Skip to content


Chancellor, Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi and anr. Vs. Jagdish NaraIn Pandey and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSpecial Appeal No. 11 of 1967 connected with S.A. Nos. 7, 8 and 12 of 1967
Judge
Reported inAIR1969All378; [1968(16)FLR255]
ActsUttar Pradesh Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya Act, 1956 - Sections 12, 12(1), 12(4) and 12(6); Uttar Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1904 - Sections 14
AppellantChancellor, Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya, Varanasi and anr.
RespondentJagdish NaraIn Pandey and anr.
Appellant AdvocateR.R. Agarwal, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS.C. Khare, Adv.
DispositionAppeal allowed
Excerpt:
.....sanskrit vishwa vidyalaya act, 1956 and section 14 of u. p. general clauses act, 1904 - office of vice chancellor falling vacant - person appointed from list recommended by selection committee declined the appointment - two successive interim appointment by chancellor - appointment not from recommended list - section 14 of u. p. general clauses act, 1904 provides 'power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires' - chancellor enjoys wide powers under section 12 (6) - held, successive orders permissible under section 14 of u. p. general clauses act, 1904. - - --2. for a period of 24 months from the date of issue of this order the following shall be added as a new clause (iii) after clause (ii) of sub-section (4) of section 12 of the varanaseya sanskrit vishva yidyalaya..........pradesh is the chancellor of the sanskrit university. the act empowers the chancellor to appoint a vice-chancellor for the university. shri a.n. jha, i. c. s. was the first vice-chancellor of the sanskrit university. he was succeeded by shri s. n. m. tripathi as the vice-chancellor. his term of office was to expire on 10-12-1965. a selection committee submitted the names of shri katre and two others for appointment as the next vice-chancellor. shri katre declined the offer for appointment as the nextvice-chancellor.on 9-12-1965 the chancellor appointed shri s. n. m. tripathi as an interim vice-chancellor for a period of six months. on 9-6-1966 the chancellor appointed dr. surendra nath shastri as an interim vice-chancellor. on 23-7-1966 the selection committee submitted three names to.....
Judgment:

Oak, C.J.

1. The question for consideration in these four connected special appeals is whether a certain order passed by the Governor of Uttar Pradesh appointing an interim Vice-Chancellor for Sanskrit University, Varanasi is valid. There is not much dispute about the facts. The admitted facts are these.

2. The State Government established at Varanasi a University for the study of the Sanskrit language by Varanaseya Sans-krit Vishva Vidyalaya Act, 1956 (U. P. ActNo. XXVIII of 1956, hereafter referred to as the Act). The Act was amended by the Uttar Pradesh Universities Act, 1961 (U. P. Act no. XIII of 1961), The Governor, Uttar Pradesh is the Chancellor of the Sanskrit University. The Act empowers the Chancellor to appoint a Vice-chancellor for the University. Shri A.N. Jha, I. C. S. was the first Vice-Chancellor of the Sanskrit University. He was succeeded by Shri S. N. M. Tripathi as the Vice-Chancellor. His term of office was to expire on 10-12-1965. A Selection Committee submitted the names of Shri Katre and two others for appointment as the next Vice-Chancellor. Shri Katre declined the offer for appointment as the nextVice-Chancellor.

On 9-12-1965 the Chancellor appointed Shri S. N. M. Tripathi as an interim Vice-Chancellor for a period of six months. On 9-6-1966 the Chancellor appointed Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri as an interim Vice-Chancellor. On 23-7-1966 the Selection Committee submitted three names to the Chancellor for appointment as the next Vice-chancellor. Those three names were (1) Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri, (2) Shri G. P. Bagchi and (3) Shri S. N. M. Tripathi The Chancellor appointed Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri as the next Vice-Chancellor. Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri sent a telegram declining the offer. The telegram was placed before the Chancellor on 2-12-1966. On 9-12-1966 the Chancellor appointed Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri as the interim Vice-Chancellor for a period of six months from 10-12-1966.

