# Vijay Sharma v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 11 ILRA 373
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-10-08
- **Case number:** WRIT - C No. 14488 of 2020
- **Bench:** Ashwani Kumar Mishra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-sharma-v-union-of-india-ors-45410
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 -
Sections 4, 5 and 5A - Unauthorized
Occupant - Demolition of Construction -
No Notice - Colourable Exercise of Power
-
Authority
has
determined
the
petitioner's
status
as
'unauthrorised
occupant' and has consequently directed
the construction to be demolished without
following the procedure contemplated
under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, which is
subject to right to appeal under Section 9
of the Act - Once the law require a thing
to be done in a particular manner, it has to
be done in that manner alone and not
otherwise - Held, Order passed by the
authority under Section 5A(2) of the Act
suffers from colourable exercise of power
and cannot be sustained. (Para 15 and 21)
Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

11 All. Vijay Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
373
Consequently, the writ is dismissed leaving
it open for the petitioner to avail remedy of
appeal under Section 43(5) of the Act,
2016. If the petitioner files an appeal before
the Appellate Authority in accordance with
law the Appellate Authority shall decide
the appeal without being influenced by any
of the observations made by this Court
touching the merits of the case.
----------
(2020)11ILR A373
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.10.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J.

WRIT - C No. 14488 of 2020

Vijay Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Sumit Daga

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ankit Gaur, Sri Chandra
Prakash Yadav, Sri Satish Kumar Rai

A. Civil Law - Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 -
Sections 4, 5 and 5A - Unauthorized
Occupant - Demolition of Construction -
No Notice - Colourable Exercise of Power
-
Authority
has
determined
the
petitioner's
status
as
'unauthrorised
occupant' and has consequently directed
the construction to be demolished without
following the procedure contemplated
under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, which is
subject to right to appeal under Section 9
of the Act - Once the law require a thing
to be done in a particular manner, it has to
be done in that manner alone and not
otherwise - Held, Order passed by the
authority under Section 5A(2) of the Act
suffers from colourable exercise of power
and cannot be sustained. (Para 15 and 21)
Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Cantonment Board & anr. Vs Church of North
India, (2012) 12 SCC 573
2. Union of India through Defence Estate Officer
& anr. Vs Shri Arun Saluza, 2015 (3) ADJ 594
3. Writ-C No. 40360 of 2015; Yogesh Agarwal
Vs Estate Officer & 2 ors.
4. Taylor Vs Taylor, (1876) 1 Ch.D. 426
5. Smt. Manju Arora Vs Estate Officer, Meerut
Cantonment & anr., 2018 (3) AWC 258

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J.)

1. Heard Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel
for the petitioner, Sri Chandra Preshrank Yadav
for respondent nos. 1 and 3 and Sri Satish
Kumar Rai for respondent no. 2.

2. This petition is directed against a notice
dated 4.8.2016 and the consequential order
dated 28.2.2020 (Annexures- 1 and 3 to the writ
petition), whereby alleged constructions raised
by the petitioner has been directed to be
demolished. This order has been passed
invoking the provisions contained in Section
5A(2) of the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised
Occupants)
Act,
1971
(hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1971). The
order records that petitioner is an unauthorised
occupant and has no semblance of right to
remain in possession and, therefore, the
constructions raised by him are unlawful.

3. The writ petition was heard on
6.10.2020 and following orders were
passed:-

"One of the ground urged on
behalf of petitioner is that in view of repeal
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of
the
Cantonments
Act,1924,
the
provisions of Public Premises Act itself will
not be attracted upon the Cantonment
property, inasmuch as by virtue of Section
2(e)(2)(viii) of the Act, the only property
covered within the definition of Public
Premises is one belonging to Cantonment
Board under 1924 Act. Learned counsel for
the parties require further time to examine
this aspect of the matter.

Put up on 8.10.2020 in the
additional cause list."

4. Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel
appearing for the Cantonment Board has
invited attention of the Court to Section
360 of the Cantonments Act, 2006 (
hereinafter referred to as the Act of 2006),
which contains the repeal and savings
clause in the Act of 2006. Sub-section 2 (a)
of Section 360 of the Act of 2006 provides
that notwithstanding the repeal of the
Cantonment Act,1924, any appointment
made or notification issued there under in
so far as it is not inconsistent with the
provisions of the Act of 2006 shall continue
to remain in force and be deemed to have
been made under the provisions of the Act
of 2006. With reference to Section 3 of the
2006 Act learned counsel submits that
cantonment with its boundary is specified
by way of a notification, issued in the
official gazette by the Central Government.
A co-joint reading of the above two
provisions, according to Sri Rai, makes it
explicit that cantonment having been
constituted by way of a notification issued
under the Cantonment Act, 1924 it shall
continue and would not stand repealed even
under the Act of 2006. Reliance is placed
upon para-17 of the Supreme Court
judgment in Cantonment Board and another
Vs. Church of North India, reported in
(2012) 12 SCC 573, which is reproduced
herein after:-

"Section 2(e) of the Public
Premises Act defines "public premises."
This section is split into two sub-sections.
Sub-section (1) covers thereunder any
premises belonging to or taken on lease or
requisitioned by or on behalf of the Central
Government. Sub-section (2) deals with
premises belonging to or taken on lease or
on behalf of various entities such as
Government
Companies,
Universities,
Major Ports etc. which are mentioned in
that sub-section, and Cantonment Boards
have come to be covered under sub-section
(viii) by amendment with effect from
1.6.1994. The case of the respondent has
been that the premises belong to Union of
India, and, therefore, are public premises.
The Estate Officer did have the jurisdiction
over such premises. It is another matter
that the premises of Cantonment Boards
have also come under the definition of
public premises since 1.6.1994. It cannot
mean that the premises of Union of India
which were always under the Public
Premises Act, but under the Management of
a Cantonment Board, since prior to this
amendment, would not be covered under
the Public Premises Act. This has been the
plea of the appellants right from the
beginning."

5. A division bench judgment of
Delhi High Court in Jagat Singh Vs. The
Estate Officer, Delhi is also relied upon to
submit that the property in the management
of cantonment since is otherwise vested in
the Central Government as such the
provisions of the Act of 1971 shall continue
to apply even if the property is not a
cantonment.

6. The submission advanced in that
regard clearly has substance inasmuch as
the cantonment notified under the Act of
1924 are clearly saved even under the Act
11 All. Vijay Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
375
of 2006. Even otherwise 'public premises'
defined in Section 2 (e) (1) of the Act of
1971, means any premises belonging to the
Central Government, whether or not it is
under the management of the Cantonment
Board. Property of the Central Government
would otherwise continue to be covered
under the Act of 1971. A notification has
otherwise been issued on 18.7.1978 in the
Act of 1971 specifying the designated
officer to act as the estate officer in respect
of the premises under the administrative
control of the Ministry of Defence.

7. In view of the above discussion, the
objection raised on behalf of petitioner
regarding applicability of the Act of 1971, in
respect of the property in question, noticed in
the order dated 6.10.2020 lacks merit and is
rejected.

8. That demolition order is also assailed
on the ground that exercise of power under
Section 5A(2) of the Act of 1971 is
impermissible in the facts of the case as the
status of petitioner as an unauthorised
occupant has not been determined under
section 5 of the Act. Petitioner's right of
appeal under Section 9 of the Act of 1971 has
also been denied. It is submitted that in the
facts of the present case the power under
Section 5 of the Act has been impliedly
invoked without following the procedure
stipulated therein, and based thereon the
power under Section 5A(2) of the Act has
been exercised in such a manner that the
petitioner's right of appeal is also denied.

9. Contention of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, in this regard, is disputed
by Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel appearing
for the respondent Cantonment Board.

