# Smt. Isharat & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2015) 1 ILRA 118
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2014-12-02
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63170 of 2014
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-isharat-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-43073
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Protection
of persons and property-marriage took
place in accordance with Muslim rites on
impleadment application of legally wedded
wife having pries issued under bed lock of
petitioner no. 2-the petitioner being minor
girl, in presence of parents of both
petitioners-marriage not proved-petitioner
guilty of fraud-with forged ID-source of
income only agricultural land also found
false-as per provision of Ayat 3 of Sura 4 of
Holy Quran-bigamy not sanctified unless
can
do
justice
with
orphans-second
marriage can not be performed-religious
mandate-binding upon all Muslims menpetition
dismissed
with
cost
of
Rs.
50,000/- payable to respondent-5.
Held: Para-11 & 19

## Text

118
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
admitted that if the winding up order is set
aside in an appeal, order of cancellation of
the registration of the cooperative society
would fall automatically and in that
circumstance, registration of cooperative
society shall stands restored.
15.
For the aforesaid reasons, we feel
that interest of substantial justice would be
served in the facts of the case by providing
that the petitioner may file an appeal under
Section 98 (1) (i) of Act, 1965 against the
order impugned in the present writ petition,
insofar as it directs winding up of the
cooperative society within four weeks from
today, along with a certified copy of this
order.
16.
The Tribunal under the Act, 1965
may consider and decide the appeal filed by the
petitioner within eight weeks from the date the
appeal is so filed after affording opportunity of
hearing to the parties concerned. Fate of the
order of cancellation of the registration of
petitioner's society shall be dependent upon the
orders to be passed on the appeal. If the appeal
is allowed, the order of the cancellation of
registration
of
the
society
shall
fall
automatically. It is ordered accordingly.
17.

With
the
aforesaid
directions/observations, the present writ
petition is disposed of.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 63170 of 2014
Smt. Isharat & Anr.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri M.P. Tiwari
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri S.K. Pundir
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Protection
of persons and property-marriage took
place in accordance with Muslim rites on
impleadment application of legally wedded
wife having pries issued under bed lock of
petitioner no. 2-the petitioner being minor
girl, in presence of parents of both
petitioners-marriage not proved-petitioner
guilty of fraud-with forged ID-source of
income only agricultural land also found
false-as per provision of Ayat 3 of Sura 4 of
Holy Quran-bigamy not sanctified unless
can
do
justice
with
orphans-second
marriage can not be performed-religious
mandate-binding upon all Muslims menpetition
dismissed
with
cost
of
Rs.
50,000/- payable to respondent-5.
Held: Para-11 & 19
11. Thus, it is apparent on record that
the present writ petition supported by an
affidavit of petitioner no. 2 has been
filed concealing material facts of the
case and making false averments. Fake
papers have also been filed along with
the writ petitions. Thus, the petitioners
have approached this Court with unclean
hands, unclean mind and unclean heart.
They deserve no sympathy or leniency.
19. In view of mandate in the Holy Quran it
is amply clear that bigamy is not sanctified
unless a man can do justice to orphans, who
in the present set of facts are the respondent
nos. 5 to 8. As per mandate of the Holy
Quran as noted above all Muslims men have
to deal justly with the orphans. A married
Muslim man having his wife alive cannot
marry with another muslim women, if he
cannot deal justly with the orphan. A
mandate has been given that in such
circumstances a Muslim man has to prevent
himself to perform second marriage, if he is
not capable of fostering his wife and
1 All] Smt. Isharat & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
119
children. The religious mandate of Sura 4
Ayat 3 is binding on all muslim men which
specifically mandates all Mulim men to deal
justly with orphans and then they can marry
women of their choice two or three or four
but if a Muslim man fears he will not be able
to deal justly with them then only one. If a
muslim man is not capable of fostering his
wife and children then as per above mandate
of Holy Quran, he cannot marry the other
woman.