3. Shri Jagdish Narain Pandey and Shri Prabhat Shastri are two members of the Senate of the Sanskrit University. The two members of the Senate filed in this Court two separate writ petitions challenging the Chancellor's order dated 0-12-1966. The two connected writ petitions were allowed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 20-2-1967. He quashed the Chancellor's order dated 9-12-1966, and directed Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri to hand over charge of the office of Vice-Chancellor to the Registrar of the University.

4. The four connected special appeals are directed against the order, dated 20-2-1967 (sic) passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the two writ petitions. Special Appeals Nos. 7 and 8 of 1967 are by Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri. Special Appeals Nos. 11 and 12 of 1967 are by the Chancellor of the Sanskrit University and the Secretary to Government, U. P, in the Education Department.

5. Mr. Jagdish Swarup appearing for Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri did not press Special Appeals Nos. 7 and 8 of 1967 on the ground that the period of six months mentioned in the Chancellor's order dated 9-12-1966 has already expired. We heard Mr. M.N. Shukla, the learned JuniorStanding Counsel for the appellants in Special Appeals Nos. 11 and 12 of 1967, and Mr. S.C. Khare for the petitioners-respondents.

6. The question for consideration is whether the Chancellor's order dated 9-12-1966, appointing Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri as the interim Vice-Chancellor is valid. That order ran thus:--

'Whereas the period of tenure of Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri, Vice-Chancellor, Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishva Vidyalaya, Varanasi, expires today, the 9th December, 1966, I Biswanath Das, Chancellor, Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishva Viydyalaya, hereby order under Section 12 (6) of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishva Vidyalaya Act, 1956 that subject to the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor under section 12(4) Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri is appointed Vice-Chancellor of Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishva Vidyalaya for a period of six months from December 10, 1966 or such earlier period that appointment of a Vice-Chancellor of the Vishva Vidyalaya under section 12(4) is made '.

7. In order to pronounce on the validity of the Chancellor's order, it is necessary to examine the relevant provisions of the Act, Section 9 of the Act enumerates eight officers of the University. They include Kulapati or the Chancellor and Upa-Kulapati or the Vice-Chancellor. Under section 10 of the Act, the Governor is the Chancellor of the University. Section 12 of the Act provides for the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor. Sub-section (4) of section 12 provides for the constitution of a Selection Committee. The Chancellor has to make appointment of Vice-Chancellor from amongst the persons, whose names have been submitted by the Selection Committee. Section 12 of the Act runs thus:-

'12. The Upa-Kulapati. --(1) The Upa-Kulapati shall be a whole-time officer of the Vishva Vidyalaya and shall be appointed by the Kulapati from amongst the persons whose names are submitted to him by the Committee constituted in accordance with the provisions of Sub-section (4).

(2) The Upa-Kulapati shall, except as otherwise provided, hold office for a period, of three years but may relinquish office by resignation in writing addressed to the Kulapati. The resignation shall ordinarily be delivered to the Kulapati sixty days prior to the date on which the Upa-Kulapati wishes to be relieved.

(3) Subject to the provisions of Sub-section (2), the emoluments and other conditions of service of the Upa-Kulapati shall be such as are, or may be, prescribed by Statutes.

(4)(i) The Committee referred to in Sub-section (1) shall consist of three persons, namely-

(a) one person, not being a person who is connected with the Vishva Vidyalaya, an Affiliated College or a Hostel to be elected by the Karya Karni Parishad;

(b) another person, who is or has been a Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, to be nominated by the Chief Justice of that High Court; and

(c) a third person, to be appointed by the Kulapati, who shall also be the Convenor of the Committee.

