1. All these Writ Petitions raise common questions of law and they can therefore be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The essential facts are that prior to 1956, the work of prohibition enforcement was attended to by the regular police force in the districts of Chittoor, Nellore and Guntur and by separate prohibition Department in other districts. In 1956, however, the Prohibition Department was abolished and the work was entrusted entirely to the police Department. Again in 1960, the Government decided that the work of enforcement of prohibition should be taken away from the police and entrusted to a separate agency. A committee was appointed. The report of that Committee was considered by the Government and consequently G. O. Ms. No. 42 dated 6th January, 1961 was issued.
3. According to that Government Order the work of enforcement of prohibition was taken away from the Police and was entrusted to a new department called Excise and Prohibition Department. The existing Excise Department was directed to be merged in the new department. The Government Order gave the set up of the new Excise and Prohibition Department. The said Government Order also pointed out the methods, of filling up the posts created for the purpose of the new Department. The first mode of recruitment was by transfer to the new department of all the officers and personnel of the Ex-Prohibition Department who were working then in the Police Department and other Departments; (2) by absorption of officers and personnel then working in the Excise and Prohibition Department in the Andhra Area; (3) by selecting and transferring such of the officers and personnel in the Police Department with satisfactory record who were willing to be transferred to the new Department on a permanent basis; (4) by filling up other vacancies, if any, by promotion from the lower cadres on the basis of merit and suitability without insisting upon the requirements such as passing of tests etc., and permitting them to acquire the qualifications within the prescribed period of probation.
The Government Order emphasized that no deputation or temporary transfer should be made from the Police Department. The question of deputation from the Police Department to the new Department should arise only when the new Department was unable to find suitable officers among those transferred to it on a permanent basis. The new Department thus came into existence in 1961 and was working with full strength till 1965.
4. In 1965, the Government issued another Government Order Ms. No. 1603, dated 13th October, 1965. By and under this Government Order the Excise and Prohibition Department was again sought to be reorganised. The Government decided that the Prohibition staff in Andhra area be reorganised in the manner, mentioned in the said Government Order. The consequence of the said reorganisation was that while retaining the required posts, the other posts were directed to be abolished.
5. According to paragraph 2 of the said Government Order, the Government entrusted the work of finalising the list of personnel to be retained in the reduced Department to the Board of Revenue. Since that paragraph is very important, I shall quote it in extenso:
'The Board of Revenue will finalise the list of personnel to be retained in the department in the reorganised set up and come up with necessary proposals regarding absorption of the surplus staff in other Departments for consideration by a committee specially constituted for the purpose.
The Board of Revenue will also examine whether there are any officers and personnel of the Police Department, who, have been taken to the Excise Department, at the time of retransfer of prohibition enforcement work to Excise and Prohibition Department in 1961 and if so, whether such personnel could be repatriated to the Police Department in view of their training in the Police Department. The remaining surplus staff will be absorbed in other Departments in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee.'
6. The result of the reorganisation in so far as the four categories of services are concerned is that 130 posts of Sub-Inspectors only have been retained in the reorganised Department and as many as 118 have to be accommodated in other departments 262 posts are retained for the petty officers and the other posts retrenched. 67 officers also have to be accommodated somewhere else and 645 posts have been retained for prohibition guards. The remaining posts having been abolished, the persons holding those posts will have to be accommodated in other departments of the Government. Similar is the case with the Lower Division Clerks.
7. In order to prepare a final list of persons to be retained in the Department in the reoraganised set up as is evident from the Government Order the Board of Revenue was asked to prepare that list and for the purpose of absorbing the surplus staff in other departments, the Government constituted a committee for deciding as to where those surplus staff has to be absorbed. The Board of Revenue was also asked to examine whether there are any officers and personnel of the Police Department who were taken to the Excise and Prohibition Department at the time of retransfer of prohibition enforcement work to Excise and Prohibition Department in 1961 and to suggest whether such personnel can be repatriated to the Police Department in view of their training in the Police Department. If this could be achieved, the Government Order directs that the remaining surplus staff will be absorbed in other departments in accordance with the recommendations of the committee.
