JUDGMENT Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J. 1 . Heard. 2 . Under challenge is the order dated 12.08.2013, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the selection of the petitioner on the post of Assistant in State Bank of India has been cancelled and the offer of appointment has been revoked/cancelled. 3 . Bereft of unnecessary details, facts of the case as set forth by the petitioner are that the petitioner had appeared in a examination for the clerical cadre in State Bank of India. The written examination took place on 27.05.2012. The petitioner was declared successful and thereafter he appeared for an interview on 12.09.2012. On being successful, an offer of appointment dated 27.11.2012, a copy of which is Annexure-7 to the petition, was issued whereby the petitioner was informed that he had been selected for appointment in the Bank in the clerical cadre as "Assistant" subject to completion of required formalities. The petitioner was required to appear on 11.02.2013 for completion of joining formalities. 4 . Condition No.12 of the said offer clearly provided that in the event of any of information/declaration/certificate or document being found false, forged or fabricated at a later date, the offer of appointment shall be deemed to have been cancelled. 5 . The petitioner appeared for the scrutiny of documents on the said date and had thereafter been sent for one day training. Thereafter, vide the order impugned dated 12.08.2013, the offer of appointment of the petitioner has been cancelled. 6 . A perusal of the said order would indicate that the respondents have stated that during scrutiny of the documents/credentials of the petitioner, serious discrepancies were detected in the signature and thumb impression as appear in the call letter as against the signature and thumb impression of petitioner at the time of scrutiny. On account of such discrepancy, relevant evidences were referred to the Forensic Expert and it transpired that the thumb impression and signature obtained at the time of written examination were different from the thumb impression and signature obtained at the time of scrutiny and consequently the offer of appointment of the petitioner had been cancelled. 7 . Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. 8 . 7 . Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. 8 . Specific averment has been made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in paras 15 & 16 of the writ petition that at the time of written examination neither any signature nor thumb impression was made by the petitioner on any paper nor the invigilator was instructed to take signature or thumb impression at any paper consequently there cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to have signed and affixed his thumb impression in the attendance sheet which has prevailed on the respondents while passing the order impugned to indicate that the petitioner has tried to secure appointment by impersonation. 9 . The other ground taken by the petitioner is that once the petitioner had been sent for training and offer of appointment is of 27.11.2012 as such there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have cancelled the offer of appointment after a period of more than 9 months. 10 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents in their counter affidavit have indicated that the petitioner had appeared in the written examination and thus there cannot be any occasion now for the respondents to indicate that there was impersonation so as to cancel the offer of appointment of the petitioner. 11 . Another ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order impugned has been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice, which thus renders the order vitiated in the eyes of law. 12 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has also argued that the petitioner has represented against the order impugned but the same has not been considered. 13 . Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her arguments has placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in W.P.C.T. 178 of 2012 In Re Sashi Bhushan Kumar & Ors vs Union of India & Ors. 14 . No other ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15 . 13 . Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of her arguments has placed reliance on the judgment of Calcutta High Court in W.P.C.T. 178 of 2012 In Re Sashi Bhushan Kumar & Ors vs Union of India & Ors. 14 . No other ground has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 15 . On the other hand, Shri Sharad Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Bank has argued on the basis of averments contained in the counter affidavit that it was only during the scrutiny of the documents/credentials that serious discrepancies were detected in the signature and thumb impression taken at the time of written examination in the attendance sheet as against the signature and thumb impression obtained at the time of scrutiny of documents and noticing the said discrepancies, the matter had been referred for a report of the handwriting expert, which was submitted vide report dated 28/29.06.2013, a copy of which is Annexure-CA1 to the counter affidavit, which clearly indicates the difference in signatures and thumb impression of the petitioner which has thus prevailed on the competent authority to hold that there was impersonation committed by the petitioner and thus, there is no infirmity or illegality in the offer of appointment of the petitioner having been withdrawn. 