Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 785 (TS)

New Club v. N. Naresh Kumar

2020-11-17

M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO

body2020
JUDGMENT M.S.Ramachandra Rao, J. - This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dt.17.10.2020 passed in Interlocutory Application No.464 of 2020 in S.O.P.No.3 of 2020 on the file of XXVI Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad. 2. The petitioners in this Revision have filed the said O.P. against the respondents for a declaration that the findings given by Disciplinary Committee of the 1st petitioner - Club and the order dt.01.06.2020 passed by the said Committee, initially suspending and later terminating the primary membership of petitioner nos.2 to 9 of the 1st petitioner - Club, as illegal, null and void and non est in Law; and for a permanent injunction restraining respondent nos.1 to 5 from interfering with the day-to-day functioning and management of the 1st petitioner - Club by petitioner nos.2 to 9 as Members of Managing Committee of the Club. The case of the petitioners in the O.P 3. The case of the petitioners in the O.P. was that the 1st petitioner - Club is a Society registered under the then Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001; that petitioner nos.2 to 9 and the 6th respondent were Members of the Managing Committee of the 1st petitioner - Club, and as per the Rules and Regulations of the Club, they would manage affairs of the Club; that Rule 10 of the Rules and Regulations of the Club empower the Managing Committee of the Club exclusively to take action against any member of the Club as per the opinion / findings of the Disciplinary Committee of the Club; and that respondent nos.1 to 5 were the nominated Members of the Disciplinary Committee of the 1st petitioner - Club. 4. 4. They contend that a complaint had been made by respondent nos.6 and 7 to respondent nos.1 to 5 / Disciplinary Committee on 27.04.2020 alleging removal of liquor bottles from the bar of the Club during the lockdown period in the Twin Cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad on account of COVID - 19 Pandemic, which was in force from 15.03.2020; on the basis of the said complaint, the Disciplinary Committee, consisting of respondent nos.1 to 5, suspended petitioner nos.2 to 9 on 28.04.2020, and thereafter a show-cause notice was issued to petitioner nos.2 to 9; and that petitioner nos.2 to 9 who were in the Managing Committee issued a Notice dt.08.05.2020 to respondent nos.1 to 5 to show cause why their status as Members of the Disciplinary Committee should not be suspended. 5. According to the petitioners, respondent nos.1 to 5 gave an explanation on 11.05.2020, and after considering the same, the Managing Committee of the 1st petitioner - Club consisting of petitioner nos.2 to 9 suspended respondent nos.1 to 5 from their status as members of the Disciplinary Committee of the 1st petitioner - Club. 6. It is contended by the petitioners that in spite of the same, respondent nos.1 to 5 colluded with respondent nos.6 and 7 and gave findings on 01.06.2020 against petitioner nos.2 to 9 holding, inter alia, on the basis of statements of certain witnesses and also a telephonic audio recording made by the Club Manager, viz., Srinivas with one M. Ramesh, that the Managing Committee Members were taking away the liquor bottles during the lockdown period in collusion with staff of the Club, and that they had also misbehaved and caused damage to the Club property. 7. The Disciplinary Committee, in view of the findings recorded by it on 01.06.2020, held that petitioner nos.2 to 9 had committed grave and major offences and are liable to be penalized as per Rule (IV)(b) of the Rules and Regulations and terminated the Membership of petitioner nos.2 to 9 with effect from 01.06.2020. It further went on to dissolve the Managing Committee and appointed an Election Officer for conducing elections to all the posts of the Managing Committee by fixing election schedule immediately after lockdown period. 8. It is this action of respondent nos.1 to 5 that prompted petitioners to file S.O.P.No.3 of 2020 invoking Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. 9. 8. It is this action of respondent nos.1 to 5 that prompted petitioners to file S.O.P.No.3 of 2020 invoking Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. 9. In the said O.P., it is contended by the petitioners that there is collusion between respondent nos.1 to 5 who are members of the Disciplinary Committee and respondent nos.6 to 7 who made complaint to the said Disciplinary Committee, and during the subsistence of lockdown period on account of COVID-19 pandemic, the Disciplinary Committee acted in a hasty manner unilaterally; that the suspension of petitioner nos.2 to 9 on 28.04.2020 was done without giving any opportunity to them; there is no power conferred on respondent nos.1 to 5 to suspend or pass any sentence for removal of a Member from his elected post as Office-Bearer or from his primary Membership of the Society; when the Managing Committee, consisting of petitioner nos.2 to 9 had suspended respondent nos.1 to 5 from their status as members of the Disciplinary Committee on 13.05.2020 itself, the Disciplinary Committee could not have proceeded and given findings against petitioner nos.2 to 9 on 01.06.2020. 