Case Law discussed:
JT 2000 (3) SC 151; 2004 (6) SCC 325; 2003
(8) SCC 319; AIR 1994 SC 853; 2012 (8) SCC
748; 2010 (69) ACC 997.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J.)
Heard Sri M.P. Tiwari, learned counsel
for the petitioners, Sri S.S. Srinet, learned
Standing Counsel for the respondent nos. 1,
2 and 3 and Sri S.K. Pundir, learned counsel
for the respondent nos. 5,6,7 and 8.
2. It is stated in paragraph no. 3 and 4
that both the petitioners are major. It is stated
in paragraph 6 that petitioners have
solemnized their marriage on 2nd October,
2014 as per Muslim rites and customs. In
support a copy of alleged ''Nikahnama' dated
2nd October, 2014 has been filed.
3. An application for impleadment
has been filed by the respondent nos. 5 to
8, which has been allowed today.
4. In paragraph 2 of the affidavit to
the impleadment application it is stated
that the respondent no. 5 was married
with the petitioner no. 2 on 9th October,
2003 and out of their wedlock there are
two sons and one daughter namely
respondent no. 6 to 8, who all are minor.
It is also stated that the respondent no. 5 is
pregnant. A copy of the said ''Nikahnama'
dated 9th October, 2003 has been filed as
annexure no. 1 of the affidavit. It is stated in
paragraph no. 3 of the affidavit that the
petitioner no. 1 is a minor girl. It is stated in
paragraph no. 4 of the affidavit that the alleged
''Nikahnama' dated 2nd October, 2014 of the
petitioner is a manufactured one and no
marriage was solemnized. In support, an
affidavit of the alleged signatory (Vakeel) of
the alleged ''Nikahnama' dated 2nd October,
2014 has been filed as annexure no. 2. It is
stated in paragraph no. 7 that the petitioner no.
2 has filed a fake Voter I.D. Card bearing No.
HTB 2085504. From internet enquiry the said
voter ID card has been found to be issued in
the name of one Sri Pahal Singh, S/O Karam
Singh, R/o Village Bandukhedi, Pargana &
Tehsil Nakur, District-Saharanpur. In support,
copy of the internet enquiry report of the
aforesaid Voter I.D. card has been filed as
annexure -3 to the affidavit. A copy of family
register and some photographs have also been
filed along with the affidavit to demonstrate
that the respondent no. 5 is a legally wedded
wife of the petitioner no. 2 and she still
continues to be his wife.
5.
Respondent no 5. along with her
children i.e. respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 and
Sri Riaz Ahmad, who is father-in-law of
respondent no. 5 and father of the petitioner
no. 2 are present. Sri Riaz Ahmad, father of
the petitioner no. 2 states that respondent no.
5 is legally wedded wife of petitioner no. 2
and she has three minor children and she has
pregnancy of about 8 months. He states that
by no means he can justify the action of
petitioner no. 2, who allegedly solemnized
''Nikah' with a minor girl i.e. petitioner no. 1.
He states that as per Holy '' Quran' he cannot
perform second marriage with the petitioner
no. 1 which would result in injustice to his
first wife and three minor children. Sri Riaz
Ahmad states that he owns about 5-6
bighahas agricultural land which is the only
120
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
source of livelihood of the family which
consist of him, his wife and respondent nos.
5 to 8. He states that he and his wife shall
take full care of respondent nos. 5 to 8. He
states that he has serious threat to his life and
property from the family of petitioner no. 1
and as such in case of any inconvenience the
police of the concerned police station may be
directed to give protection.
6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioners does not dispute the facts
stated in the impleadment application of
respondent nos. 5 to 8 and also the facts
stated by the father of the petitioner no. 2
before this Court, as briefly noted above.
7.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondent nos. 5 to 8 submits that the
writ petition has been filed concealing
material facts of the case, making false
averments and annexing fake papers and
as such the writ petition deserves to be
dismissed with heavy cost, which may be
paid by the petitioner no. 2 to the
respondent no. 5.