16 . Shri Sharad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank also invites attention of the Court towards the attendance sheet, a copy of which is part of Annexure-CA1 (Page-26) of the counter affidavit, to indicate that all the candidates who had appeared in the written examination on the said date i.e. 27.05.2012 had signed and affixed their thumb impressions and as such there cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to contend in the writ petition that the petitioner did not sign at the time of written examination nor any thumb impression or signature was been made by the petitioner. 17 . 17 . Placing reliance on the report of the handwriting expert, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is that Handwriting Expert has examined both the verification form and call letter vis a vis signature and thumb impression of the petitioner on the attendance sheet to arrive at a conclusion that the person who appeared in the written examination had signed and affixed the thumb impression differently from that of the petitioner and thus it is clearly apparent that somebody impersonated the petitioner at the time of the written examination and thus once a fraud has been committed by the petitioner consequently there cannot be any occasion even for issuance of a show cause notice inasmuch as once there is only one conclusion possible there cannot be any occasion for issuance of the show cause notice to the petitioner. 18 . Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 19 . At the very outset, it may be indicated that the Court had required the respondents to produce the records. 20 . Today, Shri Sharad Dwivedi, learned counsel for the respondents- Bank has stated that on account of reconstruction that was taking place in the premises of the bank, the records appear to have been shifted and he prayed for sometime to produce the records. 21 . The same was strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that there cannot be any occasion for production of records inasmuch as the entire evidence is on record. Thus, the Court has proceeded to hear the counsels for the parties on the basis of material available on record. 22 . From the arguments as raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record, it emerges that the petitioner had applied for appointment in clerical cadre for the post of Assistant under the respondent-Bank. He had appeared in the written examination and was declared successful. He appeared for the interview and was thereafter declared selected for the said post. Subsequent thereto he was called for scrutiny of his documents, which were scrutinized by the respondents. Offer of appointment dated 27.11.2012 had been issued to the petitioner. However, vide the order impugned dated 12.08.2013 his selection for the post of Assistant has been cancelled and the offer of appointment has been revoked. 23 . Subsequent thereto he was called for scrutiny of his documents, which were scrutinized by the respondents. Offer of appointment dated 27.11.2012 had been issued to the petitioner. However, vide the order impugned dated 12.08.2013 his selection for the post of Assistant has been cancelled and the offer of appointment has been revoked. 23 . A perusal of the impugned order would indicate that the respondents have indicated that the signatures and thumb impressions obtained at the time of scrutiny and written examination are different and thus the Bank concluded that the petitioner had tried to procure appointment by impersonation and thus in terms of the Clause 12 of the offer of appointment, his offer of appointment has been cancelled. 24 . In support of there being difference in the signature and thumb impression of the petitioner as made in the call letter and the attendance list at the time of the written examination as well as scrutiny of the documents, the matter had been referred by the respondents for an expert opinion. The hand writing expert has submitted his report dated 28/29.06.2013 which clearly indicates the difference in the signatures and thumb impression of the petitioner in the call letter vis a vis the attendance list and scrutiny of the documents. Incidentally, no challenge has been raised to the handwriting expert's report on the basis of which the respondent-Bank has passed the order impugned and has held that there had been impersonation on the part of the petitioner. 25 . The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds, which the Court now proceeds to consider. 26 . The first ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner for raising a challenge to the order impugned is that at the time of the written examination neither any signature nor thumb impression was made by the petitioner on any paper. 27 . The said ground is found to be patently fallacious and misconceived and hence rejected. The reason is that a copy of the attendance list has been filed by the respondent as part of Annexure- CA-1 (Page 26 of the counter affidavit) which indicates both the thumb impression and the signature of the petitioner. 27 . The said ground is found to be patently fallacious and misconceived and hence rejected. The reason is that a copy of the attendance list has been filed by the respondent as part of Annexure- CA-1 (Page 26 of the counter affidavit) which indicates both the thumb impression and the signature of the petitioner. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner could only have been accepted had the attendance list contained various blanks i.e. against the names of the candidates who had not appeared on the said date the column had been left blank. However, the fact is otherwise inasmuch as in case a candidate has not appeared, as is clearly apparent from a perusal of the attendance list at Sl.N.299 the said candidate has been marked as 'absent'. Thus, all the candidates, who had appeared on that particular date have in fact signed and affixed their thumb impression on the attendance list and thus, there cannot be any occasion for the petitioner to have not been asked to sign on the attendance sheet and to have not affixed his thumb impression and signatures on the attendance sheet. Incidentally, the attendance sheet is also having a column as 'sign (in presence of invigilator)' in which all the candidates whose names are indicated on the said page of the attendance list have signed or upon being absent, have been marked 'absent'. 