10. Other contentions were also raised that the movement of individuals was restricted during the lockdown period and at that period of time the enquiry ought not to have been conducted by respondent nos.1 to 5; no documentary evidence of any enquiry was relied upon by respondent nos.1 to 5 for giving their findings; that the alleged voice-recording could not have been relied upon by respondent nos.1 to 5 to hold petitioner nos.2 to 9 guilty of any misconduct as there was no identification of the voice; that the oral testimony of some dismissed staff could not have been relied upon; that the role of the Disciplinary Committee ends by recommending any punishment to the Managing Committee or, in any case, to the General Body, and it has no power by itself to terminate membership of petitioner nos.2 to 9. 11. Reference is also made to an inspection allegedly done by Excise Officials recorded in an Inspection Book on 27.05.2020; and it was also contended that respondent nos.1 to 5 instructed the banker of the 1st petitioner - Club that petitioner nos.2 to 9 should obtain court orders for operating the Bank Account of the 1st petitioner - Club. 11. Reference is also made to an inspection allegedly done by Excise Officials recorded in an Inspection Book on 27.05.2020; and it was also contended that respondent nos.1 to 5 instructed the banker of the 1st petitioner - Club that petitioner nos.2 to 9 should obtain court orders for operating the Bank Account of the 1st petitioner - Club. Reference is also made to appointment of 15 members of the Club by ad hoc Committee by respondent nos.1 to 5, and it was contended that the same is illegal and non est in Law. I.A.No.464 of 2020 12. Along with the O.P., the petitioners filed I.A.No.464 of 2020 praying, for a temporary injunction restraining respondent nos.1 to 5 from interfering with the day-to-day functioning and management of the 1st petitioner - Club by petitioner nos.2 to 9 (being Members of the Managing Committee) including operation of the Bank Account of the 1st petitioner - Club, conducting meetings and other activities, pending disposal of the main O.P. 13. The petitioners reiterated the contents of the O.P. in the said I.A. The case of the respondents 1 to 5 14. The respondent nos.1 to 5 filed counter-affidavits opposing grant of any interim relief through the 4th respondent. 15. After denying all the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.464 of 2020, respondent nos.1 to 5 contended that they are members of the Disciplinary Committee and they have been nominated to the said Committee by members of the General Body of the 1st petitioner - Club; that they have ample powers to exercise control and caution in matter of misconduct and misbehaviour and damage caused to the 1st petitioner - Club by members of the Club including its Managing Committee members, and that they had properly exercised their powers as per the authority vested in them. 16. Reference is made to Bye-law No.X(ii) of the Bye-laws of the 1st petitioner - Club which permits suspension of Members involved in any misbehaviour / misconduct by the Managing Committee. 17. It was also contended that any recommendation by the Disciplinary Committee is binding on the Managing Committee as per the said bye-law. 18. It was contended that petitioner nos.2 to 9 had submitted explanations to the show-cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Committee, and that they cannot now question the power and authority of the Disciplinary Committee in conducting enquiry. 19. 18. It was contended that petitioner nos.2 to 9 had submitted explanations to the show-cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Committee, and that they cannot now question the power and authority of the Disciplinary Committee in conducting enquiry. 19. It was pointed out that petitioner nos.2 to 9 had influenced the Manager of the Club, viz., Srinivas, who is the custodian of the entire records of the Club and did not allow him to submit records of the Club to the Disciplinary Committee to conduct enquiry and that the said Manager had sent an audio - recording to the members of the Disciplinary Committee on 03.05.2020 admitting that the liquor bottles were taken away from the Club during lockdown period by petitioner nos.2 to 9. It was contended that respondent nos.1 to 5 were therefore justified in giving findings against petitioner nos.2 to 9 on the basis of the evidence collected during the enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Committee, and also to terminate the membership of petitioner nos.2 to 9. 