JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.H. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Patel, learned AGP for the respondents. 2. In present petition the petitioners have placed under challenge order dated 29.12.2001 passed by Deputy Collector, Deesa whereby the said authority rejected present petitioners' application submitted for allotment of land in pursuance of and in accordance with the policy declared by the government vide resolution dated 17.1.1990. The relief prayed for in the petition reads thus:- "7(B) Be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order passed by the respondent No. 1 dated 29.12.2001 by way of suitable writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (C) Be pleased to direct the respondents to allot the land to each petitioners according to the rehabilitation scheme by way of issuing suitable writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the constitution of India. (CC) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to hold that Item No. 9 of the letter dated 26.9.1991 issued by the Revenue Department at Annexure- "K" to this petition is illegal and against the well settled principle of law by way of issuing suitable writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India." (D) Be pleased to direct the respondents to immediately allot the land to each petitioners by way of issuing interim relief till the final disposal of this petition." 3. So far as factual background is concerned it has emerged from the record and from the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners and learned AGP that the petitioners' father was owner of land bearing survey No. 82 admeasuring about 14 acres 23 gunthas at Mauje Jakol and another parcel of land bearing survey No. 47 admeasuring about 16 acres. The petitioners' father died in 1984. Thereafter in April 1985 Succession Entry No. 513 came to be mutated whereby names of the heirs of said original owner (i.e. father of the petitioners) came to be entered into record. Accordingly names of Mr. Sadaji Pakhaji, son of deceased Pakhaji, Kemrajji Pakhaji, son of deceased Pakhaji, Pathaji Pakhaji, son of the deceased Pathaji, Rajaji Pakhaji, son of deceased Pakhaji, Babaji Pakhaji, son of deceased Pakhaji, Narshiji Pakhaji, son of the deceased Pakhaji and Viraben Pakhaji, widow of deceased Pakhaji were entered into record. The said entry No. 512 was certified on 2.11.1985. Sadaji Pakhaji, son of deceased Pakhaji, Kemrajji Pakhaji, son of deceased Pakhaji, Pathaji Pakhaji, son of the deceased Pathaji, Rajaji Pakhaji, son of deceased Pakhaji, Babaji Pakhaji, son of deceased Pakhaji, Narshiji Pakhaji, son of the deceased Pakhaji and Viraben Pakhaji, widow of deceased Pakhaji were entered into record. The said entry No. 512 was certified on 2.11.1985. 3.1 The petitioners claim that subsequently in or around June 1986 properties were partitioned by way of family arrangement whereby the land bearing survey No. 82 admeasuring about 14 acres and 23 gunthas came into share of four brothers i.e. Sadaji Pakhaji, Pathaji Pakhaji, Rajaji Pakhaji, Narshiji Pakhaji. Other two brothers i.e. Khemrajji Pakhaji and Babuji Pakhaji got their shares from land bearing survey No. 47/paiki. The said land bearing survey No. 47 (admeasuring about 16 acres) was equally divided amongst said two brothers i.e. 7 acres and 34 gunthas. After said family arrangement revenue entry No. 558 was mutated on 5.6.1986 and the said entry was certified on 15.7.1986. 3.2 Sometime thereafter i.e. in June 1986 Notification under Section 4 of Land Acquisition Act was published on 15.6.1986 for acquisition of land for Deesa Air Field Project. Entire parcel of land bearing survey No. 82 came to be acquired under the said Notification dated 15.6.1986. 3.3 Above mentioned details are not in dispute. 3.4 After acquisition of land, proceeding for payment of compensation commenced and according to learned AGP compensation was paid to all 7 persons of the family (whose names were entered into record by virtue of entry No. 513 which was mutated on 2.11.1985). 3.5 On 8.9.1988 revenue record No. 568 was mutated whereby the facts and details about acquisition were recorded. The said entry No. 568 came to be certified on 12.9.1988. 3.6 About 4 years after the Notification under Section 4 was issued and about 3 years after the acquisition, Government framed and declared policy for rehabilitation of the persons affected by acquisition for Deesa Air Filed Project. 3.7 The resolution dated 17.1.1990 was issued whereby the government declared the policy of allotting land to the affected persons in lieu of the land which came to be acquired for the Deesa Air Field Project. 3.7 The resolution dated 17.1.1990 was issued whereby the government declared the policy of allotting land to the affected persons in lieu of the land which came to be acquired for the Deesa Air Field Project. 3.8 On the ground that pursuant to the family arrangement the land bearing survey No. 82 came into share of present petitioners and also on the ground that the said entire parcel of land bearing survey No. 82 was acquired under the Notification dated 15.6.1986, the petitioners' submitted an application for allotment of land under the said policy dated 17.1.1990. 