28 . The other ground taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been sent for training and the offer of appointment is dated 27.11.2012 as such there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have cancelled the offer of appointment after a period of more than 9 months. The said ground is also found to be misconceived inasmuch as whenever the fraud has been detected by the respondents and that too after obtaining the expert's report dated 28/29.06.2013 that the impugned order cancelling the offer of appointment of the petitioner had been passed on 12.08.2013 and thus merely because 9 months lapsed between the offer of appointment and cancellation, the same cannot be considered to be a valid ground and hence rejected. 29 . 29 . So far as the argument that the respondents in the counter affidavit have indicated that the petitioner had appeared in the written examination is concerned, the same has been stated on the basis of attendance sheet which clearly contains the thumb impression and signature of the petitioner. However, the respondents on the basis of expert's report have indicated that it was a case of impersonation and consequently once it was a case of impersonation, as clearly proved by means of the expert's report, clearly the said ground merits to be rejected and is rejected. 30 . So far as the ground that the order impugned has been passed in gross violation of rules of natural justice is concerned, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor Vs. Jagmohan and ors - MANU/SC/0036/1980 : 1980 0 Supreme(SC) 421 has held that where only one view is possible there would not be any requirement of even issuing a show cause notice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- " 17 . Linked with this question is the question whether the failure to observe natural justice does at all matter if the observance of natural justice would have made no difference, the admitted or indisputable facts speaking for themselves. Where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it approves the nonobservance of natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs. But it will be a pernicious principle to apply in other situations where conclusions are controversial, however, slightly, and penalties are discretionary." 31 . The said judgment has also been considered subsequently by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aligarh Muslim University Vs. Mansoor Ali Khan - MANU/SC/0533/2000 : 2000 6 Supreme 1 ; 2000 0 Supreme(SC) 1398 . 32 . In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Syndicate Bank v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati , (2006) 3 SCC 150 wherein it has been held as under:- "......To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of principles of natural justice." 33 . Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja , (2008) 9 SCC 31 has held that a party must satisfy the court as to what prejudice has been caused to it by non observance of the principle of natural justice. 34 . Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Om Prakash Gupta , (1969) 3 SCC 775 has observed that the Courts have to see whether the non-observance of any of the principles enshrined in statutory rules or principles of natural justice have resulted in deflecting the course of justice. 35. Thus, even if in a given case there has been some deviation from the principles of nature justice, the court is not bound to interfere. 36 . Nowhere in the entire petition has the petitioner indicated as to what prejudice has been caused to him on account of violation of the principle of natural justice and consequently keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L.Kapoor (supra) wherein in case only one conclusion is possible then the court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, no interference is required. 37 . From the expert’s report, it is apparent that impersonation has been carried out at the time of selection which has resulted in the petitioner being selected. 38 . Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.P. Junior Doctors' Action Committee v. B. Sheetal Nandwani (Dr) , 1992 Supp1 SCC 680 where the students had got admission in MBBS course by making misrepresentation, has rejected the plea of applicability of the rules of natural justice observing that under the circumstances in which such benefit had been taken by the candidates concerned do not justify attraction of rules of natural justice by providing them an opportunity of hearing. 39 . 39 . Considering the aforesaid judgment in the case of S.L.Kapoor (supra) as well as expert's report dated 28/29.06.2013 which has conclusively concluded that the thumb impression of the petitioner taken at the time of examination does not match with the thumb impression of the petitioner in the bio-data cum attestation form and that his signature on the call letter and the attendance list do not match with the other standard signatures which all clearly indicate of there being impersonation by the petitioner and thus keeping in view the expert's report which has also not been rebutted by the petitioner no other view in the matter is possible and thus, the said ground is also rejected. 