JUDGMENT : Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking for the following reliefs: - “(a) For issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant further two years time to the petitioner to carry out mining of sand from Mouza Kanyaluka, Plot No. 419/Part, measuring an area of 4 Acres, since the petitioner could not carry out mining operations for the lease period due to latches on the part of the respondent. (b) In the alternative, the respondents be directed to pass an order on the representation of the petitioner as also the recommendation made by the District Mining Officer, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 6) to the Director of Mines (Respondent No. 4) vide letter bearing no. 168 dated 2.2.2021 (Annexure-11) for extension of period of lease for lifting of sand in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, requires to be enumerated, which read as under: - (i) The petitioner company being a company of contractor carrying out construction of roads, bridges, residential houses etc. and hence, there is perpetual requirement of sand on the part of the petitioner. (ii) It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was published by the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur inviting applications for settlement of Balu Ghats in the District of East Singhbhum. (iii) Since the petitioner was in regular need of sand, it made a bid for settlement of Balu Ghat situated at Mouza Kanyaluka, Plot No.419/Part, measuring an area of 4 Acres in the District of East Singhbhum. (iv) It is the case of the petitioner that having declared as the highest bidder, the respondents issued letter no. 1807 dated 06.06.2015 informing the petitioner in the public auction it has been declared as the highest bidder after having made a bid of Rs. 35 Lacs for three financial years. It has been decided to allot the settlement of Balu Ghat in Plot No. 419/Part under Mouza - Kanyaluka of Bhalki Panchayat in Ghorabandha Anchal in the District of East Singhbhum subject to several conditions. (v) The petitioner complied with all the conditions mentioned therein and made an application for approval of mining plan before the District Mining Officer. It has been decided to allot the settlement of Balu Ghat in Plot No. 419/Part under Mouza - Kanyaluka of Bhalki Panchayat in Ghorabandha Anchal in the District of East Singhbhum subject to several conditions. (v) The petitioner complied with all the conditions mentioned therein and made an application for approval of mining plan before the District Mining Officer. The District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum vide its memo No. 9581 dated 31.12.2015 approved the mining plan of the petitioner. (vi) After approval of the mining plan by the Respondent No.6, the petitioner made an application before the District Level Environment Impact Assessment Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'DEIAA') for environmental clearance to carry out mining of sand over the leasehold property. (vii) The DEIAA granted environmental clearance to the project vide letter bearing memo no. 20 dated 22.10.2017. (viii) It is the case of the petitioner that about two years time was consumed in obtaining environmental clearance from the competent authority. (ix) After obtaining the environmental clearance, a lease deed was executed between the petitioner and the State on 30.01.2018. (x) After execution of the lease deed the petitioner made an application on 12.5.2018 to the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum for making the site available to the petitioner. The said application was followed by similar letters dated 11.10.2018 and 03.05.2019. (xi) During pendency of the application of the petitioner for handing over the site, the petitioner obtained Consent to Establish (CTE) from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board as required u/s 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981. Such certificate was obtained on 01.06.2018. (xii) Having obtained the Consent to Establish (CTE), the petitioner obtained Consent to Operate (CTO) from the Jharkhand State Pollution Control Board u/s 25/26 of the Water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 and u/s 21 of the Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act, 1981 on 24.06.2018. (xiii) It is the further case of the petitioner that though the petitioner had completed all the necessary formalities for carrying out mining operations, however, it could not start its operation, due to non-handing over the site by the respondents. (xiv) Finally, the site was handed over to the petitioner on 08.05.2019. (xiii) It is the further case of the petitioner that though the petitioner had completed all the necessary formalities for carrying out mining operations, however, it could not start its operation, due to non-handing over the site by the respondents. (xiv) Finally, the site was handed over to the petitioner on 08.05.2019. (xv) Though the petitioner has been granted settlement of Balu Ghat on 06.06.2015, the site was finally handed over to the petitioner on 08.05.2019, though the lease deed was executed on 30.01.2018. (xvi) The contention of the petitioner is that the period of three years for which the lease deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner commenced from 30.01.2018, however, on account of site not having been handed over to the petitioner, he could not carry out mining operation of sand for the period between 30.01.2018 to 08.05.2019. The delay of this period is totally attributable to the State authorities. (xvii) It is the further case of the petitioner that from perusal of the environmental clearance issued by the DEIAA it shall appear that the petitioner was permitted to extract 42,06,056 cft of sand in three seasons, however, on account of loss of two seasons the petitioner could lift only 12,06,853 cft of sand. Thus, the unlifted quantity of