20. It was also pointed out that petitioner nos.2 to 9 intentionally avoided to participate in the disciplinary proceedings, and so the findings of the Disciplinary Committee are binding on them. According to them, they are entitled to impose punishment of termination of membership under Rule (IV)(b) of interpretation of the Rules and Regulations. 21. It was further contended that an action can be initiated against members of the Disciplinary Committee only on a written complaint, but even in the absence of a written complaint against respondent nos.1 to 5, petitioner nos.2 to 9 initiated action and suspended members of the Disciplinary Committee, and such action has no legal sanctity. 22. It was further contended that petitioner nos.2 to 9 do not have any powers to suspend the powers of the Disciplinary Committee, because the members of the Disciplinary Committee had been nominated by the General Body of the Club. 23. It was also contended that recommendation of punishment in the normal course is made by the Disciplinary Committee to the Managing Committee but it will not have any effect since all the members of the Managing Committee are guilty of misconduct, and they would not implement the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee against themselves. 24. 23. It was also contended that recommendation of punishment in the normal course is made by the Disciplinary Committee to the Managing Committee but it will not have any effect since all the members of the Managing Committee are guilty of misconduct, and they would not implement the recommendations of the Disciplinary Committee against themselves. 24. It was contended that in the event the entire Managing Committee is involved in illegalities and irregularities, the Disciplinary Committee would have ample power to recommend punishment which cannot be binding on the entire Managing Committee. 25. It was further contended that the Excise Department of the State of Telangana or the Police Department has no power to probe into illegalities or irregularities committed by the Managing Committee of the 1st petitioner - Club, and it is only the Disciplinary Committee which can go into the said aspects, and any reports or clearances given by the said departments will not bind the Disciplinary Committee or members of the Club. 26. It was also denied that respondent nos.1 to 5 had appointed any ad hoc Committee. It was however stated that they had appointed an Election Officer to conduct elections to all posts as the entire Managing Committee had been dissolved. The order of the Court below 27. In Interlocutory Application No.464 of 2020, the petitioners marked Exs.P1 to P24, and respondents marked Exs.R1 to R34. 28. By order dt.17.10.2020, the Court below dismissed I.A.No.464 of 2020. 29. The Court below, after considering Rule X framed by the 1st petitioner - Club, observed that when the said Rule makes a recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee binding on the Managing Committee, it is not open to the petitioners to contend that the Managing Committee has got a choice to reject the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee. 30. It also rejected the plea of the petitioners that the Disciplinary Committee has to place its findings before General Body. 31. 30. It also rejected the plea of the petitioners that the Disciplinary Committee has to place its findings before General Body. 31. It pointed out that Rule XII of the Rules and Regulations of the Club provides for an Annual General Body meeting and Sub-Rule (9) of Rule XII makes a provision to prefer an Appeal by an aggrieved member for redressal to the Annual General Body; that this provision would apply to every aggrieved member including members of the Managing Committee; and so petitioner nos.2 to 9, however much they are aggrieved by the findings of the Disciplinary Committee comprising of respondent nos.1 to 5, can approach the Annual General Body questioning termination of primary membership including their membership of the Managing Committee. 32. As regards inspection of Excise Officials, whose report was relied upon by the petitioners, the Court below pointed out that such inspection report did not disclose place where actually the excise officials had inspected, and such inspection was also not done in the presence of the members of the Disciplinary Committee. 33. It was also observed that certain withdrawals and deposits took place in the Bank Account of the 1st petitioner - Club in the period between 01.04.2019 and 09.06.2020; and that petitioner nos.2 to 9, without any authority, had donated Rs.5.00 lakhs to the Chief Minister's Relief Fund which would amount to prima facie malpractice of misappropriation of funds of the Club since the 2nd petitioner had no authority to incur expenditure more than Rs.1,500/- over and above the sanctioned budget without ratification from the Managing Committee. It observed that there is no violation of natural justice of the members of the Disciplinary Committee in the conduct of enquiry against petitioner nos.2 to 9 since show-cause notice had been issued to them, and having given explanation, they did not participate in the enquiry. 