "24. Land acquisition process under Act No. 1 of 1894 shall be deemed to have lapsed in certain cases - (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (1 of 1894):- (a) Where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. (b) Where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894(1 of 1894), where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act." 12. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 starts with non-obstinate clause. Clause (a) provides that if award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has not been made then all the provisions of the Act of 2013 for determination of compensation shall apply. Sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013 starts with non-obstinate clause. Clause (a) provides that if award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has not been made then all the provisions of the Act of 2013 for determination of compensation shall apply. In the instant cases, award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 was passed prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 thus Section 24(1)(a) would not apply so as to claim compensation under the Act of 2013. 13. Clause (b) of Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013 provides that if an award under Section 11 of the Act of 1894 has been made then such proceedings shall continue under the Act of 1894 as if the said Act has not been repealed. In the present cases, award was passed prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 thus as per Section 24(1)(b), further proceedings would continue under the Act of 1894 itself and not under the Act of 2013. The further proceedings include payment of compensation also. 14. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 has been referred by the learned counsel for petitioners. It applies in three contingencies for lapsing of the acquisition. The first condition is about passing the award five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013. If the first condition is satisfied then there is need to satisfy either of two conditions. It is when physical possession of the land has not been taken or non-payment of compensation. In those cases, acquisition would lapse. In the cases in hand, the award was passed in the year 2013 thus it is not five years or more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013. If simplification of the issue is made, Section 24(2) would not apply to the present cases because first contingency, given above, has not been satisfied. 15. The question would be as to whether the proviso can be applied in a case where main provision is not attracted i.e. a case where award has not been passed five years or more prior to commencement of the Act of 2013. The proviso cannot be taken as a separate provision, rather, it has to be read with the main provision i.e. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The proviso cannot be taken as a separate provision, rather, it has to be read with the main provision i.e. Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The view aforesaid is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Dwarka Prasad vs. Dwarka Das Saraf, AIR 1975 SC 1758 . Para 18 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference: "We may mention in fair-ness to counsel that the following, among other decisions, were cited at the bar bearing on the uses of provisos in statutes: Commr. of Income-tax vs. Indo-Mercantile Bank Ltd. 1959 Supp. (2) SCR 256 : AIR 1959 SC 713 , M/s. Ram Narain Sons Ltd. vs. Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax, (1955) 2 SCR 483 : AIR 1955 SC 765 , Thompson vs. Dibdin, 1912 AC 533, Rex vs. Dibdin, 1910 P.D. 57 and Tahsildar Singh vs. State of U.P. (1959) Supp. 2 SCR 785 : AIR 1959 SC 1012 . The law is trite. A proviso must be limited to the subject matter of the enacting clause. It is a settled rule of construction that a proviso must prima facie be read and considered in relation to the principal matter to which it is a proviso. It is not a separate or independent enactment. Words are dependent on the principal enacting words, to which they are tacked as a proviso. They cannot be read as divorced from their context (1912 A.C. 544). If the rule of construction is that prima facie a proviso should be limited in its operation to the subject matter of the enacting clause, the stand we have taken is sound. To expand the enacting clause, inflated by the proviso, sins against the fundamental rule of construction that a proviso must be considered in relation to the principal matter to which it stands as a proviso. A proviso ordinarily is but a proviso, although the golden rule is to read the whole section, inclusive of the proviso, in such manner that they mutually throw light on each other and result in a harmonious construction. "The proper course is to apply the broad general rule of construction which is that a section or enactment must be construed as a whole, each portion throwing light if need be on the rest. "The proper course is to apply the broad general rule of construction which is that a section or enactment must be construed as a whole, each portion throwing light if need be on the rest. The true principle undoubtedly is, that the sound interpretation and meaning of the statute, on a view of the enacting clause, saving clause, and proviso, taken and construed together is to prevail." 16. The prayer is also made to apply the proviso to Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013. It cannot be accepted contrary to the provision and, if it is considered, then would create contradiction. Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 applies to a case where award has not been passed prior to commencement of the Act of 2013. In the instant cases, award was passed prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 thus Section 24(1)(a) of the Act of 2013 would not apply. It is also for the reason that if award was not passed prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 then it would be passed after 01.01.2014 and, in that case, all the land holders would get compensation as per Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 24 of the Act of 2013. If the interpretation is taken in the manner given by the petitioners, proviso needs to be rewritten, which is not in the domain of this court. 17. Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013 would apply to those cases where award has already been made. In that case, determination of compensation cannot be made under the Act of 2013 so as to postulate a situation where majority of the land holders can be given compensation in accordance to the Act of 2013 leaving few so as to apply the proviso. In these cases, award was passed few month prior to commencement of the Act of 2013 thus would be governed by Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013. 18. Section 24(2) is an exception to Section 24(1). It applies when award is passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 and compensation has not been paid or physical possession has not been taken. In that case, acquisition would lapse. 18. Section 24(2) is an exception to Section 24(1). It applies when award is passed five years or more prior to the commencement of the Act of 2013 and compensation has not been paid or physical possession has not been taken. In that case, acquisition would lapse. The government remains at liberty to re-initiate the acquisition and it would be under the Act of 2013, as given by the Apex Court in Para 11 of the judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra). In case of re-initiation of proceedings for acquisition of land, it would entail the land holders to get compensation under the Act of 2013. The proviso takes care of such a situation. If lapse takes place and majority of the land holders get compensation under the Act of 2013 due to re-initiation of acquisition then remaining land holders would also be entitled for the same benefit without lapse of proceedings in their case. 19. The legislative intent seems to be that if there is a acquisition of more than one parcel of land and, out of it, lapse of acquisition takes place for majority of the land holders on account of non-payment of compensation or physical possession then with re-initiation of the acquisition proceedings, those land holders would obviously get compensation as per the Act of 2013. It is leaving those land holders, in whose cases lapse did not take place as they were paid the compensation and physical possession of land was also taken. To avoid discrimination out of one acquisition for more than one parcel of the land, the proviso was inserted. In case of lapse under Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013, it has been provided that if majority of the land holders get compensation under the Act of 2013, the remaining would also get it. 20. A reference of the judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation and Another vs. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki (supra) has been given. Para 11 supports the view taken above. Paras 9 to 11 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder: "9. To turn, now, to the meaning of the expression "compensation has not been paid" in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and its effect on the subject acquisition, it is necessary to refer to Section 24 which reads as follows: "24. Para 11 supports the view taken above. Paras 9 to 11 of the said judgment are quoted hereunder: "9. To turn, now, to the meaning of the expression "compensation has not been paid" in Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act and its effect on the subject acquisition, it is necessary to refer to Section 24 which reads as follows: "24. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, in any case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894:- (a) Where no award under section 11 of the said Land Acquisition Act has been made, then, all provisions of this Act relating to the determination of compensation shall apply. (b) Where an award under said section 11 has been made, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the said Land Acquisition Act, as if the said Act has not been repealed. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), in case of land acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, where an award under the said section 11 has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of this Act but the physical possession of the land has not been taken or the compensation has not been paid the said proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed and the appropriate Government, if it so chooses, shall initiate the proceedings of such land acquisition afresh in accordance with the provisions of this Act: Provided that where an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holding has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries, then, all beneficiaries specified in the notification for acquisition under section 4 of the said Land Acquisition Act, shall be entitled to compensation in accordance with the provisions of this Act. 10. Insofar as sub-section (1) of Section 24 is concerned, it begins with non obstinate clause. By this, Parliament has given overriding effect to this provision over all other provisions of 2013 Act. It is provided in clause (a) that where the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award under Section 11 is made, then the provisions of 2013 Act shall apply relating to the determination of compensation. By this, Parliament has given overriding effect to this provision over all other provisions of 2013 Act. It is provided in clause (a) that where the land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act but no award under Section 11 is made, then the provisions of 2013 Act shall apply relating to the determination of compensation. Clause (b) of Section 24(1) makes provision that where land acquisition proceedings have been initiated under the 1894 Act and award has been made under Section 11, then such proceedings shall continue under the provisions of the 1894 Act as if that Act has not been repealed. 11. Section 24(2) also begins with non obstinate clause. This provision has overriding effect over Section 24(1). Section 24(2) enacts that in relation to the land acquisition proceedings initiated under 1894 Act, where an award has been made five years or more prior to the commencement of the 2013 Act and either of the two contingencies is satisfied, viz. (i) physical possession of the land has not been taken or (ii) the compensation has not been paid, such acquisition proceedings shall be deemed to have lapsed. On the lapse of such acquisition proceedings, if the appropriate government still chooses to acquire the land which was the subject matter of acquisition under the 1894 Act then it has to initiate the proceedings afresh under the 2013 Act. The proviso appended to Section 24(2) deals with a situation where in respect of the acquisition initiated under the 1894 Act an award has been made and compensation in respect of a majority of land holdings has not been deposited in the account of the beneficiaries then all the beneficiaries specified in Section 4 notification become entitled to compensation under 2013 Act." (Emphasis supplied) 21. It is not disputed by learned counsel for petitioners that issue before the Apex Court was not in reference to proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. It was taken to be orbiter by the Full Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Dayaram Bhondu Koche (supra). The perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench of Bombay High Court shows reference of Para 11 of the judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) where proviso is referred below Section 24(2) and not below Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013. The perusal of the judgment of the Full Bench of Bombay High Court shows reference of Para 11 of the judgment in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) where proviso is referred below Section 24(2) and not below Section 24(1) of the Act of 2013. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court framed and decided the issue by taking proviso appended to Section 24(1)(b) of the Act of 2013. If judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) is taken to be orbiter and binding, the proviso should have been taken below Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. It goes contrary to the judgment of Apex Court. The Full Bench of the Bombay High Court kept the issue open if proviso is taken below Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013. The lawyers appeared therein did not assist the court properly. In the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra), Para 11 shows proviso appended to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 and not below Section 24(1)(b). 22. Para 11 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Pune Municipal Corporation (supra) otherwise gives answer to the question raised before this court. In the said para, the Apex Court first decided as to when acquisition would lapse. If further says that on the lapse of acquisition, if government still chooses to acquire the land then needs to re-initiate the proceedings afresh under the Act of 2013. The proviso appended to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 deals with such a situation and if judgment is taken to be orbiter and binding then answers the question. It was not referred by the lawyers appeared before the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court while arguing the case. The proviso to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 would apply in the cases where out of many parcels of the land under one acquisition, lapse takes place for majority, leaving few. In case of payment of compensation to the majority of the land holders under the Act of 2013 on re-initiation of acquisition, others would also be entitled to the same benefit though lapse may not take place in their cases. The proviso appended to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 would apply in the contingencies given above and obviously it is to avoid discrimination between similar situate. 23. The proviso appended to Section 24(2) of the Act of 2013 would apply in the contingencies given above and obviously it is to avoid discrimination between similar situate. 23. In view of the detailed reasoning's given by this court, arguments made by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted and accordingly, writ petitions are dismissed. 24. A copy of this order be placed in each connected file.