sand is 29,99,203 cft. The petitioner could not lift this quantity of sand on account of paucity of time, which was caused mainly on account of delay in grant of necessary permission and uploading of documents on official website. (xviii) The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has paid royalty on the basis of 42,06,056 cft which was valued at Rs. 35 Lacs, however, against this he could lift only about 12,06,853 cft of sand causing huge financial losses to the petitioner. (xix) The lease period was to expire on 29.1.2021 and before expiry of the said period the petitioner made an application to the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum on 14.8.2020 informing the respondents that delay has been caused on account of the respondents to complete the formalities necessary for mining of sand and hence, a request was made to extend the period of lease. (xx) After expiry of the lease, the petitioner has made repeated reminders to the respondents vide letters dated 09.01.2021, 20.01.2021 and 01.02.2021 requesting the Respondent No.6 to extend the period of lease so that the petitioner could complete his contractual obligation. (xxi) On the basis of the repeated representations of the petitioner, District Mining Officer, Jamshedpur (Respondent No. 6) vide his letter bearing no. 168 dated 2.2.2021 forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Director of Mines, recommending for extending of time in favour of the petitioner. (xxii) Though the District Mining Officer, Jamshedpur has recommended for extension of time, but the petitioner is yet to receive any response from the Director of Mines. (xxiii) Therefore, the present writ petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondents to grant further two years’ time to the petitioner to carry out mining of sand. Submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner 3. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has taken the following grounds in assailing the impugned order: - (i) It has been submitted that the petitioner has been granted settlement of Balu Ghat on 06.06.2015 and though the lease deed was executed on 30.01.2018 but the site was finally handed over to the petitioner on 08.05.2019. (ii) The contention has been raised that the period of three years for which the lease deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner commenced from 30.01.2018, however, on account of site not having been handed over to the petitioner, he could not carry out mining operation of sand for the period between 30.01.2018 to 08.05.2019. The delay of this period is totally attributable to the State authorities. (iii) It has been submitted that the petitioner was permitted to extract 42,06,056 cft of sand in three seasons, however, on account of loss of two seasons the petitioner could lift only 12,06,853 cft of sand. The petitioner could not lift 29,99,203 cft of sand on account of paucity of time, which was caused mainly on account of delay in grant of necessary permission and uploading of documents on official website. (iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has paid royalty on the basis of 42,06,056 cft which was valued at Rs. 35 Lacs, however, against this he could lift only about 12,06,853 cft of sand causing huge financial losses to the petitioner. (iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has paid royalty on the basis of 42,06,056 cft which was valued at Rs. 35 Lacs, however, against this he could lift only about 12,06,853 cft of sand causing huge financial losses to the petitioner. (v) Learned counsel has further submitted that the lease period was to expire on 29.01.2021 and before expiry of the said period the petitioner made an application to the District Mining Officer, East Singhbhum on 14.08.2020 stating that delay has been caused on account of the respondents to complete the formalities necessary for mining of sand and, therefore, the period of lease may be extended. (vi) It has been submitted that even after expiry of the lease, the petitioner has made repeated reminders to the respondents requesting to extend the period of lease so that the petitioner could complete his contractual obligation. Thereafter, the District Mining Officer, Jamshedpur vide his letter bearing no. 168 dated 02.02.2021 forwarded the application of the petitioner to the Director of Mines, recommending for extending of time in favour of the petitioner. But till date no order has been passed on the representation of the petitioner. (vii) Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid ground, has submitted that direction be issued to the concerned respondent to grant further two years’ time to the petitioner to carry out mining of sand or in the alternative, to pass an order on the representation of the petitioner. Submissions made on behalf of the Respondent 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has taken the following grounds :- (i) Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that it is incorrect to say that the delay in handing over the site to the petitioner was cause due to the laches committed on the part of the respondents, rather, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner had another stone ming site on lease and the petitioner had not cleared the outstanding dues to the State and this is one of the reasons the land for ming of sand could not be handed over to the petitioner. There was no fault on the part of the respondents, rather, the delay was on the part of the petitioner. The site was handed over to the petitioner only after the petitioner cleared all his dues. There was no fault on the part of the respondents, rather, the delay was on the part of the petitioner. The site was handed over to the petitioner only after the petitioner cleared all his dues. (ii) Learned counsel has further submitted that after handing over the site to the petitioner on 08.05.2019, the petitioner had to upload all the relevant documents and thereafter apply online on the official website for obtaining the online permit for sand mining and there was delay on the part of the petitioner in applying for the permit. As the petitioner had delayed in applying online on the official website for the permit, hence, permit was not issued to the petitioner. (iii) Learned counsel has submitted that the respondents have not made the petitioner suffer on account of any laches on their part, rather, the petitioner had delayed in uploading the relevant documents on the official website for obtaining online permit. (iv) Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the writ petition is devoid of any merit and fit to be dismissed. Analysis 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the pleadings made in the writ petition as also the counter affidavit filed by the State. 