40 . In this regard, it would be apt to refer to the recent judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C. Kamalakkannan vs State of Tamil Nadu , (2025) 4 SCC 487 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court with respect to the evidence of an expert has held as under:- "13. The locus classicus on this issue is Murari Lal v. State of M.P. [Murari Lal v. State of M.P., (1980) 1 SCC 704 : 1980 SCC (Cri) 330] , wherein this Court laid down the principles with regard to the extent to which reliance can be placed on the evidence of an expert witness and when corroboration of such evidence may be sought. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereinbelow : (SCC pp. 707-709, 711-12, paras 4, 6 & 11) “4. We will first consider the argument, a stale argument often heard, particularly in criminal courts, that the opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert should not be acted upon without substantial corroboration. We shall presently point out how the argument cannot be justified on principle or precedent. We begin with the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses — the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses — but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non- existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. … *** 6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the EVIDENCE ACT and where the court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person “specially skilled” “in questions as to identity of handwriting” is expressly made a relevant fact. … So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. … So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard-and-fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated.The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it. *** 11. We are firmly of the opinion that there is no rule of law, nor any rule of prudence which has crystallised into a rule of law, that opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert must never be acted upon, unless substantially corroborated. But, having due regard to the imperfect nature of the science of identification of handwriting, the approach, as we indicated earlier, should be one of caution. Reasons for the opinion must be carefully probed and examined. All other relevant evidence must be considered. In appropriate cases, corroboration may be sought. In cases where the reasons for the opinion are convincing and there is no reliable evidence throwing a doubt, the uncorroborated testimony of an handwriting expert may be accepted. There cannot be any inflexible rule on a matter which, in the ultimate analysis, is no more than a question of testimonial weight. We have said so much because this is an argument frequently met with in subordinate courts and sentences torn out of context from the judgments of this Court are often flaunted.” (emphasis supplied)" 41 . Likewise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Murari Lal vs State of Madhya Pradesh , (1980) 1 SCC 704 has held as under:- "4. We will first consider the argument, a stale argument often heard, particularly in Criminal Courts, that the opinion-evidence of a handwriting expert should not be acted upon without substantial corroboration. We shall presently point out how the argument cannot be justified on principle or precedent. We begin with the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. We shall presently point out how the argument cannot be justified on principle or precedent. We begin with the observation that the expert is no accomplice. There is no justification for condemning his opinion-evidence to the same class of evidence as that of an accomplice and insist upon corroboration. True, it has occasionally been said on very high authority that it would be hazardous to base a conviction solely on the opinion of a handwriting expert. But, the hazard in accepting the opinion of any expert, handwriting expert or any other kind of expert, is not because experts, in general, are unreliable witnesses — the quality of credibility or incredibility being one which an expert shares with all other witnesses — but because all human judgment is fallible and an expert may go wrong because of some defect of observation, some error of premises or honest mistake of conclusion. The more developed and the more perfect a science, the less the chance of an incorrect opinion and the converse if the science is less developed and imperfect. The science of identification of finger-prints has attained near perfection and the risk of an incorrect opinion is practically non-existent. On the other hand, the science of identification of handwriting is not nearly so perfect and the risk is, therefore, higher. But that is a far cry from doubting the opinion of a handwriting expert as an invariable rule and insisting upon substantial corroboration in every case, howsoever the opinion may be backed by the soundest of reasons. It is hardly fair to an expert to view his opinion with an initial suspicion and to treat him as an inferior sort of witness. His opinion has to be tested by the acceptability of the reasons given by him. An expert deposes and not decides. His duty “is to furnish the Judge with the necessary scientific criteria for testing the accuracy of his conclusion, so as to enable the Judge to form his own independent judgment by the application of these criteria to the facts proved in evidence” [ Vide Lord President Cooper in Davis v. Edindurgh Magistrate, 1953 SC 34 quoted by Professor Cross in his Evidence] . 5. From the earliest times, courts have received the opinion of experts. 