(ii) The Committee shall, as far as may be at least thirty days before the date on which a vacancy in the office of the Upa-Kulapati is due to occur by reason of expiry of term or resignation under Sub-section (2), and also whenever so required by the Kulapati, submit to the Kulapati the names of three persons suitable to hold the office of Upa-Kulapati. The Committee shall, while submitting the names, also forward to the Kulapati a concise statement showing the academic qualifications and other distinctions of each of the said three persons, but shall not indicate any order of preference.

(5) where a vacancy in the office of the Upa-Kulapati occurs or is likely to occur by reason of leave, or any cause, other than resignation or expiry of term, the Prastota shall report the fact forthwith to the Kulapati, who shall -

(i) in case the vacancy is or is likely to last for a period exceeding six months take steps for the appointment of the Upa-Kulapati in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4);

(ii) in case the vacancy is for a period of six months or less, appoint any suitable person to the office of Upa-Kulapati.

(6) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this section, the Kulapati may, in any case of emergency of which the Kulapati shall be the sole judge, and in any case where the vacancy cannot be conveniently and expeditiously filled in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4), appoint any suitable person to the office of Upa-Kulapati:

Provided that no appointment under this sub-section shall be made for a period of more than six months:

Provided further that the appointment so made shall determine on appointment of the Upa-Kulapati in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4).

Explanation -- A vacancy in the office of Upa-Kulapati caused under Section 8 of the U, P. Universities Act, 1961 (U. P. Act of 1961), shall be deemed to be an emergency for the purposes of this section.

(7) Where an appointment is made under Sub-section (6), the Kulapati shall, as soon as may be, take steps for the appointment of an Upa-Kulapati in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4).

(8) Till such time as an appointment is made by the Kulapati under Sub-section (5) or Sub-section (6) the Prastota shall carry on the current duties of the Upa-Kulapati, but he shall not preside at any meeting of the Vishwa Vidyaiaya Authorities.'

8. It will be noticed that the impugned order dated 9-12-1966 was passed by the Chancellor under Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Act. The question is whether the order can be sustained under Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Act.

9. On 11-11-1961 the Governor passed under Section 10 of the U. P. Universities Act, 1961 a Removal of Difficulties Order. Clause 2 of that Order ran thus:--

'2. For a period of 24 months from the date of issue of this order the following shall be added as a new Clause (iii) after Clause (ii) of Sub-section (4) of section 12 of the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishva yidyalaya Act, 1956:

(iii) (a) If one or more of the persons recommended by the Committee as required in Clause (ii) is or are not available for appointment as Upa-Kulapati and the choice of Kulapati for appointment is restricted to less than three persons, the Kulapati may, if he so desires, refer back the names to the Committee and require it to re-submit names of three suitable persons,

(b) The Committee, on being required to re-submit names under Sub-clause (a) of Clause (iii) shall submit the names of any three suitable persons, willing and available for appointment as Upa-Kulapati.'

10. It is to be noted that the order dated 11-11-1961 was to remain in force for a period of 24 months only. It is common ground that that Order dated 11-11-1961 was not in force at the material time (December, 1966).

11. According to the plan of Section 12 of the Act, the appointment of a Vice-Chancellor is to be made ordinarily under Sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 12. Sub-section (6) empowers the Chancellor to make an interim appointment under, special circumstances. The question, therefore, arises whether such special circumstances existed in the present case. The only reason given in the order dated 9-12-1966 was that the term of Dr. Suren-dra Nath Shastri, Vice-Chancellor was expiring that day. The appointment of Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri as an interim Vice-Chancellor had been made in June, 1966. Between June and December, 1966 the Chancellor must have been aware of the fact that Dr. Surendra Nath Shas-tri's term was going to expire on 9-12-1966. So, that circumstance alone would not justify further action on 9-12-1966 under Section 12(6) of the Act.