6. Before adverting to the merit of the case it needs to refer herein that the power which is to be exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by way of issuance of prerogative writs and one of the same is Writ of Mandamus which is the subject matter in the present writ petition. 7. The purpose of a Writ of Mandamus is to ensure to compel action and prevent arbitrary or unlawful inaction by those in authority. Mandamus serves to promote the rule of law, protect individual rights, and ensure that the government functions in accordance with the law. Its ability to compel the performance of a specific duty or act. It is a remedy used to enforce a clear legal right, ensuring that public officials, or government agencies fulfil their obligations in accordance with the law. 8. The Writ of Mandamus is closely associated with the power of judicial review. It allows the higher courts to examine the actions or inactions of public officials or authorities to ensure they are in compliance with the law. 8. The Writ of Mandamus is closely associated with the power of judicial review. It allows the higher courts to examine the actions or inactions of public officials or authorities to ensure they are in compliance with the law. The court reviews the legality and validity of the actions and may issue the writ to correct any deficiencies or omissions. 9. But, it is equally settled that the Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued merely because a person is praying for, one must establish the right first and then, he must seek for the prayer to enforce the said right. If there is failure of duty by the authorities or inaction, one can approach the Court for Mandamus. The said position is well settled in the series of decisions. 10. In the case of State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra , (1996) 9 SCC 309 at paragraph 10, the Apex Court held as follows: “ 10 Under the Constitution a mandamus can be issued by the court when the applicant establishes that he has a legal right to the performance of legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and the said right was subsisting on the date of the petition….” 11. Further, in the decision reported in Union of India v. S.B. Vohra , (2004) 2 SCC 150 the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the said issue and held that ‘for issuing a writ of mandamus in favour of a person, the person claiming, must establish his legal right in himself. Then only a writ of mandamus could be issued against a person, who has a legal duty to perform, but has failed and/or neglected to do so. 12. In the decision reported in Oriental Bank of Commerce v. Sunder Lal Jain , (2008) 2 SCC 280 , the Hon'ble Apex Court held that Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty. The relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under: “11. The relevant paragraphs are being quoted as under: “11. The principles on which a writ of mandamus can be issued have been stated as under in The Law of Extraordinary Legal Remedies by F.G. Ferris and F.G. Ferris, Jr.: “Note 187.—Mandamus, at common law, is a highly prerogative writ, usually issuing out of the highest court of general jurisdiction, in the name of the sovereignty, directed to any natural person, corporation or inferior court within the jurisdiction, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, and which appertains to their office or duty. Generally speaking, it may be said that mandamus is a summary writ, issuing from the proper court, commanding the official or board to which it is addressed to perform some specific legal duty to which the party applying for the writ is entitled of legal right to have performed. *** Note 192.—Mandamus is, subject to the exercise of a sound judicial discretion, the appropriate remedy to enforce a plain, positive, specific and ministerial duty presently existing and imposed by law upon officers and others who refuse or neglect to perform such duty, when there is no other adequate and specific legal remedy and without which there would be a failure of justice. The chief function of the writ is to compel the performance of public duties prescribed by statute, and to keep subordinate and inferior bodies and tribunals exercising public functions within their jurisdictions. It is not necessary, however, that the duty be imposed by statute; mandamus lies as well for the enforcement of a common law duty. *** Note 196.—Mandamus is not a writ of right. Its issuance unquestionably lies in the sound judicial discretion of the court, subject always to the well-settled principles which have been established by the courts. An action in mandamus is not governed by the principles of ordinary litigation where the matters alleged on one side and not denied on the other are taken as true, and judgment pronounced thereon as of course. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned—an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. While mandamus is classed as a legal remedy, its issuance is largely controlled by equitable principles. Before granting the writ the court may, and should, look to the larger public interest which may be concerned—an interest which private litigants are apt to overlook when striving for private ends. The court should act in view of all the existing facts, and with due regard to the consequences which will result. It is in every case a discretion dependent upon all the surrounding facts and circumstances. Note 206.— … The correct rule is that mandamus will not lie where the duty is clearly discretionary and the party upon whom the duty rests has exercised his 12. These very principles have been adopted in our country. In Bihar Eastern Gangetic Fishermen Coop. Society Ltd. v. Sipahi Singh [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149 ] after referring to the earlier decisions in Lekhraj Sathramdas Lalvani v. N.M. Shah [ AIR 1966 SC 334 ], Rai Shivendra Bahadur (Dr.) v. Nalanda College [ AIR 1962 SC 1210 ] and Umakant Saran (Dr.) v. State of Bihar [ (1973) 1 SCC 485 : AIR 1973 SC 964 ] this Court observed as follows in para 15 of the Reports (SCC): (Sipahi Singh case [ (1977) 4 SCC 145 : AIR 1977 SC 2149 ], SCC pp. 152-53) “15. … There is abundant authority in favour of the proposition that a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. … In the instant case, it has not been shown by Respondent 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. … In the instant case, it has not been shown by Respondent 1 that there is any statute or rule having the force of law which casts a duty on Respondents 2 to 4 which they failed to perform. All that is sought to be enforced is an obligation flowing from a contract which, as already indicated, is also not binding and enforceable. Accordingly, we are clearly of the opinion that Respondent 1 was not entitled to apply for grant of a writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution and the High Court was not competent to issue the same.” 13. The Mandamus which is being sought for by the High Court in exercise of power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is to be issued if there is in-action on the part of the State and if such action is statutorily directed to be performed by the State authority. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hari Krishna Mandir Trust v. State of Maharashtra , (2020) 9 SCC 356 wherein at paragraph- 100 and 101, it has been observed which reads as under: “100. The High Courts exercising their jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, not only have the power to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus, but are dutybound to exercise such power, where the Government or a public authority has failed to exercise or has wrongly exercised discretion conferred upon it by a statute, or a rule, or a policy decision of the Government or has exercised such discretion mala fide, or on irrelevant consideration. 101. In all such cases, the High Court must issue a writ of mandamus and give directions to compel performance in an appropriate and lawful manner of the discretion conferred upon the Government or a public authority.” 14. It is, thus, evident that the mandamus is to be issued under Article 226 of the Constitution of India if there is any in- action on the part of the State. Further a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. Further a writ of mandamus can be granted only in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation. The chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction. It follows, therefore, that in order that mandamus may issue to compel the authorities to do something, it must be shown that there is a statute which imposes a legal duty and the aggrieved party has a legal right under the statute to enforce its performance. 15. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled position of law we are now adverting to the factual aspect of the case. admittedly from prayer portion of the instant writ petition it is evident that prayer has been sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to grant further two years time to the petitioner to carry out mining of sand from Mouza Kanyaluka, Plot No. 419/Part, since the petitioner could not carry out mining operations for the lease period due to latches on the part of the respondent. 16. The contention has been raised herein on behalf of the petitioner that the lease deed has been executed in favour of the petitioner for three years from 30.01.2018, but the site was handed over to the petitioner on 08.05.2019 and as such petitioner could not carry out mining operation of sand for the period between 30.01.2018 to 08.05.2019 and since the delay of this period is totally attributable to the State authorities, therefore petitioner is eligible for further two years time to carry out mining of sand from Mouza Kanyaluka, Plot No. 419/Part. 17. In response the respondents contended that it is incorrect to say that the delay in handing over the site to the petitioner was cause due to the laches committed on the part of the respondents, rather, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner had another stone ming site on lease and the petitioner had not cleared the outstanding dues to the State and this is one of the reasons the land for ming of sand could not be handed over to the petitioner. There was no fault on the part of the respondents, rather, the delay was on the part of the petitioner. 