10. In order to appreciate the
contentions
advanced,
it
would
be
appropriate to take note of the statutory
scheme as it exists of the Act of 1971.
Section 5 of the Act provides for eviction
of unauthorised occupant. Sub section (1)
of Section 5 of the Act provides that the
estate officer after considering the cause
shown pursuant to the notice under section
4 is satisfied that person is in unauthorised
occupation, he can pass an order of
eviction. Section 5 of the Act must precede
a notice to the person concerned. The reply
to notice needs to be considered where after
a satisfaction has to be arrived at by the
estate officer that the person is an
unauthorised occupant. Such opinion of the
estate officer is not conclusive under the
Act but is subject to exercise of appellate
jurisdiction in terms of Section 9 of the
Act. The appeal lies before the District
Judge of the concerned district. It is
admitted that no notice has been issued to
the petitioner under section 4 of the Act
and determination of question whether the
petitioner is an unauthorised occupant has
not been made in the manner contemplated
under
the
Act.
In
the
event
such
determination was made a crucial right of
appeal was also available which has not
been provided to him.

11. Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel for
the Cantonment Board, on the other hand,
submits that Section 5A (2) of the Act of
1971 contemplates an inquiry whether
constructions have been raised in terms of
the authority (whether by way of grant or
by any other mode of transfer) under which
the person was allowed to occupy such
premises and would include the question as
to whether such person is an unauthorised
occupant? It is then urged that an
unauthorised
occupant
since
has
no
authority to remain in possession, therefore,
the constructions raised by him are
unlawful and can always be demolished in
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
exercise of jurisdiction under Section 5-A
(2) of the Act of 1971. Reliance is placed
upon a Division Bench judgment of this
Court in Special Appeal No. 121 of 2015 (
Union of India through Defence Estate
Officer and another Vs. Shri Arun Saluza),
reported in 2015 (3) ADJ 594, as also the
Full Bench of this Court in Writ-C No.
40360 of 2015 (Yogesh Agarwal Vs. Estate
Officer and 2 others).

12. Unlike Section 5 of the Act of
1971, which contemplates an inquiry in
the nature of right of occupant to be in
occupation of the property in question so
as to determine his status as an
unauthorised occupant, the power under
Section 5A of the Act is distinct. Section
5 and 5A of the Act are reproduced:-

"5. Eviction of unauthorised
occupants.--

(1) If, after considering the
cause, if any, shown by any person in
pursuance of a notice under section 4
and 1[any evidence produced by him in
support of the same and after personal
hearing, if any, given under clause (b) of
sub-section (2) of section 4], the estate
officer is satisfied that the public
premises
are
in
unauthorised
occupation, the estate officer may make
an order of eviction, for reasons to be
recorded therein, directing that the
public premises shall be vacated, on
such date as may be specified in the
order, by all persons who may be in
occupation thereof or any part thereof,
and cause a copy of the order to be
affixed on the outer door or some other
conspicuous part of the public premises.

(2) If any person refuses or
fails to comply with the order of eviction
1[on or before the date specified in the
said order or within fifteen days of the
date of its publication under sub-section
(1), whichever is later,] the estate officer
or any other officer duly authorised by
the estate officer in this behalf 1[may,
after the date so specified or after the
expiry
of
the
period
aforesaid,
whichever is later, evict that person]
from, and take possession of, the public
premises and may, for that purpose, use
such force as may be necessary.

5-A.
Power
to
remove
unauthorised constructions, etc:- (1) No
person shall:-

(a) erect or place or raise any
building or ( any movable or immovable
structure or fixture),

(b) display of spread any goods,

(c) bring or keep any cattle or
other animal.

on, or against, or in front of, any
public premises except in accordance with
the authority (whether by way of grant or
any other mode of transfer) under which he
was allowed to occupy such premises.