8. Learned Standing Counsel submits
that it is wholly undisputed that the writ
petition has been filed concealing material
facts and making false averments and as such
it deserves to be dismissed with cost.
9. I have carefully considered the
submissions of counsel for the parties.
10.
It is not disputed that this writ
petition has been filed by the petitioner no. 2
concealing material facts of the case namely ;
that the petitioner no. 2 is already married
with the respondent no. 5 and respondent
nos. 6, 7 and 8 are their sons and daughter. It
has also been concealed by the petitioner no.
2 that the respondent no. 5 is his legally
wedded wife and she has pregnancy of about
8 months. A false averment has been made
by the petitioner no. 2 in paragraph no. 7 that
his father has 20 bighas of land in which he
is working as farmer and earns about 2 lakhs
in a year. Father of the petitioner no. 2 has
stated before this Court that he owns merely
5-6 bighas agricultural land, which is the
only source of livelihood for himself, his
wife and also for respondent nos. 5 to 8. A
copy of fake Voter I.D. has been filed by the
petitioner no. 2 along with writ petition. The
alleged ''Nikahnama' of the petitioners filed
by the petitioner no.2 as annexure no. 3 to
the writ petition also appears to be not
genuine in view of the notary affidavit of Sri
Mohamad Kazim, S/o Sri Kasmi, R/o Dhobi
Vala , District- Saharanpur filed along with
affidavit to the impleadment application in
which he denied the 'Nikah' of the petitioners
and stated to be forged. The facts so stated
are not disputed by the petitioners.
11. Thus, it is apparent on record
that the present writ petition supported by
an affidavit of petitioner no. 2 has been
filed concealing material facts of the case
and making false averments. Fake papers
have also been filed along with the writ
petitions. Thus, the petitioners have
approached this Court with unclean
hands, unclean mind and unclean heart.
They deserve no sympathy or leniency.
12.
In the case of United India
Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. B. Rajendra
Singh and others, JT 2000 (3) SC 151,
considering the fact of fraud, Hon'ble
Supreme Court held in paragraph 3 as under:
"Fraud and justice never dwell
together."
(Frans
et
jus
nunquam
cohabitant) is a pristine maxim which has
never lost its temper overall these
centuries. Lord Denning observed in a
language without equivocation that" no
1 All] Smt. Isharat & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
121
judgement of a Court, no order of a
Minister can be allowed to stand if it has
been obrtained by fraud, for fraud
unravels everythin " (Lazarus Estate Ltd.
V. Beasley 1956 (1) QB 702).
13.
In the case of Vice Chairman,
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Another
Vs. Girdhari Lal Yadav, 2004 (6) SCC 325,
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
applicability of principles of natural justice in
cases involving fraud and held in paragraph
12 as under :
"12. Furthermore, the respondent
herein has been found guilty of an act of
fraud. In opinion, no further opportunity
of hearing is necessary to be afforded to
him. It is not necessary to dwell into the
matter any further as recently in the case
of Ram chandra Singh v. Savitri devi this
Court has noticed :
"15. Commission of fraud on court
and suppression of material facts are the
core issues involved in these matters.
Fraud as is well-known vitiates every
solemn act. Fraud and justice never
dwells together.
16.Fraud is a conduct either by letter
or words, which induces the other person,
or
authority
to
take
a
definite
determinative stand as a response to the
conduct of former either by word or letter.
It
is
also
well
settled
that
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may
also give reason to claim relief against
fraud.
18.A fraudulent misrepresentation is
called deceit and consists in leading a
man into damage by willfully or recklessly
causing him to believe and act on
falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party
makes representations which he knows to
be false, and injury ensues therefrom
although the motive from which the
representations proceeded may not have
been bad."
19. In Derry V. Peek (1889) 14 AC
337 it was held: "In an action of deceit
the plaintiff must prove actual fraud.
Fraud is proved when it is shown that a
false representation has been made
knowingly, or without belief in its truth,
or recklessly, without caring whether it be
true or false.