34. It observed that whether respondent nos.1 to 5 have power to terminate the primary membership of petitioner nos.2 to 9 is a matter to be appreciated after full-fledged enquiry or trial, and till such time, the enquiry report of respondent nos.1 to 5 (Ex.P3 / Ex.R17) would hold the field. 35. 34. It observed that whether respondent nos.1 to 5 have power to terminate the primary membership of petitioner nos.2 to 9 is a matter to be appreciated after full-fledged enquiry or trial, and till such time, the enquiry report of respondent nos.1 to 5 (Ex.P3 / Ex.R17) would hold the field. 35. It also held that without seeking suspension of the operation of the impugned findings in the said enquiry report, the petitioners cannot simply seek for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their day-to-day functions of the Club because by the date of filing of the petition, all their membership have been terminated. 36. It observed that prima facie there is incriminating material found against the petitioners to believe that they indulged in malpractice by taking away the liquor bottles in bulk during lockdown period on account of COVID-19 pandemic, and then sold the same for their selfish ends and caused damage to property of the Club and the interests of 2200 Members of the Club is required to be protected. 37. It also observed that if interim relief is granted to the petitioners, they would take advantage of the same and may indulge in more misappropriation and breach of trust causing loss to the members of the Club which cannot be compensated. 38. Assailing the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed. The contentions of counsel for petitioners 39. Heard Sri Sunil B. Ganu, learned counsel for the petitioners. 40. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that there was no cause of action for respondent nos.6 and 7 to lodge a complaint against petitioner nos.2 to 9 before respondent nos.1 to 5, i.e., members of the Disciplinary Committee as there was no illegal sale of liquor stock during the COVID -19 pandemic; the complaints were motivated without any cause of action; the officials of the Excise Department have not found any stock missing from the bar of the 1st petitioner - Club. 41. According to him, the entire enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Committee was an eye-wash as it was conducted during lockdown period, and they ought to have waited till the lifting of the lockdown and then conducted an enquiry. 42. 41. According to him, the entire enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Committee was an eye-wash as it was conducted during lockdown period, and they ought to have waited till the lifting of the lockdown and then conducted an enquiry. 42. He also contended that the findings in the enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Committee can be given effect to only during substantive trial in the suit and cannot be given effect to at the interlocutory stage. 43. He also disputed the power of the Disciplinary Committee to suspend elected members of the Society from their posts. According to him, there is material irregularity and abuse of power by respondent nos.1 to 5. 44. According to him, there is no clear provision providing for a trial to the General Body of the Society and so the Court under Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001 alone would be competent to consider the issue inter se amongst members of any issue about the management of the affairs of the Club. 45. He also contended that F.I.R. lodged by the respondents against petitioner nos.2 to 9 on 07.08.2020 had been closed by the police. According to him, when the complaint was made by respondent nos.6 and 7 only was in respect of alleged misappropriation of liquor stock, the Court below could not have gone into the issue of withdrawals or deposits made in the Bank Account of the Club during the pandemic. The consideration by the Court 46. I have noted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 47. The consideration by the Court 46. I have noted the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners. 47. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the 1st petitioner is a Club registered under the Andhra Pradesh Societies Registration Act, 2001; that petitioner nos.2 to 9 and respondent no.6 were the Members of the Managing Committee of the said Club; that respondent nos.1 to 5 were nominated to the Disciplinary Committee of the said Club by the General Body of the said Club; that respondent nos.6 and 7 had lodged a complaint on 27.04.2020 to the Disciplinary Committee alleging that liquor bottles in bulk quantity from the Club stock had been taken from the Club during the lockdown period in gross violation of the Club Rules and Regulations in spite of a ban having been imposed by the State Government on the sale of liquor on account of COVID-19 pandemic and that the Members of the Managing Committee of the Club including petitioners 2 to 9 were involved in the said action; and therefore the Disciplinary Committee had suspended petitioner nos.2 to 9 pending enquiry and issued a show-cause notice dt.28.04.2020 (Ex.R3) asking petitioner nos.2 to 9 to give their explanation thereto. 