3.9 The competent authority disallowed the application for the reasons recorded in the order. 3.10 The said order entailed writ petition at the instance of present petitioners i.e. Special Civil Application No. 8019 of 2000. This Court disposed off the said petition vide order dated 8.11.2000 which reads thus :- We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties. As a result of the hearing and discussion, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will make a representation to the concerned respondents (and/or the appropriate authority) within two weeks from today. The present petition (inclusive of the affidavits filed therein), shall be treated by the concerned authority as a representation. The concerned authority shall decide the said representation within three months of receiving the same. In the premises aforesaid, there is no reason to proceed further on merits with the present petition and the same is accordingly disposed of. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs." 3.11 Thereafter competent authority passed fresh order dated 18.2.2001 and rejected the request for allotment of land. 3.12 The petitioners felt aggrieved by the said order dated 18.2.2001 and they ventilated their grievance in writ petition being SCA No. 4754 of 2001. The said petition came to be disposed off vide order dated 22.10.2001 which reads thus:- "This petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 18.2.2001 passed by the respondent No. 1. It is stated that the land of the petitioner was acquired vide notification dated 16.6.86, under rehabilitation scheme the Government has allotted the land to those persons whose property has been acquired by the Government. It is stated that the land of the petitioner was acquired vide notification dated 16.6.86, under rehabilitation scheme the Government has allotted the land to those persons whose property has been acquired by the Government. The application of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that the entries made in respect of the land of the petitioners were certified on 15.7.86 and hence they are not entitled for the benefit of the resolution dated 17.1.90. The learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out from the assertions made in para 3.1 that nine persons have been given the benefit of that Government resolution dated 17.1.90 though entries in respect of those persons were made on 5.6.86 in the revenue record and the entries regarding their possession were certified on 15.7.86 though the notification under section 4 was issued on 16.6.86. The petitioners' entries were made on 5.6.87 and they were certified on 15.7.86, but the petitioners have not been given the benefit as extended to nine persons mentioned in the said para. Though it is mentioned in the affidavit-in-reply that the benefit of rehabilitation scheme could be extended to the original awardees mentioned in the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and not to those who had entered into the land account after effect of the said notification. It is also stated that the land was in the name of the brothers of the petitioners and was further divided in order to reduce the land holding so that the petitioner could get the advantage of the said rehabilitation scheme. The sub-division of the land holding by the petitioners took place only after issuance of Notification under section 4 of the Act and hence the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit as per the aforesaid scheme. 3. I have carefully considered the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant papers on record. It appears that similarly situated persons exactly with the petitioners have been given the benefit of rehabilitation scheme. Even if the land has been sub-divided after the notification, the persons who are in possession are entitled for the benefit of rehabilitation scheme. It appears that similarly situated persons exactly with the petitioners have been given the benefit of rehabilitation scheme. Even if the land has been sub-divided after the notification, the persons who are in possession are entitled for the benefit of rehabilitation scheme. Considering the facts and circumstances, this petition is being disposed of finally with a direction to the parties that the petitioner will make a representation to the authority concerned pointing out that the similarly situated persons like the petitioners have already been granted the benefit of rehabilitation scheme and so the petitioners are also entitled for the benefit of that scheme. The petitioners will make a representation within a period of three weeks from today. In case, such representation is made by the petitioner within stipulated period, the respondent authority will decide the same in accordance with law, in light of the observations made in this order within a period of two months thereafter. In case any order is passed adverse to the petitioners, the respondent authority will pass a speaking and reasoned order distinguishing the case of the petitioners who are similarly and exactly situated like the petitioners and will send a copy of the order to the petitioner by RPAD within a week from the date of the order. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs. " 3.13 After this Court passed said order dated 22.10.2001 the competent authority reconsidered the petitioners' request and after taking into account the material submitted by the petitioners and relevant facts and circumstances as well as provisions under the policy dated 17.1.1990 the competent authority passed impugned order dated 29.12.2001. 4. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners assailed impugned order and submitted that the authority has passed order on non germane consideration and by ignoring relevant facts and circumstance. He further submitted that the authority has misread and misconstrued the policy/GR dated 17.1.1990 and wrongly deprived the petitioners the benefit of allotment of land. He further submitted that the petitioners have been discriminated inasmuch as in case of several other similarly placed persons the authority has allotted lands whereas the case of petitioner is arbitrarily rejected for non germane and irrelevant reasons and by ignoring the facts or by wrong application of the provisions under the policy dated 17.1.1990. Mr. He further submitted that the petitioners have been discriminated inasmuch as in case of several other similarly placed persons the authority has allotted lands whereas the case of petitioner is arbitrarily rejected for non germane and irrelevant reasons and by ignoring the facts or by wrong application of the provisions under the policy dated 17.1.1990. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that even if the authority was to take into account only those entries which came to be recorded after the date of Notification under Section 4 then also the case of the petitioners should be taken into account because the entry No. 558 was certified on 15.7.1986 i.e. after the date of Notification under Section 4 however, the authority ignored the said fact. Mr. Rathod, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that in the proceedings of revision application No. 1 of 1996 the Collector passed order dated 7.7.1999 holding, inter alia that the petitioners do not have any right in respect of land bearing survey No. 82. He submitted that in the said order the Collector has also taken note of the fact that the petitioners have been paid compensation for acquisition of land bearing survey No. 82 and that therefore also they do not have any right in respect of land bearing survey No. 47. According to learned advocate for the petitioners the said order dated 7.7.1999 passed by the Collector supports the case of the petitioners that the land bearing survey No. 82 came into their share by virtue of family arrangement and that therefore they were entitled for compensation and they would be entitled for the allotment of land under policy dated 17.1.1990 however the Collector has ignored the said fact. 4.1 On the said grounds learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that the impugned order deserves to be set aside and the authority should be directed to pass order allotting land to the petitioners in accordance with the policy dated 17.1.1990. 5. Mr. Patel, learned AGP opposed the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners and submitted that the Deputy Collector has considered all contentions which were raised by the petitioners and cogent reasons have been recorded by the authority. According to learned AGP the order is speaking and reasoned order and does not suffer from any infirmity. 5. Mr. Patel, learned AGP opposed the submissions by learned advocate for the petitioners and submitted that the Deputy Collector has considered all contentions which were raised by the petitioners and cogent reasons have been recorded by the authority. According to learned AGP the order is speaking and reasoned order and does not suffer from any infirmity. He submitted that according to clause 2(c) of the policy dated 17.1.1990 if entire parcel of land owned by the affected persons is not acquired and if after acquisition of the land the land owner is left with land admeasuring 16 acres or more then he would not be entitled for allotment of land for rehabilitation under the policy and that therefore the petitioners are even otherwise not entitled for the allotment of land. On this count Mr. Patel, learned AGP submitted that the land bearing survey No. 47 is 16 acres of land and that therefore in view of clause 2(c) of the policy the petitioners, have in their ownership of the said 16 acres of land which is not acquired and that therefore they are not entitled for allotment of the land under the said policy. With regard to the petitioners' allegation that the persons similarly situated have been allotted land by the competent authority, Mr. Patel, learned AGP relied on the details mentioned in the reply affidavit and submitted that the petitioners have come out with the said allegation without examining the facts related to the said other persons/allottees. According to learned AGP the case of the petitioners is not comparable with the case cited by the petitioners as the facts of those cases are different from the facts of the case of the petitioners. Learned AGP also placed reliance on the clarification issued by the government by circular dated 26.9.1991. Learned AGP, in particular, relied on the clarification No. 9 of the circular dated 26.9.1991 issued by the government which clarified that the entry made prior to the date of notification under Section 4 should not be taken into account and that therefore the entry purportedly made on 5.6.1986 could not have been taken into consideration. Consequently the authority took into consideration entry recorded on 2.11.1985. 