A false statement, made through
carelessness and without reasonable
ground for believing it to be true, may be
evidence of fraud but does not necessarily
amount to fraud. Such a statement, if
made in the honest belief that it is true, is
not fraudulent and does not render the
person make it liable to an action of
deceit."
14. In the case of Ram Chandra
Singh Vs. Savitri Devi and others,
2003(8) SCC 319, Hon'ble Supreme Court
held in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 18, 25 and
37 as under :
"15. Commission of fraud on court
and suppression of material facts are the
core issues involved in these matters.
Fraud as is well-known vitiates every
solemn act. Fraud and justice never
dwells together.
16. Fraud is a conduct either by
letter or words, which induces the other
person, or authority to take a definite
determinative stand as a response to the
conduct of former either by word or letter.
17. It is also well settled that
misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud.
Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may
also give reason to claim relief against
fraud.
18.A fraudulent misrepresentation is
called deceit and consists in leading a
122
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
man into damage by willfully or recklessly
causing him to believe and act on
falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party
makes representations which he knows to
be false, and injury ensues therefrom
although the motive from which the
representations proceeded may not have
been bad.
25. Although in a given case a
deception may not amount to fraud, fraud
is anathema to all equitable principles
and any affair tainted with fraud cannot
be
perpetuated
or
saved
by
the
application of any equitable doctrine
including res-judicata.
37. It will bear repetition to state
that any order obtained by practising
fraud on court is also non-est in the eyes
of law."
15.

In
the
case
of
S.P.
ChengalVaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs Vs.
Jagannath (dead) by L.Rs and others, AIR
1994 SC 853, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held in para 7 as under :
"7. The High Court, in our view, fell
into patent error. The short question
before the High Court was whether in the
facts and circumstances of this case,
Jagannath
obtained
the
preliminary
decree by playing fraud on the court. The
High Court, however, went haywire and
made observations which are wholly
perverse. We do not agree with the High
Court that "there is no legal duty cast
upon the plaintiff to come to court with a
true case and prove it by true evidence".
The principle of "finality of litigation"
cannot be pressed to the extent of such an
absurdity that it becomes an engine of
fraud in the hands of dishonest litigants.
The courts of law are meant for imparting
justice between the parties. One who
comes to the court, must come with clean
hands. We are constrained to say that
more often than not, process of the court
is being abused. Property-grabbers, taxevaders, bank-loan-dodgers and other
unscrupulous persons from all walks of
life find the court-process a convenient
lever
to
retain
the
illegal-gains
indefinitely. We have no hesitation to say
that a person, who's case is based on
falsehood, has no right to approach the
court. He can be summarily thrown out at
any stage of the litigation."
16. In the case of Jainendra Singh
Vs. State of U.P., 2012 (8) SCC 748,
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
fact of appointment obtained by fraud and
held in para 29.1 to 29.10 as under :
"29.1 Fraudulently obtained orders
of appointment could be legitimately
treated as voidable at the option of the
employer or could be recalled by the
employer and in such cases merely
because the respondent employee has
continued in service for a number of
years, on the basis of such fraudulently
obtained employment, cannot get any
equity in his favour or any estoppel
against the employer.
29.2 Verification of the character
and antecedents is one of the important
criteria to test whether the selected
candidate is suitable to the post under the
State and on account of his antecedents
the appointing authority if find not
desirable to appoint a person to a
disciplined force can it be said to be
unwarranted.
29.3
When
appointment
was
procured by a person on the basis of
forged documents, it would amount to
misrepresentation and fraud on the
employer and, therefore, it would create
no equity in his favour or any estoppel
1 All] Smt. Isharat & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
123
against the employer while resorting to
termination without holding any inquiry.
29.4 A candidate having suppressed
material information and/or giving false
information
cannot
claim
right
to
continue in service and the employer,
having
regard
to
the
nature
of
employment as well as other aspects, has
the discretion to terminate his services.