(2) Where any building or other
immovable structure or fixture has been
erected, placed or raised on any public
premises in contravention of the provisions
of sub-section (1), the estate officer may
serve upon the person erecting such
building or other structure or fixture, a
notice requiring him either to remove, or to
show cause why he shall not remove such
building or other structure or fixture from
the public premises within such period, not
being less than seven days, as he may
specify in the notice; and on the omission
or refusal of such person either to show
cause, or to remove such building or other
structure or fixture from the public
premises, or where the cause shown is not,
in the opinion of the estate officer,
sufficient, the estate officer may, by order,
remove or cause to be removed the building
or other structure or fixture from the public
11 All. Vijay Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
377
premises and recover the cost of such
removal from the person aforesaid as an
arrear of land revenue.

(3) Where any movable structure
or fixture has been erected, placed or
raised, or any goods have been displayed
or spread, or any cattle or other animal has
been brought or kept, on any public
premises, in contravention of the provisions
of sub-section (1) by any person, the estate
officer may, by order, remove or cause to
be removed without notice, such structure,
fixture, goods, cattle or other animal, as
the case may be, from the public premises
and recover the cost of such removal from
such person as an arrear of land revenue."

13. Section 5A (1) of the Act provides
that in the event any of the exigency
specified in sub clauses (a), (b) and (c)
occurs
over
any
public
premises
inconsistent with the authority (whether by
way of grant or by any other mode of
transfer) under which the occupant was
allowed to occupy such premises, then the
structure so raised or offending action
undertaken in terms of Sub clause (a), (b)
and (c) could be removed. No remedy of
appeal is contemplated in such exigency.
The question is as to whether the estate
officer can pass an order under Section 5A
(2) of the Act solely on the ground that
occupant is an unauthorised occupant even
without holding him so in proceedings
under Section 5 of the Act?

14. The statutory scheme is very clear.
Determination of question with regard to the
status of occupant as unauthorised occupant
precedes an inquiry by issuing him notice
under Section 4 of the Act and determination
of his status after considering such reply, by
the estate officer, subject to an order passed
in appeal. Unlike the exigency dealt with
under Section 5 of the Act, the power under
Section 5A of the Act can be exercised in
case of violation of Clauses (a), (b) and (c), in
respect of public premises where the
occupant is in possession of the premises
pursuant to any grant or any other mode of
transfer, where under he was allowed to
occupy such premises, but the condition of
such occupation has been breached. Section
5A(2) of the Act will not be attracted where
exigency specified in Section 5A(1) of the
Act is not attracted and the only allegation is
that occupant is an unauthorised occupant.
Unless the determination with regard to status
of occupant as unauthorised occupant has
been
undertaken
after
following
the
procedure contemplated in Sections 4 and 5
of the Act, the direction to demolish
construction under Section 5A(2) of the Act
would not be permissible.

15. In the facts of the present case, the
estate officer even without issuing notice
under Section 4 of the Act and determination
of
petitioner's
status
as
'unauthorised
occupant' has preceded against him on the
ground that he is an unauthorised occupant.
In case such a determination was to be made
the petitioner had the remedy of filing appeal
under Section 9 of the Act. Instead, what has
been done is that without following the
procedure contemplated under Sections 4 and
5 of the Act, which is subject to right to
appeal under Section 9 of the Act, the
authority has determined the petitioner's
status as 'unauthrorised occupant' and has
consequently directed the construction to be
demolished. This clearly is a colourable
exercise of power. Once the law require a
thing to be done in a particular manner, it has
to be done in that manner alone and not
otherwise. (see : Taylor Vs. Taylor, (1876) 1
Ch.D. 426)

16. The Full Bench of this Court in
the case of Yogesh Agrawal (supra)
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
examined the question as to whether an
order passed under Section 5A of the Act is
appealable under Section 9 of the Act of
1971 and whether the judgment in Sanjay
Agrawal's case, which held it to be so, was
correctly decided. While observing that
right of appeal is a creature of statute
observed that in the absence of any appeal
stipulated against an order passed under
Section 5A the remedy of appeal would not
be available.It was also held that the
judgment in Sanjay Agrawal's case does
not correctly lay down the law. This
judgment does not deal with the exigency
that has arisen before this Court in the facts
of the present case and, therefore, this
judgment cannot be relied upon in support
of the proposition urged.