48. Admittedly explanations to the show-cause notice were submitted by the petitioners, and the Disciplinary Committee then passed Ex.P3 = R17 order on 01.06.2020 holding that petitioner nos.2 to 9 have committed grave irregularities and their membership is terminated with effect from 01.06.2020 and the Managing Committee itself was dissolved by appointing one E.Vinod for conducting elections to the posts of the Managing Committee by fixing election schedule immediately after the lockdown period. 49. It is important to note that petitioner nos.2 to 9 did not participate in the proceedings of the enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Committee claiming that there was a lockdown in force, but statements were recorded from the 6th respondent, a security guard, and a person running food stall and on the basis of the said material and also on the basis of certain audio recordings made by the Club Manager Srinivas, the above order was passed. 50. It is not in dispute that Sub-Rule (9) of Rule XII of the Rules and Regulations of the 1st petitioner - Club provides for an Appeal to the Annual General Body by the aggrieved Member for redressal. 51. 50. It is not in dispute that Sub-Rule (9) of Rule XII of the Rules and Regulations of the 1st petitioner - Club provides for an Appeal to the Annual General Body by the aggrieved Member for redressal. 51. The word 'aggrieved member' has wide connotation and would certainly include persons like the petitioners who are not only Members of the 1st petitioner Club but also the Members of the Managing Committee of the 1st petitioner Club. Such persons have remedy of Appeal before the Annual General Body against the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee consisting of respondent nos.1 to 5, but they have not availed of the same and they straight away filed the O.P. invoking Section 23 of the A.P. Societies Registration Act, 2001. 52. As of date there are serious adverse findings recorded by the Disciplinary Committee against the petitioners 2 to 9 whose correctness is required to be gone into by the Court below. 53. Assuming for the sake of argument without conceding that there are grounds to set it aside, the petitioners have not asked for suspension of the findings of the Disciplinary Committee. They have only sought for temporary injunction to restrain the respondents from interfering with their day-to-day functions of the Club because by the date of filing of the petition, all their membership had been terminated. 54. A defence has no doubt been raised in the O.P. by the petitioners that under Rule 10 of the Rules and Regulations of the Club, the Disciplinary Committee of the 1st petitioner Club has to submit their findings to the Managing Committee to decide the nature of punishment to be given and that the Disciplinary Committee has no power to either suspend the membership of petitioner nos.2 to 9 or to impose any penalty such as termination of their membership. 55. But, it cannot be denied that in the instant case, the sale of liquor belonging to the Club is alleged to be done by Members of the Managing Committee themselves and as per para 8 of Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule X of the Rules and Regulations of the Club, the recommendation of the Disciplinary Committee is binding on the Managing Committee if the Disciplinary Committee had conducted an enquiry into any misconduct by Members of the Managing Committee. 56. 56. Therefore, it is not as if there is any choice vested in the Managing Committee to take a different view from that of the Disciplinary Committee. But it is highly improbable to expect the Managing Committee to take disciplinary action against itself in the facts and circumstances of the case when it's members themselves are facing serious charges. 57. Therefore, I am of the opinion that the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Disciplinary Committee could suspend the Members of the Managing Committee pending enquiry into the serious allegations levelled against them by respondents 6 and 7 and whether it is proper for the Disciplinary Committee to terminate even the primary membership of petitioner nos.2 to 9, would have to be gone into in the O.P. the said issue is required to be decided in the O.P. by the Court below. 58. It is also required to be considered in the O.P. whether petitioner nos.2 to 9 could have suspended respondent nos.1 to 5 as Members of the Disciplinary Committee on 14.05.2020 under Ex.R22 after a show-cause notice had been issued on 28.04.2020 by the Disciplinary Committee to petitioner nos.2 to 9 alleging about sale of liquor from the Club by the Members of the Managing Committee. 