18. In order to appreciate the aforesaid contention of the parties this Court has gone through the lease deed which was executed between the parties and the same has been annexed as Annexure -4 to the writ petition wherefrom it is evident that lease was valid upto three years from the date of agreement i.e. 30.01.2018. for ready reference the relevant part of the said agreement is being quoted herein which reads as under: 19. Thus, it is evident that the lease was executed on 30.01.2018 between the parties and the petitioner accepted the condition as mentioned in the lease deed. 20. Since the petitioner has voluntarily accepted the lease deed, therefore, as per the settled position of law the terms and conditions of the lease deed is binding upon the parties who are mutually agreed upon the same. 21. It is further settled position of law that terms and condition of the contract is strictly to be adhered to and any condition contained therein, if allowed to be flouted, the same to be contrary to the terms and conditions and will amount to re-writing the terms and conditions of the contract. 22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar Verma HDFC Bank Ltd. 2025 INSC 473 has categorically observed that a concluded contract pre supposes the existence of at least two parties with mutual rights and obligations and once a concluded contract comes into existence, it is axiomatic that such rights and obligations of the parties are governed by the terms and conditions thereof. 23. Further, it requires to refer herein the settled position of law that once the parties have accepted the terms and conditions of lease or any agreement, it binds the parties and there cannot be any breach of terms and conditions. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of " Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another v. N. Raju Reddiar and Another ", (1996) 4 SCC 551 wherein it has been held that it must be borne in mind that the agreement between the parties was a written agreement and therefore the parties are bound by the terms and conditions of the agreement. 24. 24. Further, the law is well settled that once the terms and conditions of the agreement have been accepted by the parties, it is not available to them to assail the same, reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of " Panna Lal and Others v. State of Rajasthan and Others " reported in (1975) 2 SCC 633 wherein it has been held that the licensee having voluntarily accepted the contract and after having fully exploited to its advantage the contract to the exclusion of other, cannot resile from the contract and cannot challenge the terms either on the ground of inconvenient. 25. It requires to refer herein the settled position of law that if any terms and conditions have been agreed upon by the parties the same cannot be relaxed by the High Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India otherwise it will amount to re-write the terms and conditions of contract as has been held in the case of Union Territory of Pondicherry and Ors Vs. P.V. Suresh and Ors. , reported in (1994) 2 SCC 70 wherein at paragraph 11 it has been held that the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or rewrite the contract between the parties, for ready reference the same is being quoted as under: "11. In the circumstances of this case, .......................... Otherwise, the Court has no jurisdiction to alter the terms or rewrite the contract between the parties. 26. In the case of Polymat India (P) Ltd. and Anr. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Ors., reported in (2005) 9 SCC 174 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court by taking aid of the judgment rendered in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M.K.J. Corp. , reported in (1996) 6 SCC 428 has been pleased to observe that "after the completion of the contract, no material alteration can be made in its terms except by mutual consent”. 27. Herein admittedly as per the term of the lease deed, the lease of excavation of sand from said site was valid up to 29.01.2021 and as such lease has already expired and presently no lease deed was subsisting between the parties. 28. 27. Herein admittedly as per the term of the lease deed, the lease of excavation of sand from said site was valid up to 29.01.2021 and as such lease has already expired and presently no lease deed was subsisting between the parties. 28. Further it is evident while that while signing the contract petitioner was aware that before starting excavation several types of formalities have to be followed by him. 29. Further it has averred in the counter affidavit that the petitioner was permitted to extract 42,06,056 oft of sand in three seasons but the petitioner failed to upload the relevant documents for obtaining the online permit, hence the petitioner could not lift the said quantity of sand and there was no delay in issuing the online permit by the respondents, the delay was on part of the petitioner in uploading of relevant documents on the official website, provided by the respondent no.6 to the petitioner. 30. Thus, from the aforesaid discussion it is apparent that writ of mandamus is sought for the grant of two years further time to the petitioner for excavation of the sand relating to the said lease deed which has already been expired in year 2021 and since as per the settled position of law as discussed and referred hereinabove a writ of mandamus can be granted in a case where there is a statutory duty imposed upon the officer concerned and there is a failure on the part of that officer to discharge the statutory obligation and the chief function of a writ is to compel performance of public duties prescribed by statute and to keep subordinate tribunals and officers exercising public functions within the limit of their jurisdiction and further under jurisdiction of Article 226 the term of the contract cannot be re-written between the parties therefore, this Court is of view that it is not a fit case for issuance of writ of mandamus. 31. However, if any monetary loss has been caused to the petitioner due to inaction of the respondent concerned then petitioner has at liberty to choose the other legal recourse for damages. 32. Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation the instant writ petition stands dismissed. 33. In consequence thereof, pending interlocutory application(s), if any, stands disposed of. Arun Kumar Rai, J.-I Agree