17. So far as the judgment in case of
Union of India through Defence Estate
Officer and another Vs. Shri Arun Saluza
(supra) is concerned, the question was with
regard to the applicability of Section 5A of
the Act. The Division Bench observed as
under:-

"Now, it is in this background that
we must construe the provisions of Section
5A. Sub-section (1) of Section 5A contains a
prohibition on any person erecting or placing
or raising any building or any movable or
immovable structure or fixture; displaying or
spreading any goods or bringing or keeping
any cattle or other animal on, or against, or
in front of, any public premises except in
accordance with the authority (whether by
way of grant or any other mode of transfer)
under which he was allowed to occupy the
premises.

In other words, what sub-section
(1) of Section 5A does is to ensure, inter alia,
that any erection or raising of a building or
other immovable structure or fixture shall
only be in accordance with the authority
under which the person was allowed to
occupy the premises. There is nothing in subsection (1) of Section 5A to indicate that the
provision shall not apply to those cases
where the authority, whether by way of grant
or by any other mode of transfer, under
which a person was allowed to occupy the
premises, was executed prior to 22 December
1980. The emphasis in sub-section (1) of
Section 5A is on compliance with the
provisions of the authority, whether by way of
grant or any other mode of transfer, under
which a person is allowed to occupy the
premises by stipulating, inter alia, that no
building shall be erected or raised except in
accordance with that authority. Sub-section
(2) of Section 5A allows the Estate Officer to
issue a notice where any building or other
immovable structure or fixture has been
erected, placed or raised on any public
premises in contravention of the provisions of
sub-section (1), requiring the person erecting
such a building, structure or fixture to either
remove the structure or to show cause why it
shall not be removed within a period which
shall not be less than seven days. If the
person either refuses to or omits to show
cause or to remove the building, structure or
fixture, or where the cause shown in the
opinion of the Estate Officer is not sufficient,
the latter has been empowered to pass an
order for the removal thereof and for the
recovery of the costs as arrears of land
revenue."

18. It was observed by the Court that
whether a person has been allowed to
occupy
the
premises
even
prior
to
22.12.1980 even then the provisions of
Section 5A of the Act would be attracted
though
it
was
notified
and
make
enforceable after 22.12.1980.

19. The fact that a valid permission
exists in favour of the occupant to occupy
11 All. Vijay Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors.
379
the premises, clearly indicates that the
exigency contemplated under Section 5A
(1) of the Act did arise in the facts of the
that case. None of the two judgments relied
upon by Sri S.K. Rai, learned counsel
appearing for the respondent Cantonment
Board comes to his rescue.

20. Sri Sumit Daga, learned counsel
for the petitioner has placed reliance upon
the judgment of this Court in Smt. Manju
Arora
Vs.
Estate
Officer,
Meerut
Cantonment and another, reported in 2018
(3) AWC 258. The case in Manju Arora is
some what similar inasmuch as notice
under Section 5A (1) of the Act of 1971
was issued to the occupant and the exercise
of power under Section 5A (2) of the Act
was based upon a finding that the occupant,
in effect, is an unauthorised occupant. After
noticing the rival contentions and upon an
elaborate discussion on the question, this
Court proceeded to observe as under:-

"51, In this regard, it is further to
be noted that the Estate Officer, in the
impugned order dated 05.02.2014 has
referred to two inspection reports with the
following description:-

"(iii) The site plan of B.No. 64,
Church Road, Meerut cantt. Showing
unauthorized constructions.

(iv)
Inspection
report
dated
06.01.2011 of Sh. Ram Kumar, SDO-III &
Shri S.C.Pant, SDO-II."

52. The date of the site plan
showing
unauthorized
construction,
referred to in the aforesaid order has not
been disclosed. However, during the course
of the argument Sri Mehta has stated that
the site plan is the map annexed to the writ
petition dated 2.2.2011. As discussed
above, the said map does not support the
allegations made in the show cause notice
dated 3.2.2011. Some of the measurements
of the 'offending structure' mentioned in the
show cause notice are not to be found in
the map measurements.