5.1 Learned AGP on the said ground opposed the petition and supported as well as justified impugned order. 6. Consequently the authority took into consideration entry recorded on 2.11.1985. 5.1 Learned AGP on the said ground opposed the petition and supported as well as justified impugned order. 6. I have heard rival submissions by the learned advocate for the petitioners and by learned AGP. I have also considered the material available on record including reply affidavit and rejoinder filed by the State Government and the petitioners as well as the policy dated 17.1.1990 and the circular dated 26.9.1991 and the impugned order. 7. The fact that the petitioners' father owned two parcels of land bearing survey No. 82 admeasuring 114 acres and 23 gunthas and land bearing survey No. 47 admeasuring 16 acres is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that after death of petitioners' father in 1984 names of present 4 petitioners, their two brothers and their mother i.e. widow of deceased original owner of the land came to be mutated in revenue record on 8.4.1985 by virtue of entry No. 513. 7.1 The claim of the petitioners that the property, more particularly lands bearing survey No. 82 and survey No. 47 came to be partitioned by way of family arrangement is not disbelieved by the competent authority and the said fact is not disputed by learned AGP during hearing of present petition. 7.2 The fact that upon partition of the said two parcels of land present petitioners came into possession of the land is also not disbelieved by the authority and/or not disputed by the learned AGP at the time of hearing of the petition. 7.3 The fact that entry No. 558 came to be mutated on 5.6.1986 and the details came to be recorded by virtue of the said entry No. 558 are also not in dispute. The said entry has attained finality. The claim that entry came to be certified on 15.7.1986 is also not in dispute. 7.4 At this stage it is relevant to take into account the fact that after said entry No. 558 was mutated on 5.6.1986 and it was certified on 15.7.1986 the Deputy Collector had started Suo Motu proceedings against the mutation of the said entry No. 558 and vide his order dated 13.12.1994 set aside the entry No. 558. 7.4 At this stage it is relevant to take into account the fact that after said entry No. 558 was mutated on 5.6.1986 and it was certified on 15.7.1986 the Deputy Collector had started Suo Motu proceedings against the mutation of the said entry No. 558 and vide his order dated 13.12.1994 set aside the entry No. 558. The said decision by the Deputy Collector was carried in Appeal before the Collector by virtue of Appeal No. 1 of 1996 which came to be decided by the Collector vide order dated 7.7.1999 whereby the Collector directed that the entry No. 558 should be restored. 7.5 It is not in dispute that the said order of the Collector has attained finality inasmuch the said order dated 7.7.1999 has not been carried before higher authority either by the private opponents or by the deputy collector/collector. This fact is also denied/disputed by learned AGP 7.6 It is also pertinent that by the said order dated 7.7.1999 the Collector recorded findings that the opponent Nos. 2 to 5 in Appeal No. 1 of 1996 i.e. present petitioners was entitled for survey No. 82 and they had no right or claim in respect of land bearing survey No. 47. 8. When the said findings of fact by the Collector are taken into account then it would emerge that the findings recorded by the Deputy Collector in his order dated 29.12.2001 runs contrary to and militates against the findings recorded by the collector in his order dated 7.7.1999. 8.1 It appears that either said order dated 7.7.1999 passed by Collector was not placed before the Deputy Collector and was not brought to the notice of the Deputy Collector who decided and considered petitioners' application for allotment of the land under policy dated 17.1.1990 or the said findings by the Collector in his order dated 7.7.1999 was overlooked by the Deputy Collector. 8.2 Be that as it may, the fact remains that the findings recorded by the Deputy Collector in his order dated 29.12.2001 are in conflict with the findings recorded by the Collector in his order dated 7.7.1999. Therefore the Deputy Collector should re-examine the case, more particularly the findings recorded by him, while keeping in focus the order dated 7.7.1999 passed by the Collector because it has attained finality (as claimed by the learned advocate for the petitioners and not disputed by learned AGP). Therefore the Deputy Collector should re-examine the case, more particularly the findings recorded by him, while keeping in focus the order dated 7.7.1999 passed by the Collector because it has attained finality (as claimed by the learned advocate for the petitioners and not disputed by learned AGP). The Deputy Collector should verify as to whether the said order dated 7.7.1999 is reversed and if not then the effect of the order on the claim of the petitioners. The Collector seems to have held that the petitioners do not have any right in respect of land bearing survey No. 47. According to the petitioners the said findings still holds the field. If that is so then how could the said lands bearing survey No. 47 have been included in holding of the petitioners and how could his order holding that the petitioners have 16 Acres of land in their hands and therefore they cannot claim land under the policy, be accepted as correct. 8.3 When the findings recorded by the Collector in order dated 7.7.1999 have attained finality the Collector is obliged to re-verify the evidence and re-examine the conclusion recorded by him while keeping in focus the above mentioned issues and the facts related with the said issues. 8.4 It appears that the observations and findings by the Deputy Collector that the petitioners are holding 16 Acres land is contrary to the Collector's order dated 7.7.1999 and the said contradictions, anomalies and discrepancies between the said two orders justify the petitioner's request that the case should be remanded to the Deputy Collector. From the impugned order it appears that on one hand the Deputy Collector did not examine above mentioned aspects whereas, on the other hand, he heavily relied on circular dated 26.6.1991 more particularly clause No. 9 of the said circular. 8.5 By virtue of the said clause No. 9 of circular dated 26.9.1991 the Government instructed the competent authority that the entries made in the revenue record more particularly immediately prior to the date on which section 4 Notification was issued should not be taken into account because around that time several persons, with ill-intention for misusing the said Section 4 Notification, wrongfully got many entries mutated in the revenue record with the help of the fabricated transactions. 8.6 The petitioners raised objection against said circular dated 26.9.1991. 8.6 The petitioners raised objection against said circular dated 26.9.1991. 8.7 In that context it is necessary to keep in focus that the policy introduced by the Government vide resolution dated 17.1.1990 was not issued in discharge of statutory or legal obligation of the government and the said policy was introduced merely as extra/additional benefit and that therefore it cannot be said that the government cannot prescribe such condition or restrictions which are considered necessary and appropriate in light of the peculiar facts. The government can prescribe appropriate conditions and restrictions so as to provide sufficient safeguard against any mischief or to prevent misuse of the policy. The government would be within its right when it directs/instructs that the status of particular entry or facts as they exist on specified date should be or should not be taken into account. Such decision of the government cannot be interfered with by the Court unless it is established that the conditions are introduced with malafide intention or in colourable exercise of the power or that the said conditions do not have any nexus with the object or that they are irrational. 8.8 In present case the petitioners have failed to establish the said ingredients and therefore the relief prayed for in paragraph No. 7(CC) cannot be granted. The request, therefore, stands rejected. 8.9 However, the authority, at the same time, cannot ignore relevant facts and/or cannot take into account irrelevant and extraneous facts or details. In present case the Deputy Collector could not have overlooked (i) the order passed by the Collector and the findings recorded in that order; and (ii) the fact that entry No. 558 was mutated on 5.6.1987 i.e. prior to the date of Section 4 Notification which was issued on 15.6.1987. 8.10 The petitioner has asserted and placed heavy stress on the fact that the said entry was mutated before notification under Section 4 came to be issued and that the date on which the entry was mutated should be taken into account and not the date on which the entry was certified. 8.11 It cannot be denied that the said aspect has not been addressed and dealt with by the Deputy Collector in his order dated 7.7.1999. 8.11 It cannot be denied that the said aspect has not been addressed and dealt with by the Deputy Collector in his order dated 7.7.1999. 8.12 So far as petitioners' submission based on the allegation that their case is arbitrarily discriminated is concerned, it is necessary to note that the said submission is based on the allegation that the government has allotted land (under said policy dated 17.1.1990) to other similarly placed person i.e. persons who owned land adjacent to the parcel of land of the petitioners which also came to be acquired for Deesa Airfield Project alongwith land of the petitioners. 8.13 The submission is opposed by the respondent on the ground that that the cases of said other persons stand on different footing and the facts of petitioners' case are different from the facts of the case of said other persons. The petitioners would, however still insist that the fact of their cases and the facts of cases of said other persons are similar and the excuse made out by the government is incorrect and unjustified. 