12. Sub-section (6) of Section 12 contemplates situations of two kinds. The first situation is where the Chancellor has to face a case of emergency. The second situation is where the vacancy cannot be conveniently and expeditiously filled in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4). There is no indication in the impugned order that on 9-12-1968 the Chancellor was facing either of the two possible situations mentioned in Sub-section (6). The learned Single Judge observed in the Judgment:--

'It is nobody's case that the power was exercised under Sub-section (6) on account of any emergency'. Mr. M. N. Shukla urged before us that, in spite of that concession made before the learned Single Judge, it is possible to treat the present case as one of emergency.

13. It is to be noted that the Chancellor took action under Section 12(6) of the Act on three separate occasions between December, 1965 and December, 1966. In the order dated 9-12-1965 by which Shri S. N. M. Tripathi was appointed as an Interim Vice-Chancellor, the Chancellor observed:-

'The vacancy thus caused cannot be conveniently and expeditiously filled in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 12 ..... '

The situation in December, 1966 was similar to the situation in December, 1965. It is, therefore, possible that in December, 1966 also the Chancellor took the view that 'the vacancy cannot be conveniently and expeditiously filled in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 12.'

14. S.C. Varma, who is an Upper Division Assistant in the Governor's Secretariat, has filed a counter-affidavit on behalf of the Chancellor. In paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit S.C. Varma deposed:--

'. . . . it is clear from the paragraphs that after refusal by Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri to accept the appointment, the choice of the Chancellor was again restricted to less than 3 persons. So he again had to exercise the powers conferred upon him by Section 12(6) of the Act and he appointed Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri as Vice-Chancellor of the University for a period of six months. . .'.

This reasoning in the counter-affidavit is not sound. The mere fact that Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri was not prepared to accept the appointment did not compel the Chancellor to take action under Section 12(6) of the Act.

15. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit S.C. Varma has given details of the circumstances, under which the impugned order was passed. The Chancellor was inclined to appoint Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri as a Vice-Chancellor. On 4-10-1966 Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri informed the Governor's Secretary that the appointment was acceptable to Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri. On receiving this assurance, the Chancellor appointed Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri as the Vice-Chancellor of the Sanskrit University. The order was communicated to Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri by the Governor's Secretary by his letter, dated 10-10-1966. A telegram was sent to Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri inquiring about the date on which he was prepared to assume charge of the office of the Vice-Chancellor. Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri replied that he might be allowed to join the post in February, 1967. There was further correspondence between the Chancellor and Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri. Towards the end of November, 1966 Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri sent a telegram expressing his inability to accept the appointment. The telegram was placed before the Chancellor on 2-12-1966.

16. The learned Single Judge observed in his judgment:--

'A plain reading of Sub-section (1) with Sub-section (4) shows that once three names have been submitted by the Committee, the Kulapati has to appoint an Upa-Kulapati out of these three names. If one of the persons refuses to accept the offer, the Kulapati has to appoint an Upa-Kulapati out of the remaining two persons and, if the second man refuses to accept, the Kulapati has to appoint the third person. It is only when the third person also refuses to accept the appointment that the question can arise whether the Kulapati can require the Committee to submit fresh names.'

17. I am unable to accept this reasoning. It is true that ordinarily the Chancellor has to make an appointment from amongst the persons recommended by the Selection Committee. But one can visualise a situation where the Chancellor considers that all the three persons recommended by the Selection Committee are unsuitable for the Vice-Chancellor's post. In such a case it would be open to the Chancellor to call upon the Selection Committee to submit a fresh list of three names. The expression 'and also whenever so required by the Kulapati' in Clause (ii) of Sub-section (4) of Section 12 confers on the Chancellor wide powers for asking the Selection Committee to prepare a fresh panel of names.

18. It was urged for the petitioners that successive orders under Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Act are not permissible. I am unable to agree. Section 14 of the U. P. General Clauses Act states:--

'Where, by any Uttar Pradesh Act any power is conferred on the State Government then that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires.'

So, it was open to the Chancellor to take action under section 12(6) of theAct in December, 1966 in spite of the fact that he had taken similar action in December, 1965 and in June, 1966.