5. From the earliest times, courts have received the opinion of experts. As long ago as 1553 it was said in Buckley v. Rice-Thomas [(1554) 1 Plowden 110] : “If matters arise in our law which concern other sciences or faculties, we commonly apply for the aid of that science or faculty which it concerns. This is a commendable thing in our law. For thereby it appears that we do not dismiss all other sciences but our own, but we approve of them and encourage them as things worthy of commendation.” 6. Expert testimony is made relevant by Section 45 of the EVIDENCE ACT and where the Court has to form an opinion upon a point as to identity of handwriting, the opinion of a person “specially skilled” “in questions as to identity of handwriting” is expressly made a relevant fact. There is nothing in the EVIDENCE ACT , as for example like Illustration (b) to Section 114 which entitles the Court to presume that an accomplice is unworthy of credit, unless he is corroborated in material particulars, which justifies the court in assuming that a handwriting expert's opinion in unworthy of credit unless corroborated. The EVIDENCE ACT itself (Section 3) tells us that “a fact is said to be proved when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists”. It is necessary to occasionally remind ourselves of this interpretation clause in the EVIDENCE ACT lest we set an artificial standard of proof not warranted by the provisions of the Act. Further, under Section 114 of the EVIDENCE ACT , the Court may presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural events, human conduct, and public and private business, in their relation to facts of the particular case. It is also to be noticed that Section 46 of the EVIDENCE ACT makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant. So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. It is also to be noticed that Section 46 of the EVIDENCE ACT makes facts, not otherwise relevant, relevant if they support or are inconsistent with the opinions of experts, when such opinions are relevant. So, corroboration may not invariably be insisted upon before acting on the opinion of an handwriting expert and there need be no initial suspicion. But, on the facts of a particular case, a court may require corroboration of a varying degree. There can be no hard and fast rule, but nothing will justify the rejection of the opinion of an expert supported by unchallenged reasons on the sole ground that it is not corroborated. The approach of a court while dealing with the opinion of a handwriting expert should be to proceed cautiously, probe the reasons for the opinion, consider all other relevant evidence and decide finally to accept or reject it. ******** 12. The argument that the court should not venture to compare writings itself, as it would thereby assume to itself the role of an expert is entirely without force. Section 73 of the EVIDENCE ACT expressly enables the court to compare disputed writings with admitted or proved writings to ascertain whether a writing is that of the person by whom it purports to have been written. If it is hazardous to do so, as sometimes said, we are afraid it is one of the hazards to which Judge and litigant must expose themselves whenever it becomes necessary. There may be cases where both sides call experts and two [ Vide Correction slip No. F. 3/79 (Ed.J) dt. 21-8-80] voices of science are heard. There may be cases where neither side calls an expert, being ill able to afford him. In all such cases, it becomes the plain duty of the court to compare the writings and come to its own conclusion. The duty cannot be avoided by recourse to the statement that the court is no expert. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. Where there are expert opinions, they will aid the court. Where there is none, the court will have to seek guidance from some authoritative textbook and the court's own experience and knowledge. But discharge it must, its plain duty, with or without expert, with or without other evidence. We may mention that Shashi Kumar v. Subodh Kumar [ AIR 1967 SC 1326 : 1967 Cri LJ 1197] and Fakhruddin v. State of M.P. [ AIR 1967 SC 1326 : 1967 Cri LJ 1197] were cases where the Court itself compared the writings." 42. Incidentally, in the judgment of C. Kamalakkannan (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also tested the veracity of the finding of the handwriting expert. 43. This Court has also gone through the signatures as made by the petitioner in the bio-data cum attestation form, a copy of which is Annexure-5 to the petition, vis a vis his signatures in the attendance sheet and even to the naked eye, the said signatures are completely different although an attempt has been made in the attendance list to give some semblance of similarity to the earlier signature. 44 . So far as the ground that the petitioner has represented against the order impugned but the said representation was not considered or decided is also rejected inasmuch as the petitioner being aggrieved by the order impugned has filed the said petition which itself is being decided now. 45 . So far as judgment of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Sashi Bhushan Kumar (supra) is concerned, although the said judgment would not be binding on this Court, yet a perusal of the same indicates that the writ court has not considered the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to expert's opinion as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.L. Kapoor (supra) pertaining to the fact that when only one view is possible, there would not be any requirement of even giving a notice. Thus, the said judgment would have no applicability to the facts of the instant case. 46 . Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition stands dismissed 47 . The Court also records the assistance extended by Mr. Mohd Azam Siddiqui, Research Associate of this Court.