29.5
Purpose
of
calling
for
information regarding involvement in any
criminal case or detention or conviction is
for the purpose of verification of the
character/antecedents at the time of
recruitment and suppression of such
material information will have clear
bearing on the character and antecedents
of the candidate in relation to his
continuity in service.
29.6 The person who suppressed the
material information and/or gives false
information cannot claim any right for
appointment or continuity in service.
29.7 The standard expected of a
person intended to serve in uniformed
service is quite distinct from other
services and, therefore, any deliberate
statement or omission regarding a vital
information can be seriously viewed and
the ultimate decision of the appointing
authority cannot be faulted.
29.8 An employee on probation can
be discharged from service or may be
refused employment on the ground of
suppression of material information or
making false statement relating to his
involvement
in
the
criminal
case,
conviction or detention, even if ultimately
he was acquitted of the said case,
inasmuch as such a situation would make
a person undesirable or unsuitable for the
post.
29.9 An employee in the uniformed
service pre-supposes a higher level of
integrity as such a person is expected to
uphold the law and on the contrary such a
service born in deceit and subterfuge
cannot be tolerated.
29.10The authorities entrusted with
the
responsibility
of
appointing
Constables, are under duty to verify the
antecedents of a candidate to find out
whether he is suitable for the post of a
Constable and so long as the candidate
has not been acquitted in the criminal
case, he cannot be held to be suitable for
appointment to the post of Constable."
17. Lastly learned counsel for the
petitioners submits that as per Muslim
Law the petitioner no. 1 can have four
wives and since the respondent no. 5 is
stated to be first and the only wife and as
such there is nothing wrong to marry with
the petitioner no. 1, who shall be his
second wife. Submission is wholly
misconceived.
The
only
source
of
livelihood disclosed by the petitioner no.
2 in paragraph 7 of the petition is the 5-6
Bighas agricultural land of his father. The
petitioner no. 2 has legally wedded
surviving wife i.e. respondent no. 5 and
from their wedlock they have three
children namely respondent nos. 6, 7 and
8. The respondent no. 5 is said to have
pregnancy of about 8 months. On these
facts the alleged second Nikah by
petitioner no. 2 with the petitioner no. 1
would cause injustice to the respondent
nos. 5 to 8 and the child in womb of the
respondent no. 5.
18. Under the circumstances the
alleged action of the petitioner no. 2 is
against the verses of Holy "Quran" i.e.
Sura 4 Ayat 3 english translation of which
is reproduced below:-
"If ye fear that ye shall not
Be able to deal justly
124
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
With the orphans,
Marry women of your choice,
Two, or three, or four;
But if ye fear that ye shall not
Be able to do justly (with them),
Then only one, or (a captive)
That your right hands posses.
That will be more suitable,
To prevent you
From doing injustice."
19. In view of mandate in the Holy
Quran it is amply clear that bigamy is not
sanctified unless a man can do justice to
orphans, who in the present set of facts
are the respondent nos. 5 to 8. As per
mandate of the Holy Quran as noted
above all Muslims men have to deal justly
with the orphans. A married Muslim man
having his wife alive cannot marry with
another muslim women, if he cannot deal
justly with the orphan. A mandate has
been given that in such circumstances a
Muslim man has to prevent himself to
perform second marriage, if he is not
capable of fostering his wife and children.
The religious mandate of Sura 4 Ayat 3 is
binding on all muslim men which
specifically mandates all Mulim men to
deal justly with orphans and then they can
marry women of their choice two or three
or four but if a Muslim man fears he will
not be able to deal justly with them then
only one. If a muslim man is not capable
of fostering his wife and children then as
per above mandate of Holy Quran, he
cannot marry the other woman.
20. In case of Dilbar Habib Siddiqui
Vs. State of U.P. and Others 2010 (69)
ACC 997 a Division Bench of this Court
held in paragraph 8 as under:
" Thus for a valid muslim marriage
both the spouses have to be muslim. In the
present writ petition this condition is not
satisfied as the writ petition lacks credible
and accountable material in this respect
on which reliance can be placed.