8.14 The said rival contentions involve disputed questions of facts which cannot be examined, much less decided, by this Court in writ jurisdiction. 8.15 The petitioners would be obliged to place relevant and sufficient evidence before the authority to establish that the facts of their case are similar to the facts of the cases of said other persons. 8.16 The said factual aspects can be examined and verified only by the competent authority after examining documentary and/or oral evidence which may be placed on record by the petitioners and such process would not be possible exercise of writ jurisdiction. 8.17 Above mentioned aspects bring out and establish the need for reconsideration of the case by the Deputy Collector. 8.18 In view of clause No. 2(c) of the policy dated 17.1.1990 the contention of the learned AGP to the effect that the cases of those persons whose lands came to be acquired for Deesa Airfiled Project would not be entitled for allotment of land under the policy dated 17.1.1990 if such persons are left with at least 16 Acres of land even after acquisition of part of their lands. However, the applicability of the said clause No. 2(c) in case of petitioners would depend on the evidence in light of which it can be verified and ascertained as to whether the petitioners had 16 Acres of land or more in their possession/under their ownership after acquisition of land for Deesa Airfield Project. 8.19 In this context the Deputy Collector appears to have taken into account certain evidence but ignored the order passed by the Collector whereby the Collector appears to have held that the petitioners do not have and did not have any right or title in respect of land bearing survey No. 47. If the said findings recorded by the Collector is not reversed then Deputy Collector could not have reached to any contrary conclusion unless any strong, cogent and relevant evidence was placed before the Deputy Collector and it was also established that the said aspect was either not subject matter before the Collector or the said material was not placed before the Collector. 8.20 It is pertinent that such case is neither pleaded nor established by the petitioners or learned AGP. 8.21 Therefore it was obligatory for the Deputy Collector to take into account the findings recorded by the Collector before holding that the petitioners are not entitled for allotment of land under policy dated 17.01.1990 because they hold and enjoy right and title in land bearing survey No. 47 admeasuring 16 Acres. 8.22 Above mentioned facts, discrepancies and anomalies and the material/document connected with the said issues do not appear to have been taken into account by the Deputy Collector while passing the impugned order. Foregoing discussion has also established the need for re-examination of the case by the Deputy Collector. 9. Since the Dy. Collector has ignored the said aspect and in view of the fact that for consideration of the order dated 7.7.1999 by the Dy. Collector, connected factual aspects will have to be taken into account which process can be effectively taken by the competent authority and not by this Court, it is necessary to remand the case to the competent authority i.e. Dy. Collector & Special Land Acquisition Officer (Deesa Air Field Project at Palanpur) i.e. respondent No. 2 herein for the purpose of deciding the petitioners application for allotment of land in accordance with policy dated 17.1.1990. Collector & Special Land Acquisition Officer (Deesa Air Field Project at Palanpur) i.e. respondent No. 2 herein for the purpose of deciding the petitioners application for allotment of land in accordance with policy dated 17.1.1990. Therefore, following order is passed:- (a) The impugned order dated 29.12.2001 is set aside. (b) The proceedings are remitted to respondent No. 2 [i.e. Dy. Collector & Special Land Acquisition Officer (Deesa Air Field Project at Palanpur)] for fresh consideration and fresh order. The said authority shall pass fresh order after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and after taking into account the material which may be placed on record by the petitioners. The respondent No. 2 will decide the case afresh without being influenced by impugned order dated 29.12.2001. The authority will also take into consideration the observations in present order with regard to circular dated 26.9.1991 and the policy dated 17.1.1990 more particularly, clause 2(c) thereof. The authority will also ascertain as to whether the order dated 7.7.1999 has attained finality or it has been altered or modified subsequently by any authority. If the said order dated 7.7.1999 has attained finality, then, the said order shall be taken into account by the respondent No. 2 while applying clause 2(c) of the policy dated 17.1.1990. (c)Having regard to the fact that this matter has undergone three rounds of litigation and that therefore, the respondent No. 2 shall endeavour to decide the proceedings as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 4 months. The petitioners undertake to cooperate in early hearing of the matter and will not seek any adjournment before the authority. With aforesaid clarification and direction, present petition is allowed to aforesaid extent. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Petition Partly Allowed