53. Also, the order refers to
earlier inspection report dated 06.01.2011
of Sri Ram Kumar and Sri S.C. Pant which
is not available with the petitioner and
which has also not been brought on record
by the respondent by choosing to not file
counter affidavit in the present writ
petition.

54. Thus, it emerges, while show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner
without confronting him with any adverse
material
and
without
giving
him
opportunity to rebut such material or
information, the impugned order has been
passed by relying on certain material
which has in the first place been shown to
be not supporting the fact allegation in the
notice, inasmuch it cannot be said that the
fact allegation made in the impugned order
and/or the notice is supported by the
inspection report and the map dated
2.2.2011. Also, at the same time, it cannot
be said those fac allegations are supported
by other inspection report dated 6.1.2011,
as that report was neither supplied to the
petitioner nor has been shown to this court.

55. Therefore, the impugned
order cannot be allowed to stand on these
facts and reason alone. The Estate Officer,
howsoever right, it may claim to be and
whatever be the bonafide of the action of
that authority, he cannot be permitted to
demolish a construction standing on a
public premises without affording the
noticee i.e. the petitioner a fair chance to
defend the action. Demolition of structure,
as has been rightly contended by Sri Arora
would not only involve a financial loss to
the petitioner but it would also render the
petitioner
homeless.
Such
serious
consequences cannot be allowed to be
visited upon any citizen without complete
380 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
fairness in procedure being followed by the
authority vested with such powers."

21. This Court is in respectful
agreement with the view taken in the case
of Smt. Manju Arora (supra) and in light
of what has been observed above, finds
that the order passed by the authority
under Section 5A(2) of the Act suffers
from colourable exercise of power and
cannot be sustained. The estate officer
while passing such order has in effect
usurped the jurisdiction which otherwise
vested in the Statute by virtue of Section 5
of the Act and required a notice for such
purposes to be issued under Section 4 of
the Act. The consequence of the order
passed is that the safeguards contemplated
under Sections 4 and 5 of the Act have
been ignored and the right of occupant
under Section 9 of the Act of appeal has
also been taken away. Since the authority
competent is yet to adjudicate the status of
petitioner with reference to the applicable
provisions of law, therefore, this Court is
not required to embark upon such inquiry
at the first instance directly under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, as
contended by Sri Rai, inasmuch as it
would result in denial of statutory remedy
of appeal etc.

22. Consequently, writ petition
succeeds and is allowed. Order impugned
dated 28.2.2020 passed by the Estate
Officer, Meerut Cantt. Meerut, is hereby
quashed. It shall, however, be open for the
respondents to determine the question
whether petitioner is an unauthorised
occupant or not? The petitioner also
undertakes
not
to
raise
any
fresh
construction or activity over the plot in
question and would also not create any
third party rights.
----------
(2020)11ILR A380
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 28.09.2020

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE NAHEED ARA MOONIS, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

WRIT - C No. 14666 of 2020

Ramesh Chandra Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gaurav Tiwari, Sri Javed Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Ashish Agrawal

A. Securitization and Reconstruction of
Financial
Assets
and
Enforcement
of
Security Interest Act, 2002 - Sections 13
and 17 - Auction of property - Alternative
Remedy - Entertaining the writ petition
granting
interim
relief
have
serious
adverse impact on the right of bank and
other financial institutions to recover their
dues - Held, the petitioner has an
alternative remedy before Debt Recovery
Tribunal under Section 17 of the Act. (Para
9)
Writ Petition dismissed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. United Bank of India Vs Satyawati Tandon &
ors., (2010) 8 SCC 110
2. Authorized Officer, State Bank of Tranvancore
& anr. Vs Mathew K.C. (2018) 3 SCC 85

(Delivered by Hon'ble Naheed Ara Moonis, J.
& Hon'ble Vivek Varma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, Shri Ashish Agrawal, learned
counsel for respondent nos.2 & 3 and the