Coming to another limb of argument
raised by counsel for the petitioner that a
muslim man is entitled to marry four time,
we once again revert back to recognised
treatises. We find that Sura 4 Ayat 3 of
The Holy Quran provides for giving due
care and provisions for a Muslim women.
The said Ayat, as is referred to in the
treatise by I.Mulla, is referred to below:-
"(vi) Number of wives- If ye fear that ye
shall not be able to deal justly with the
orphans ( orphan wives and their property);
marry woman of your choice, two or three or
four; But if you fear that ye shall not be able
to deal justly (with them), then only
one...........that would be more suitable to
prevent you from doing injustice."
From the perusal of above Ayats it is
abundantly clear that bigamy is not
sanctified unless a man can do justice to
orphans. The said Ayat mandates all
Muslims men to 'deal justly with orphans
and then they can marry women of their
choice two or three or four but if they fear
that they will not be able to deal justly
with them then only one. We are of the
view, that such a religious mandate has
been given to all the Muslims for a
greater social purpose. If a Muslim man
is not capable of fostering his wife and
children then he cannot be allowed the
liberty to marry other women as that will
be against the said Sura 4 -Ayat-3.This
aspect of the matter should not vex our
mind further as the same came up before
the apex court as well in Javed And
Others versus State of Haryana: AIR 2003
SC 3057 and therefore we conclude this
aspect of the submission by referring to
the words of the apex court in that
decision,
which
are
as
follows:-
1 All] Lal Ji Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
125
"The Muslim Law permits marrying
four women. The personal law nowhere
mandates or dictates it as a duty to
perform four marriages. No religious
scripture or authority provides that
marrying less than four women or
abstaining from procreating a child from
each and every wife in case of permitted
bigamy or polygamy would be irreligious
or offensive to the dictates of the religion.
The question of the impugned provision of
Haryana Act being violative of Art. 25
does not arise."
21. The law laid down by the
Division Bench of this Court in case of
Dilbar Habad Siddiqui's Case (Supra) is
clearly
attracted
on
the
facts
and
circumstances of the present case. In the
present set of facts the first wife of
petitioner no. 2 is surviving and from their
wedlock there are three children namely
respondent nos. 6, 7 and 8 and the wife
(respondent no. 5) is said to have
pregnancy of about 8 months.
22. Apart from this the writ petition
is based on concealment of facts and false
averments. Fake paper have also been
filed with the writ petition.
23. Under the circumstances and
facts of the case this writ petition deserves
to be dismissed with heavy costs.
24. In result, the writ petition fails
and is, hereby, dismissed with costs or Rs.
50,000/- on the petitioner no. 2, which
shall be paid by him to the respondent no.
5 within two months.
25. The father of the petitioner no. 2
i.e. Riaz Ahmad is the person, who along
with his wife is presently looking after the
well being of the respondent nos. 5 to 8.
He expressed serious apprehension of
threat to his life and property by the
petitioner no. 1 and respondent no. 4.
Under the circumstances it is provided
that if Sri Riaz Ahmad (father of the
petitioner no. 2) or respondent no. 5
approaches to the respondent no. 2 or
respondent no 3 in case of any threat to
their life or property then they shall take
effective steps in accordance with law.
26. The writ petition is dismissed
with
costs
of
Rs.
50,000/-
as
aforementioned.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 01.12.2014
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJES KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT, J.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 64246 of 2014
Lal Ji Saroj
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vijay Kumar Sharma, Sri Ram Sheel
Sharma
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Manoj Kumar Yadav
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Settlement of license to run the fair price
shop-denial
by
mis-interpreting
G.O.
Dated 10.07.14-held-misconceived- G.O.
Relied in impugned order applicable
where Appeal pending-not where appeal
already
dismissed-pendency
of
writ
petition without interim order -not be
ground for refusal-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-7
We find that the Government Order
dated 10.07.2014 was only applicable in