59. It is possible that to escape any enquiry into their misconduct by the Disciplinary Committee, such pre-emptive action might have been taken by the petitioners 2 to 9. In the absence of any written complaint against the Members of the Disciplinary Committee as prescribed in Sub-Rule (ii) of Rule X of the Rules and Regulations of the Club, prima facie it would make the Members of the Managing Committee Judges in their own cause as they would be trying to get the Disciplinary Committee out of the way to avoid any enquiry by the Disciplinary Committee against them. 60. This conduct also, in my opinion, shows that the petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and had tried to overreach the Disciplinary Committee and sought to short-circuit the disciplinary action proposed by the Disciplinary Committee against them. 61. It also suggests that the petitioners had no intention to participate in the disciplinary enquiry in spite of having stated in the explanations to the show-cause notice (Ex.R3) dt.28.04.2020 requesting the Disciplinary Committee to conduct the enquiry after the lockdown is lifted. 62. 61. It also suggests that the petitioners had no intention to participate in the disciplinary enquiry in spite of having stated in the explanations to the show-cause notice (Ex.R3) dt.28.04.2020 requesting the Disciplinary Committee to conduct the enquiry after the lockdown is lifted. 62. No doubt, they claimed that on account of the lockdown, enquiry itself should be conducted after the lockdown was lifted. Their plea about lack of opportunity to participate in the enquiry conducted by the Disciplinary Committee has therefore to be considered in the light of their action taken under Ex.R22 dt.14.05.2020 and the clear indication therein about the hostility they showed to the Disciplinary Committee rendering their participation in any enquiry by the Disciplinary Committee virtually impossible. 63. Probably on account of the serious allegations levelled against petitioner nos.2 to 9 by respondent nos.6 and 7, and the urgent need to find out the truth, it is possible that, as a matter of necessity, the Disciplinary Committee proceeded with the enquiry and passed the order Ex.R-17 on 01.06.2020. 64. That where there is urgency, there need not be strict compliance of principles of natural justice is settled law. In Karnataka Public Service Commission v. B.M. Vijaya Shankar, (1992) 2 SCC 206 , at page 211 the Supreme court has held: "4. Was natural justice violated? Natural justice is a concept which has succeeded in keeping the arbitrary action within limits and preserving the rule of law. But with all the religious rigidity with which it should be observed, since it is ultimately weighed in balance of fairness, the courts have been circumspect in extending it to situations where it would cause more injustice than justice. Even though the procedure of affording hearing is as important as decision on merits yet urgency of the matter, or public interest at times require flexibility in application of the rule as the circumstances of the case and the nature of the matter required to be dealt may serve interest of justice better by denying opportunity of hearing and permitting the person concerned to challenge the order itself on merits not for lack of hearing to establish bona fide or innocence but for being otherwise arbitrary or against rules" ( emphasis supplied) 65. So the plea based on violation of principles of natural justice raised by the petitioners cannot be straight away accepted when compliance with it by postponing the enquiry to a post lock down period would also seriously jeopardise the interests of 2200 members of the 1st petitioner club by allowing petitioner nos.2 to 9 to continue to run the affairs of the Club in spite of the possible serious misconduct committed by them by getting involved in the alleged sale of liquor of the Club.. 66. It cannot be gainsaid that there was a ban on the sale of liquor imposed by the State Government during the lockdown period and any sale of liquor of the Club allegedly done by petitioner nos.2 to 9 would be contrary to law and would invite possible penal action against the Club itself. 67. Therefore, even assuming for the sake of argument, there is prima facie case in favour of the petitioners on account of technical violation of the Rules and Regulations mentioned in Ex.P2, balance of convenience is certainly not in their favour and no irreparable injury would be caused to them if the interim relief sought for by them is not granted pending disposal of the O.P. 68. Also, the scope of interference with the orders passed by Subordinate Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is extremely limited and it is in my opinion not a fit case to interfere with the order of the Court below in exercise of the jurisdiction conferred on this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 69. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. However the Court below shall decide S.O.P.No.3 of 2020 uninfluenced by any observations recorded by it in the impugned order and also any observations made by this Court in this order. No costs. 70. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Revision shall also stand dismissed.