8. Although the wording of paragraph 2 of the Government Order is not very clear, but what appears to me is that the Government wanted the Board of Revenue, to prepare a final list of those who would be retained in the shortened department. But the task of absorbing the surplus staff was entrusted to a committee specially constituted by the Government for the said purpose. It is not clear for what purpose the expression 'come up' is used in the said paragraph. It was not intended obviously that the Board of Revenue and/or the Committee should submit their proposals to the Government and that the Government will take the final decision. It is not denied that the Government did not in fact consider either the question of retention or the absorption although information was given to the Government by the Board of Revenue as well as by the Committee constituted for that purpose.
It is not also clear whether the Board of Revenue was expected to go to the Committee with proposals in regard to absorption What is however clear is that the Board of Revenue was not expected to put for the consideration of the committee the final list which was prepared of the persons who were to be retained in the reorganised department What appears to me is that the said expression 'come up' only indicates that after the Board of Revenue finalises the list of persons who are going to be retained, the list of the surplus staff would be sent to the committee and it is the function of the committee to see that the surplus staff is absorbed in other departments. Of course the Board of Revenue as stated earlier, was asked to examine whether some of the officers or persons who were brought from the Police Department in 1961 could be repatriated to the Police Department and if that could be achieved, the remaining surplus staff was to be absorbed by the committee. Thus, while the preparation of the list of persons who have to be retained in the Department was exclusively left to the Board of Revenue, the task of absorption was delegated to the Committee. I am told by the learned Government Pleader that at a meeting of some of the officers at the Secretariat including the Member of the Board of Revenue, who dealt with this question, on 18th October 1965, the Inspector General of Police, who was present, stated that, in the circumstances, only those Sub-Inspectors, who were trained in his Department, he would take them back.
He showed his unwillingness to allow other Sub-Inspectors to be sent and absorbed in the Police Department. In pursuance of this discussion, the Deputy Inspector-General of Police seems to have sent a letter on 21st October, 1965 to the Board of Revenue stating that the Police Department can absorb only those Sub-Inspectors who were trained in the Police Department and the Petty Officers six in number, who went from the Police Department to the Excise Department. Committee specially constituted for the purpose of absorbing met on 8-11-1965. It appears that finally in the light of the abovesaid discussion at the Secretariat on 18th October. 1965 and the letter of the Deputy Inspector-General of Police and the decisions arrived at by the committee, the Member, Board of Revenue finalised the list of the persons who were, according to him, to be retained in the new set up and the Committee also decided to absorb the surplus staff in other departments.
9. In so far as the Sub-Inspectors are concerned, the Member, Board of Revenue for the purpose of finalising the list of persons to be retained classified them into four categories. (1) 29 Sub-Inspectors, who had come from the Police Department and whom the Inspector-General of Police was willing to take back: (2) Sub-Inspectors who were directly recruited after consulting the Public Service Commission, they are 16 in number: (3) the Sub-Inspectors, who were already there in the Excise and Prohibition Department, and (4) temporary promotees either from Petty Officers. Lower Division Clerks, or Upper Division Clerks. The Member of the Board of Revenue decided that the 29 Sub-Inspectors whom the Inspector General of Police was agreeing to take back should be sent back to the Police Department Their lien in the Police Department was recognised. He directed that the directly recruited Sub-Inspectors should be retained in the new Department He also decided that the other Sub-Inspectors, who were already there in the Department, should be retained according to the seniority, in the posts which are available and the rest were directed to be absorbed in other departments. The Member of the Board of Revenue, in regard to the fourth category promotees, did not direct their retention He thought that they have no right to hold the posts to which they were promoted as their promotion was temporary. Instead of cancelling their temporary promotion and reverting them to their substantive posts he decided that they should be absorbed in other departments treating them as if they were holding the posts of Sub-Inspectors.
10. In so far as the Petty Officers are concerned, he classified them into three categories: (1) 18 Head Constables, whose services were drawn from Police Department (2) promotees as Petty Officers, and (3) other promotees in so far as the first category is concerned, the Member. Board of Revenue directed that all the Head constables who were taken as Petty Officers in this Department, should be repatriated to the Police Department He directed in regard to the second category that they would be retained strictly according to seniority and the seniority list will be followed until the posts settled for the new Department are filled in regard to the third category, promotees up to 1st May 1963, were retained to fill the required strength left over after the retention of the second category.
11. In regard to the prohibition guards, the Member, Board of Revenue thought that since they were recruited districtwise the retention should be on the basis of seniority in the concerned district and the others to be absorbed in other departments.
12. In pursuance of this decision, notices were served upon these, who were repatriated to the Police Department, and also those who were to be transferred to other departments. It is Government Order No. 1603 which directed the reorganisation and the list of retention Prepared by the Board of Revenue and the notices consequently sent of the transfer of these officers that are impugned in this batch of writ petitions.
13. Mainly two contentions are advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the writ Petitioners it was firstly contended that the delegation of Power by the Government to the Board of Revenue, was improper since no standards were laid down which the member was required to follow in preparing the final list of persons who are going to be retained and secondly that assuming that the delegation was proper the Member, Board of Revenue has not exercised the discretion remitted to him properly.
14. Before I deal with these two principal contentions, I think I must dispose of two or three points raised by some of the learned Advocates appearing for the petitioners. It was contended by Mr. Y. Rami Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the Government was not competent to direct reorganisation of the Excise and Prohibition Department. The contention was that when the petitioners were appointed permanently to this Department, the Government cannot go on organising and reorganising the departments which affect the valuable rights of the petitioners. It is true that in this case there has been reorganisation more than once But that does not mean that the Government is not competent to reorganise According to Rule 62 of the Financial Code and Rule 426 of the Andhra Pradesh, Code, it is within the competence of the Government to create or abolish posts.
How the administration is to be carried on is exclusively left to the Government subject of course to the provisions of the Constitution and the law in force for the time being. When the Government was of the opinion that for the efficient working of the policies connected with Excise and Prohibition they can be achieved to a large measure by reorganising the Department, it cannot be validly argued that the Government cannot do so. T am not in the slightest degree concerned with the wisdom of the reorganisation, nor interested in the least to find out whether administratively or economically the new set up would prove more effective My only concern is to see whether the Government was competent to reorganise in view of the exigencies of the service and in the interests of the effective working of the Department No authority was brought to my notice which compels me to take the view that in no case the Government can reorganise any department I am inclined to hold that when the Government can abolish or create posts it can reorganise the Department in order to meet the fresh requirements and I see absolutely no vice in the new step taken by the Government.
15. It was contended by Mr. Jayachandra Reddy that the transfers of these officers from the present Department to the other Departments would amount to termination of their services and removal within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the Government therefore could not have transferred them without providing them a reasonable opportunity of being heard Reliance in this connection was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Motiram v. N.E. Frontier Railway : (1964)IILLJ467SC . I do not think that the said decision decides anything of that sort. It is now a fairly settled view that it is only in a case where the services are terminated by way of punishment that the provisions of Article 311(2) would be attracted. In the present case, the services of no employee have been terminated. They have not been removed from their service. Although they are transferred, the continuity of their service is recognised. Merely because the size of the Department is reduced and some posts were abolished, as long as the persons holding those abolished posts have been transferred and continued in service in other departments. I fail to see how Article 311(2) can be said to be attracted. I find therefore no difficulty in rejecting that contention.
16. It was also contended by Mr. Y. Rami Reddy, the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Public Service Commission was not consulted before the new set up was organised. No such ground has been raised in the writ petition nor was it argued in the preliminary argument. Whether the Public Service Commission was consulted or not is not a pure question of law. The learned Government Pleader says that there was some correspondence with the Public Service Commission. I do not therefore think that I can permit the learned Advocate to raise such a ground at the fag-end of his argument.
17. Turning then to the first principal contention that the Government was not authorised to delegate the task of preparing the final list of those employees who were to be retained in the new set up, what was argued was that the Government while delegating the power to discharge as to who should be retained in the department, did not give any guidance in the Government Order to the Member, Board of Revenue. Such uncontrolled and uncanalised delegation suffers from the infirmity of unlawful delegation.
18. It is true that the discretion conferred by the Government order on the Member of Board of Revenue is wide in its scope and comprehensive in its effect. The discretion is indeed unfettered. It is not, however, necessary in every case that the delegation should expressly provide the guidance by laying down certain principles which have to be followed in applying them in exercising the discretion conferred by the delegation. If the delegation itself contains sufficient guidance no question of its impropriety or invalidity arises. If by necessary implication, the principles on the basis of which discretion can be exercised can be found out, even in that case, the discretion cannot be said to be uncontrolled. It is always expected of the delegatee to exercise the discretion not capriciously but cautiously and carefully and as far as possible consistently not only having regard to the parties who are likely to be affected and to their rights but also in the interests of the implementation of the scheme itself.
19. It is sufficient if the Government designates the general policy, the delegatee who is to apply it and the boundaries of his delegated power Rights of the employees are protected always by access to the Courts to test the application of the policy in the light of the declaration made in the policy to each individual case. It is not necessary that in all cases the delegator should fix the forms or standards. In order to find out whether the delegation is unregulated or uncontrolled the test applied is whether the language conveys sufficiently the intention of the Government and the Board outlines on the basis of which the scheme has to be worked out. It was not possible for the Government to supply to the Board of Revenue a specified formula for their guidance in a field where flexibility and the adaptation of the Government Policy to variable conditions as have existed in the various categories of the employees constituted the essence of the programme. Any insistence on expressly laying down the standards would practically amount to giving undue importance to the form rather than the substance.
It must be remembered that laying down of standards are but one of the many means to the end, that is to say to implement the policy indicated by the Government. It would be a mistake if this particular method is permitted to be raised to the dignity of an end, in itself and allowed to overshadow other analogous methods of implementing the scheme. By insisting upon laying down expressly or impliedly the norms of behaviour for purposes of exercising the discretion in some cases we are likely to commit error. If this premise is correct, as I hold that to be, then the judicial analysis of standards or norms, whether they are expressly mentioned in the delegation or they are implied from the terms of delegation whether they are clear or vague and in some cases even absent, should not make of them a fetish upon which to permit or reject or otherwise valid delegation. As stated earlier, the main objective of the Court is to ascertain whether the Government policy laid down in the Government Order can be effected under a general grant of power the limitations over which may not be discernible but can be necessarily implied and which do not shock the judicial conscience.
If in the absence of any express principles on the basis of which the delegates has to work it can be implied from the circumstances under which the delegation was made and when the delegatee is expected, in all cases to exercise the discretion cautiously and carefully. It cannot be said that the delegation suffers from the infirmity of unlawful delegation. In this case, the Government provided by necessary implication certain matters which ought to be kept in view while preparing the list of those who were to be retained. It also provided though somewhat sketchily guidance in regard to how the surplus staff should be absorbed. More than that the Member of the Board of Revenue is an experienced and senior civil servant. Any delegation in the circumstances in which the reorganisation is taking place and the varied and complex problems which the retrenchment of so many posts must necessarily create it would not only be difficult but would be a mistake to expect that certain hard and fast principles should be laid down for the guidance of the Member, Board of Revenue. He is expected to approach the problem with caution and see that in order to permit the new department to work with greater efficiency to retain only such persons who are more suitable to the job. I do therefore agree with the contention that the delegation is bad in law.
20. When once the delegation is held to be proper and free from the vice of unlawful delegation, what remains to be considered is whether the delegatee has exercised the discretion remitted to him by the Government properly. The exercise of most of the discretionary powers can undoubtedly be challenged in the Courts. The Court will prevent wrongful exercise of the discretion. Such wrong exercise of discretion may arise from consideration of irrelevant issues or factors or it may arise from omitting from consideration some very relevant issues or factors. It may also arise from the fact that the person who is expected to exercise the discretion acts at the dictation of others or surrenders the discretion to someone else. If he takes into consideration, factors which are for the authority nor permissible or if the consideration produces some unfair or unreasonable result then there could be little difficulty in striking down the wrong exercise of the discretion.
It must be remembered that when something is to be done within the discretion of any authority that something is to be done within the discretion of any authority that something is to be done, according to the rules of reason and justice; not according to the personal opinion of the officer concerned or somebody else. It must be exercised according to law and not according to humour. It should not be arbitrary, vague, or fanciful. But it must be legal, just and fair. Viewed in the background of these principles guiding exercise of discretion, I find no difficulty in reaching the conclusion that in some respects the exercise of the discretion by the, Member of the Board of Revenue, was not proper.
21. In so far as the Sub-Inspectors are concerned, I do not find any rationale behind the classification into three different categories for the purpose of retention in the new department It may be that some of the Sub-Inspectors were brought from the Police Department and some were directly recruited after the Public Service Commission was consulted and some of them were already existing since the days of the old department That, however, in my opinion, is irrelevant consideration at the time when the question of final retention of some of the Sub-Inspectors was to be considered. They all belong to one category of service and in that capacity they were serving the department. If some of them have to be sent out on the basis of some classification, such internal classification will have to be intelligible and reasonable and which must have some kind of reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved. It cannot, however, be validly argued that the categorisation of the Sub-Inspectors in three different groups is reasonable and that such classification has any nexus with the objective. The direct recruitment took place admittedly in 1963.
They are now allowed to be retained in the department whereas even those who were already in the department since a pretty long time have to be absorbed in another department thus depriving the department of their experience. Merely because they have been directly recruited after consultation with the Public Service Commission, I fail to see how they can be classed separately. There is no reasonable basis for doing that. Likewise the existing Sub-Inspectors, who were serving the department since the old days cannot be discriminated between themselves. While some of them are retained according to their seniority, others have been asked to get away. Likewise merely because the 29 Sub Inspectors drawn from the Police Department were originally trained by the Police Department, it cannot constitute a valid ground for classifying them separately. It is not denied that from 1956 onwards, all these Sub Inspectors working in the Police Department were trained and qualified. They were not only discharging the duties in regard to the excise or prohibition but they were also discharging the duties as Sub-Inspectors of Police.
In any case, there is no evidence before me to show that others were not trained in the same manner as these 29 are. There is only a letter of the Deputy Inspector General of Police in the Government record which indicates that these 29 people have been trained in the department. But there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the others are incapable of discharging the duties in the Police Department because they are not fully trained as is required. When there is an integrated and combined seniority list of Sub-Inspectors in the present department, that should have been followed normally and only those who are senior-most should have been retained in the department unless of course, there are valid objections. To categorise them on the basis of their being drawn from the Police Department or the Excise Department or directly recruited in my opinion is to make arbitrary discrimination between the same class of persons. It is true that the 29 Sub-Inspectors if they have to go to the Police Department their rights have been secured since they have been provided with lines which they were not originally given. The fact that they were transferred to the Excise and Prohibition Department on a permanent basis may not be of much moment but at the time of their retention or sending out any arbitrary kind of discrimination between the same class would naturally suffer from the vice of unlawful discrimination.
22. That apart, the Member of the Board of Revenue looked at the problem from a wrong premise and that was more responsible for making the individuous distinction between those who came from the Police Department and those who were directly recruited or were already existing in the department. While it cannot be disputed that the Member, Board of Revenue was entitled to consult the Inspector General of Police for that matter, the members of the committee constituted for the purpose of absorbing the surplus staff, he ought not to have surrendered his discretion to the view expressed by either the Inspector-General of Police or by the Committee. While it need not be disputed that retention and absorption cannot be divided into two watertight compartments, but merely because the Police Department was prepared to absorb 29 Sub-Inspectors whatever may be the reason for that, the discretion could not be permitted to be exercised only because of that.
I have therefore no doubt that the exercise of discretion was improper in this case not only because of the individous distinction made between the members of the same category but also because of the fact that the Inspector General's views had considerable influence and practically were responsible for the way in which the retention list of the Sub-Inspectors of Police was prepared. To that extent I have no shred of doubt that the final list prepared by the Member, Board of Revenue, is bad and had to be struck down. The Board of Revenue without making any individous distinction between the members of the same class can consider on the basis of seniority, as is the principle accepted by him, and the committee will find out avenues of absorption in regard to those who have necessarily to go from this department. The result of the discussion is that the below-mentioned 16 writ petitions filed by the Sub Inspectors will have to be allowed.
23. Now with regard to the Petty Officers, here again distinction was made between the members of the same class on no reasonable classification. Head constables, who were drawn from the police Department were asked to be repatriated to the Police Department only on the ground that the Police Department was willing to absorb them. It is true that the Government gave directions, in paragraph 2 of the Government Order that the question of repatriation of the police men may be examined by the Board of Revenue But that does not mean that on the basis of that direction any unreasonable classification is permitted to be made. As stated before, this class of service also is divided into three classes for purposes of finalising the list of retention. While the Head Constables were directed to go back to the Police Department, the promotes to the post of Petty Officers were selected on the basis of seniority and those who were promoted upto 31st May, 1963, were retained in order to fill the gap, in the posts.
I do not think that the exercise of discretion in this can be said to be in any manner reasonable for the same reasons which I have already given in connection with Sub-Inspectors. Out of 18 Head Constables only six persons have filed writ petitions. Their cases will have to be reconsidered by the Member, Board of Revenue. According to the principle which he himself (Member, Board of Revenue) has laid down that seniority will be strictly followed in considering the question of retention, he has to consider, including these six persons, as to who are seniors who could be retained, of course, rejecting those who cannot for valid reasons be retained. To that extent the exercise of discretion in regard to Petty Officers suffers from the same infirmity and cannot be sustained. I would therefore allow these 6 Writ Petitions also.
24. The case in regard to Prohibition Guards, however stands on an altogether different footing While it was contended by some of the learned Counsel faintly that the appointments were made not districtwise, but on the State level it was convincingly made out by the learned Government Pleader that all the appointments in the State were made districtwise While they would normally be transferred intra-district, some transfers inter-district have taken place but only on the request of the proboibition guards. I was told by the learned Government Pleader that their seniority is strictly followed in the district where they were appointed Even in cases where some of the prohibition guards were transferred to other districts, their seniority in the district in which they were appointed has been taken into account while preparing the seniority list of the district concerned. The final list thus has been rightly in my view, prepared keeping in view their seniority in the district concerned. Thus those who are not required by the department will have to be absorbed in other departments. I do not therefore find that the exercise of discretion in this behalf was in any manner unlawful or objectionable. The writ petitions of all the said persons have therefore to be dismissed.
25. Before I part with this branch of the cases I must make an observation. I have already referred to the fact that there are certain temporarily promoted Sub-Inspectors of Police from the ranks of Lower Division Clerks. Upper Division Clerks and Petty Officers. Admittedly they have no right to hold the posts to which they were promoted temporarily. The Government in my opinion has taken a liberal attitude In so far as these persons are concerned. The Government undoubtedly had the right to revert them to their substantive posts and then try to absorb such of them, as were required to be absorbed in another department on equivalent posts. Instead of this approach the Government was considerate and permitted the persons temporarily promoted to be treated for the purposes of absorption as Sub-Inspectors of Police. Keeping in view their present rank they will be absorbed. This is what was assured by the learned Government Pleader.
26. In Writ Petition Nos. 1712 and 1766 of 1965 a grievance is made that the Lower Division Clerks were also not reasonably treated. Admittedly even in regard to these persons classification was more or less based on the same lines as that of the Sub-Inspector of Police I have already held that there is no rational basis for classifying them in that manner. The final list in regard to Lower Division Clerks therefore also suffers from the same infirmity and has to be struck down It is open to the Board of Revenue to prepare the final list keeping in view strictly their seniority.
27. Mr. Y. Rama Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended in Writ Petition No. 1710 of 1965 that the petitioner was a steno-typist and while he is sent out of the department, another person, who was not competent to hold that post was nominated to that post. But on an objection raised by the petitioner, it is admitted that the person so appointed has been removed. The Dost is still vacant. The learned Advocate for the petitioner hopes that the case of the petitioner, will be considered by the Government The learned Government Pleader also says that the case is under consideration and will be disposed of in accordance with law. No orders therefore are necessary in that petition.
28. There was some arguments in regard to some individual grievance. I do not, however, think that such individual cases can be considered in these cases. It is open to the petitioners who have personal grievances to approach the Government and set their grievances removed. The learned Government Pleader agreed that their cases will be considered by the Government and will be disposed of in accordance with law.
For the aforesaid reasons T allow the following Writ Petitions:
W. P. Nos. 1712, of 1965, 1766 of 1965, 1720 of 1965. 343 of 1966, 1721 of 1985. 844 of 1966. 1849 of 1965, 1658 of 1955, 1772 of 1965. 1655 of 1965, 1805 of 1965, 1770 of 1965, 1635 of 1965. 1662 of 1965. 1744 of 1965 148 of 1966, 1656 of 1965, 1786 of 1965. 359 of 1966. 1815 of 1965. 1840 of 1965, 1786 of 1965 and 1829 of 1965. 1657 of 1966. In the circumstances of these cases. I leave the parties to bear their own costs. Government Pleader's fee Rs. 75 in each case.