19. On 2-12-1966 the situation was this, Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri was functioning as an interim Vice-Chancellor for a period of six months. His term of office was going to expire after a week. In October, 1966 the Chancellor appointed Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri as the next Vice-Chancel lor. But he declined to accept the appointment. In such a situation one can contemplate two courses of action. The Chancellor could make an appointment of the Vice-Chancellor under Sub-section (1) from the remaining two names on the panel (Shri G. P. Bagchi and Shri S. N. M. Tripathi). Or the Chancellor could initiate fresh proceedings under Sub-sections (1) and (4) of the Act The Chancellor might adopt the latter course either because he considered the other two persons on the panel unsuitable, or because he needed a wide field for choice.

20. The order dated 9-12-1966 contains repeated reference to section 12(4) of the Act. The repeated reference to Sub-section (4) of Section 12 suggests that the Chancellor was contemplating a direction to the Selection Committee to prepare a fresh panel of names. Under Clause (ii) of Sub-section (4) of Section 12 the Selection Committee has to recommend throe names at least 30 days before the date on which a vacancy is likely to occur. In the present case there was going to be a vacancy on 9-12-1966. If the Chan-cellor had called upon the Selection Committee at any time between the 2nd and the 9th of December, 1966 to submit a panel of three names, the Committee would have found it impossible to comply with the requirements of Clause (ii) of Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act. Such a situation was the result of the unexpected refusal of Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri to accept the appointment as Vice-chancellor.

Considering that It became Impossible to comply with Clause (ii) of Sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Act, one can look upon the situation as a case of emergency. It can also be said that the Chancellor could not make an appointment by 9-12-1966 in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4) of section 12 of the Act. The case could be brought under either of the two categories contemplated by Section 12(6) of the Act. The Chancellor's order dated 9-12-1966 passed under Section 12(6) of the Act is valid. The two writ petitions should have been dismissed.

21. The order dated 9-12-1966 did not indicate why the Chancellor was exercising his extraordinary powers under Sub-section (6) of Section 12 of the Act. The petitioners had some justificationfor filing the two writ petitions. Under the circumstances, parties may be left to bear their own costs.

22. In my opinion, all the four connected special appeals should be allowed and the two connected writ petitions should be dismissed. Parties may bear their own costs throughout.

B. Dayal, J.

23. I agree.

Kirty, J.

24. Subject to what is hereinafter stated, I concur with the conclusions arrived at and the orders proposed to be passed by the learned Chief Justice in his judgment which I have had the advantage of reading. The material facts and circumstances are fully stated in the said judgment and need no repetition.

25. In judging the validity of the impugned order dated 9-12-1966, the powers conferred on the Kulapati (Chancellor) to appoint Upa-Kulapati (Vice-Chancellor) under Section 12 of the Varanaseya Sanskrit Vishwa Vidyalaya Act, 1956 (U. P. Act No. XXVIII of 1956, hereinafter referred to as the Act) have to be examined and determined. The appointment in question, as would be evident from the order itself, was to be of limited duration--6 months or appointment of a Vice-Chancellor under Section 12(4) of the Act whichever was earlier. It seems to be that Section 12(4) was wrongly mentioned in the order. The power of appointment is conferred under Section 12 (1) and not section 12(4), However, this has no direct bearing on the question which has to be decided. The mention of Section 12(4) of the Act, in the circumstances of the case, however, serves a useful collateral purpose. It reveals the working of the mind of the Chancellor in passing the order of appointment dated 9-12-1966 under Section 12(6) of the Act.

26. The term of office of Dr. Surendra Nath Shastri, who was previously appointed by the Chancellor to the office of the Vice-Chancellor under Section 12(6) of the Act was due to expire on 9-12-1966. Out of the three persons whose names had been submitted by the Committee under Section 12(4)(ii), the Chancellor selected Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri for appointment as Vice-Chancellor under Section 12(1) of the Act and passed an order of appointment of which intimation was given to the appointee by letter dated 10-10-1966. The Chancellor, however, received intimation on 2-12-1966 about Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri's inability to accept the appointment Faced with this situation the Chancellor presumably appears to have thought that unless and until the names of three persons were again submitted by the Committee under Section 12(4)(ii), a Vice-Chancellor could not be appointed under Section 12(1) of the Act.

The Chancellor presumably also appears to have thought that an action was immediately called for to fill in the vacancy which was going to occur on 9-12-1966 and that this could be done only in exercise of the powers conferred on him under Section 12(6) of the Act. The impugned order dated 9-12-1966 was accordingly passed by him. Whether it be treated as a case of emergency or as one whore the vacancy could not be conveniently and expeditiously filled in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 12, the Chancellor in either case had power to make the appointment and the order dated 9-12-1966, therefore, does not suffer from any legal infirmity or lack of jurisdiction. The mention of Sub-section (4) of section 12 of the Act in the impugned order, to my mind, clearly indicates that the Chancellor had treated the case to be one where the vacancy could not be conveniently and expeditiously filled in accordance with the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (4).

27. The submission that even though Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri declined to accept the appointment made under Section 12 (1) of the Act by the Chancellor, the latter was legally bound to appoint one out of the two persons remaining available cannot be accepted. There is nothing in Sub-section (1) or Sub-section (4) of section 12 of the Act from which such legal duty can be spelled out. If the Chancellor had appointed either of the other two persons available as Vice-Chancellor under Section 12(1) of the Act, the appointment perhaps might not have been invalid but no such appointment having been made the matter need not be considered further or decided. By appointing Dr. Gauri Nath Shastri the Chancellor had duly performed his legal duty under, Section 12(1) of the Act.

The subsequent inability or refusal on the part of Dr. Shastri necessitated the making of a fresh appointment under section 12(1) and the Chancellor, in my opinion, was entitled to have the names of three suitable persons again submitted by the Committee before exercising the power to appoint a Vice-Chancellor under that provision. In any case, the Chancellor's choice having been limited to two persons only he became entitled to have three names submitted by the Committee again before making an appointment under Section 12(1) of the Act. In my opinion, this right emanates from Sub-sections (1) and (4) of Section 12 of the Act; Clause 2 of the Removal of Difficulties Order neither created this right nor extinguished this right on being annulled automatically on the expiry of the limited period during which it was to remain in operation.

28. It was contended that successive appointments cannot be made under Section 12(6) of the Act This contention has been negatived by the learned Chief Justice and I agree with his decision. I am, however, doubtful as to whether Section 14 of the U. P. General Clauses Act which has been relied on by the learned Chief Justice can be pressed into service. That section concerns only the State Government and the powers exercisable by it. The Act does not confer any power on the State Government to appoint a Vice-Chancellor. The act or order of the Chancellor is not the act or order of the State Government Section 14 of the U. P. General Clauses Act does not confer any such general power as is conferred by Section 14(1) of the Central Act (Act No. X of 1897) which reads:--

'Where, by any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, any power is conferred, then, unless a different intention appears, that power may be exercised from time to time as occasion requires.'

29. The power to pass successive orders under section 12(6) of the Act, as and when occasion requires, is inherently included therein. The language used is clear and there is nothing to restrict or prohibit the exercise of the power conferred whenever the requisite conditions under which the power becomes exercisable come into existence. In the nature of things this power must necessarily be held to be inherent or implied in Section 12(6) of the Act itself. If this power is misused or colourably exercised or if the power is exercised in the absence of existence of requisite conditions, such exercise of the power may be called in question by appropriate legal proceedings and may be struck down by the Court in appropriate cases but that, in my opinion, would not mean that the power does not exist.

BY THE COURT

30. The four connected special appeals are allowed. And the two connected writ petitions are hereby dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs before the learned Single Judge and in special appeal in each case.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //