R.S. Agro Tech and Heena Industries V. Ministry of Finance, Government of India and Deputy Director of Income Tax, Unit - 2(4) and Principal Director of Income Tax, Hyderabad and Income Tax Officer, Circle -1(1), Hyderabad and Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad and Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad

WP/925/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around a writ petition filed by M/s R.S. Agro Tech and M/s Heena Industries challenging the legality of a search and seizure operation conducted by the Income Tax Department under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioners argued that the seizure of INR 6,51,00,000 was arbitrary and lacked a legal basis, as no incriminating material was found during the search. The respondents defended the action, citing the confidentiality and sensitivity of the information that justified the search and seizure. The court examined the 'satisfaction note' provided by the respondents and found it lacking in substantive material to justify the seizure, leading to the decision in favor of the petitioners.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 803996 (HC-TELANGANA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: L.R. Gupta v. Union of India, Ajit Jain v. Union of India, Khem Chand Mukim v. PDIT, Dr. Sushil Rastogi v. Director of Investigations, Income Tax, Dr. Nand Lal Tahiliani v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendrao, B.R. Metal Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, CIT v. Vindhya Metal Corpn., DGIT v. Spacewood Furnishers (P) Ltd., Principal DIT (Invest.) v. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia, Indian Oil Corpn. v. ITO, Pasari Casting & Bolling Mills (P) Ltd. v. ITO, Anita Sahai v. Director of Income-Tax (Investigation), M/S Coronation Agro Industries Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: GADI KUMAR; K MAMATHA
• Assessee Lawyers: AVINASH DESAI
• Keywords: Income Tax; Reason to believe; Search and seizure; Unaccounted cash; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

"HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD -'\"-\" (Special Original Jurisaiction) WEDNESDAY, THE TWENTY SIXTH DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY TOUN-- '- I s411 | PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL THE HoN,BLE SRI JUSTICE #I,?o,o*o,, RAJESHWAR RAo Between: crrcumstances stated pleased to. ETITION NO:92 5 0F 2024 WRIT P 1. M/s R.S. Agro Tech. Having Regd. Otfice al 13-116. Bapunagar, Asifabad urst. Kumrambheem Asifa^dad -:-so-+zd5 H\"o?.r\"n,uo by rts Manaoino partner, Mr. Rafeeo .riwani, S/.g rr,,r. s\"ro?rioii-,,.il,,,i,ani, aged about 62 veari. _ 2. M/s Heena tndustiies, rs_rr6, Ba;';;i\"i,,n\"riLoro Disr Kumrambheem Asifabad - so42ss nepresented ovii.'F[ii;ii.-,] ,r Ar\"\"n Jivani S/o Mr ^ Sadruddin Jiwani, aged about 55 r6ri= \"\"\"\".\",' J. in uarkath Jeewani !]._l/1r_ Saaru.Oa;n .liwani, aged about 45 years, Occ. |d;inT\", 13-116, bapunasar, Asifabad-rjili.' xrr,\"rbheem Asifabad _ AND ...PETITIONERS ' [:',::,i!,lifliilllii\"ti $\":^i:\"ii5'rrryinistrv or Finance, Government or z. ueputy Uirector Of Income Tax,, Unit - 2(4) Room No 405, 4Floor, Aayakar ^ Bhavan, Basheerbaqh, ffyOeraO'aO, iefl;;;;;\" ', 3 Pri ncipat Direcror of\"t nco#, \" rril ij\"i_li'4;l'fi oo_ . anavfn, e;s\"h\";Ero\"u.q't, Hvourubad, reransina _ aolo%Xot 4 Floor, Aayakar 4. lncome Tax Officer. -Cii - llyderabad retansana:L%lfJi' T Toweri' AC Guards l ilasabtank, o. Assistant / Deoutv Commissioner Of lncome Tax,, Crrcle _1(1), l.T. Towers. ^ A.C Guards, Maiabtank, Hyderabad _ Tetangan! _ SOOOOa 6. Additionat Commissioneroi r.i\",iEirr,, '6ir8r?i'-'r, t. r. Towers, A.C. _ Guards, Masabtank, Hvderaoao _ ieiJ,ir:\"Xl'liooooa ' B;55,.Y0:'.TT:ffi !il31 tsiill? r* 1, :iii;:,YY, R c c,\".0,, Masa btank, Petition under Articte 226 of the Consrirurion of tndia ,r\"i,ffil:lr,fll: in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be r. rssue any appropriate writ, order or drrection, more particularly, in the nalure of writ of Mandamus decraring the actions of the Respondents in seizing and withhording rNR 6,51.00,000/- as being arbitrary, iregar and in vioration of the provisions of the Act SEIZUTE CallfortherecordsandmaterialformingthebasisoftheSearchand of INR 6,51,00,000^ pursuant the Authorization Warrants issued under Section 132 of the lncome Tax Act, 196'1 iii. consequently, direct the Respondents to release a1d return INR 6,51,00,0001to the receipt of the Petitioners along with l2percent interest p a.' IANO:1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumslances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to direct the Respondents lo release and return the Cash Amounts i e ' INR 6'5'1'00'0001 Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI AVINASH DESAI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI T. P. S. HARSHA Counsel for Respondent No. 1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR DEPUTY SOLICITOR GEN. OF INDIA Counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 to 7: Ms' K' MAMATHA' SC FOR INCOME TAX The Court made the following: ORDER 3 ? SP, J & RRN,J Wp 925-2024 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUJOY PAUL AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NAMAVARAPU RAJESHWAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.925 of 2024 ORDER: @er Hon,bte Sp,J) The petitioners have called in question the legality and validity and propriety of the action taken by the respondents for search and seizure in purported exercise of power under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act). Factual background: 2. The petitioners are engaged in running cotton ginning mills situated at Godavalli Village, Asifabad Manda-l, Kumarambheem Asifabad District, which were set up in the year 2O15. The petitioners stated that they are law abiding bodies/persons and promptly filing returns ald making statutory payments under Goods and Services Tax and other Taxes. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India, had issued ,certificates of appreciation' which are filed by the petitioners. 3. In order to run the cotton ginning mills smoothly, the petltloners a-re required to frequently purchase cotton produce from the farmers. In procuring the cotton from the farmers, the petitioners make payments in cash. which is due to the area or -.-'tr- t -+q..{vi€t*q a- ':': 4 5P, J & RRN,J 'Np_925_2024 location in q,hich the petitioners operate' Such rural areas are lacking necessary infrastructure including fully developed banking and internet facilities' In particular' the areas in which the petitioners operate are located in proximity to Maharashtra and in these areas, transactions are predominantly made through cash mode of payment' The reliance is placed on document provided by bank management which shows limits have been placed on the quantum of cash which can be kept in the bank chest i.e., upto Rs' 13,0O,00O/-' In this event' the petitioners are often required to make request in advance for withdrawal of large cash amount to enable the bank to arrange for the disbursal and transport of cash' If the cash which is beyond the limit of amount available in the concerned bank is required, the said branch needs to get the cash transported via vanservicesofthebankfromMancherialbranchtcrAsifabad branch of the bank' The distance between Asifabad and Mancherial is approximately is 7O kilometers' 4. In view of foregoing difficulties and prospect of being cash strapped in the peak season, the petitioners make al-rangement to meet any possible shortage of cash during the closure of the bank. Thus, the petitioners utilised their overdraft facility during 14tt November. 2023 to 16th Novbmber, 2023 and' *.illdt\"* 5 SP, J & RRN,.] Wp 925 2024 substantial amount (by self cheques) with interest rate and other charges adding upto r2o/o per annum. on that basis, the petitioners made purchases by paying cash amounts to the farmers and made necessary expenditures. As on 20.1I.2023, the petitioners were left with cash amount of Rs.6,5 1 , 7 O ,OOO / . The copies of the receipts showing payments to farmers are cumulatively filed as Annexures_p. 11 and p. 12. 5. In the early morning of 2L.1I.2023, the respondents conducted search proceedings at the residence of Managing Partner of petitioner No.1 and at the offices of M/s.R.S.Agrotech and M/s.Heena Industries, the petitioners herein. The search exercises were conducted pursuant to separate warrants of authorisation issued under Section 132 of the Act, dated 2O.7L.2O2O. It is stated that in the authorisation warrants, no reasons to conduct the search and consequent seizure r.vere mentioned. The petitioners preferred representations to respondent No.2 on 04.12.2023 (Annexure p. 15) ald 05.12.2023 (Annexure P. 16) for return of cash seized by them. Contentions ofthe petitioners: 6. Sri Avinash Desai, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, urged that the aforesaid factual matrix makes it clear that the petitioners have borrowed money in order to utilise the I l 1.-- !--f fY#il ' . :l . 6 SP, J & RRN,J 'N p _925 -2024 sarne in their business. The search ar1d seizure in the instant case is illegal and runs contrary to the manner ancl method prescribed under Section 132 of the Act' The result of seizure of amount is that on the one hand, the petitioners are nrf,t able to utilise the cash to purchase the cotton and run their business smoothly ald on the other hand, they are required to pay interest to the bank. This may ruin their business' 7. The petitioners placed heavy reliance on the language employed in Section 132 of the Act by contending that the action of the respondents reflects non-application of mind' The respondents failed to disclose availability of any material with them prior to the search and seizure exercise' The respondents had no reasons to believe that the cash amounts were unaccounted and the petitioners will not deposit tax in due cotlrse. 8. The altecedents of the petitioners were evinced from various returns filed over last several years and that background nowhere suggests that the petitioners u.ould not disclose either whole or partly about the income' The exercise of seizure is based on mere suspicion and there is no direct correlation g between the existence of information or material a]1d the opifrion formed by the authorities befor-e authorising anl' seizure under Y 7 SP, J & RRN,J wp-925 2024 the Act. The emphasis is laid on words ,.reasons to believe,, used under Section 132 (1) of the Act to bolster the submission that this expression has a dehnite meaning and cannot be used based on mere suspicion. In absence of any incriminating material available prior to the sei.zure of the cash amount shows complete non-application of mind by the respondents. 9. The next limb of argument is that the alleged inability to provide explanation regarding the cash amount does not satisfy the condition precedent under Section 132(1) authorising search and seizure. The respondents have illegally conducted the search and seizure which runs contrary to law laid down by various High Courts. 10. By relying upon the judgments of Delhi High Court in L.R. Gupta v. Union of lndiar, Ajit Jain v. Union of Indiaz and Khem Chand Mukim v. pDIT3, he submitted that the condition precedent for exercising power under Section 132(1) of the Act, (i) the information must be in the possession of the named authority and (ii) in consequence of which, he may have reason to believe that the person concerned is in possession of money, bullion, etc. If either of these conditions are missing, the power under Section '1t9921 t9a z trn 32 ':2000 scc online Del. 92 I2020 sCC onLine Del. 424 8 5P, J & RRN,J p _925 _2024 132 of the Act cannot be invoked Mere possession of arty amount by the petitioners could hardly be said to constitute an information which could be treated as sulficient bv a reasonable person. Even if sole ground for search is an information gathered from investigation wing of Income Tax Department founded upon mere repetition of words and u'ithout clear basis' conclusion or satisfaction note does not fall within the ambit of \"reasonable belief\". 1 1. For the same purpose, the learned Senior Counsel placed relialce on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Dr.Sushil Rastogi v. Director of Investigations' Income Taxa and Dr.Nand Lal Tahiliani v' Commissioner of Income Taxs ' He has relied upon the judgment of the Bombay Higtr Court in Echjay Industries Pvt. Ltd. V' Rajendrao to submit that any information which is extremely general in nature ':annot be formed basis of *reason to believe\" The judgment of Gauhati High Court in B.R. Metal Ltd' V' Commissioner of Income TaxT is pressed into service to contend that cash found apperared to be undisclosed is a clear case of suspicion which cannot become reason for initiating action under Section 1'32 of the Ac:' o (zoo:) zoo trR zag ' 1tsaa1 tzo tra ssz 6 2024 scc online Bom. 1319 7 1999 scc online Gau. 268 9 *;'l,fj:]j 12. Lastly, the petitioners relied on the judgments of the Apex Court in CIT v. Vindhya Metal Corpn.a, DGIT v. Spacewood Furnishers (pl Ltd.e and a recent judgment of the Apex Court in Principal DIT (Invest.) v. Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandaliaro. 13. Another limb of argument is that the respondents should have returned cash to the petitioners. The petitioners by preferring applications dated 04.12.2023 and 05.12.2023 (Annexures p. 15 and p. 16) prayed for returning the cash, but the respondents failed to complete their exercise within the statutory time limit. Thus, they are bound to return the said amount. The petitioners are even ready to furnish appropriate bank guarantee so that interest of the Department will be protected, and at the same time, the petitioners will be able to run their business. Stand of he Revenue:- t 14. Ms. K. Mamatha, learned counsel for the Revenue, supported the impugned action and by taking this Court to sub-sections of Section 132 of the Act submitted that the Revenue has ample pou,er to undertake search and seizure. The seizure has taken place inconsonance with statutory mandate. It is submitted that the respondents in the counter are not '1tssz1 s scc :zr ' 1zots1 tz scc rzs 'o 12o22,1 t+6 ra t8 : l re 10 SP, ] & RRN,.J W p _925 _2024 expected to spell out the actual reasons u'hich formecl basis for search,instead,therespondentsareobligedtogivethat confidential information in a sealed cover to this Court' confrdentia-lity and sensitivity are hallmarks of proceedings under Sections 132 and 132-A of the Act' To buttress' this contention, reliance is placed on the Finance Bill' 2ctl7 ' which ultimately became part of statute book' As per the amendment which took place, the basis for 'reasons to believe' need not be disclosed to any person or any authorities' even to the appellate authority. Interestingly, she also placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia (supra). By placing reliance on the recent Coordinate Bench order dated 2l .06.2024, it is argued that the assessee in that case was habitual violator and in the facts of thitt case' the Court declined interference. It is urged that no case is made out for interference. 15. During the hearing, in obedience of previous orders of this Court \"satisfaction note\" is placed before us in a sealed cover' Findingsi 16 It is apt to refer to relevant part of Section 132 (1) of the Act \"i., which reads as under 11 SP, J & RRN,J Wp 925 2024 \"132. Search and seizure.- (1) Where the Principal Director General or Director General or Principal Director or Director or the principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or principal Commissioner or Commissioner or Additional Director or Additional Commissioner or Joint Director or Jornt Commissioner in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to believe that_ (ei) any person to whom a summons under sub_section (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income_Lax Act, lg22 (11of D;4, or.under sub-section (1) of section 131 of ttris Act, or a notrce under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian 11Tm:-tax Act, 1922, or under sub_section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or'cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such oooks ol account or other documents as required by such summons or notice, or (b) any person to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or woulJ not, produce or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents which will be uslful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indian Income_tax Act, lg22 O l ;f 7922), or under this Act, or (Emphasis Supplied) 17. The plain language of the Sub_section (1) of Section 132 shows that the competent authority must be equipped with information or in other words, the information must be in his possession on the strength of which he had reason to berieue that the conditions mentioned in crauses a, b and c of Sub section (1) I I I 1.7 JP, ] & RRN,J w p '925 -2024 may exis[. The ianguage of statute is plain and unamlliguous' Thus, it must be given effect to irrespective of consequences lsee Nelson Motis vs' Union of Indiall) 18. Learned counsel for both sides relied on various judgments wherein the expressron 'reason to believe' has been cc'nsidered and also the requirement' and character of information which became subject-matter of judicial pronolrncements' 19. The Apex Court, way back in Vindhya Metal Corpn' (supra), held that the scrutiny should be on the information in possession of the Commissioner in order to see u'hether a reasonable person could have entertained a belief that zrmount in possession of the assessee would not have been disclosed by him for the PurPoses of the Act' 20.InthecaseofSpacewoodFurnishers(P|Ltd.(supra),the Apex Court culled out the principles on which the validity of exercise of search and seizure can be tested' The relev:rnt portion reads as under: \"8. The principles that can be deduced from the aforesaid decisions of this Court which continue to hold the field without any departure may be authorized as follorvs: 8.1 . The authority must have information in its i\"\"..t\"r\"t \"itt. t\"\"it of which a reasonable belief can be founded that- t' AtR t992 sc 1981 E-'Ad- I 1_,t / 13 SP, J & RRN,J wp_925 _2024 (a) the person concerned has omitted or lailed to produce books of account or other documents for froauction of which summons or notice had been issued Or such person will not produce such books of account or other documents even if summons or notice is issued to him Or (b) such person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article which represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been or would not be disclosed. 8.2. Such information must be in possession of the authorized ofhcial before the opinion is formed. 8.3-. There must be application of mind to the material and the formation of opinion must be honest and bona fide. Consideration of \"rry extraneous or irrelevant material will vitiate the belief/satisfaction. 8.4. Though Rule I l2(2) of the Income Tax Rules which specihcally prescribed the necessity of recording of reasons before issuing a warrant of author ized on had been repealed on and from 1-10-1975 the reasons for the belief found should be recorded. 8.5. The reasons, however, need not be communicated to the person against whom the warrant is issued at that stage. 8.6. Such reasons, however, may have to be placed before the Court in the eveni of a challenge to formation of the belief of the authorized ollicial in which event the court (exercising jurisdiction under Article 226) would be entitled to examine the relevance ofthe reasons for the formation ofthe belief though not the sufliciency or adequacy thereof.\" (Emphasis Supplied) 21 . In Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia (supra), the Apex Court again made some principles which are as under: \"33. We would like to restate and elaborate the principles in exercising the writ jurisdiction in the matter of searih and seizure under Section 132 of the Act as follorvs: --- ., _:-11 t4 SP, J & RRN,., Wp 925,2024 i) The formation of opinion and the reasons to believe L.o.J.d is not a judicial or quasi-judicial func[iorr but administrative in character; ii) The information must be in possession of the uthorizcd oilrcial or-t thc basis of the mateiial and that thc lormation of opinion must be honest and bona fide' It cannot be nlerely pr('tence. bonsidcration of any extraneous or irrelevant material '\"n'ould vitiate thc bclief/ satisfaction; iii) The authority must have information in its possession i\" ttt. basis of which'ir reasonable belief can be founded that the person concerned has omitted or failed to pi\"a\"\". b-ooks of accounts or other documents for ii\"io\"ti\"t of which surnmons or notice had been issued' Ir su\"h person will not produce such books-of accounts or other documents \"rao if summons or notice is issued to him; or iv) Such person is in possession of .any money, bullion' jewellery or other valuable article which reprcsents either *frotty tr partly income or property which has not been or w'ould not be disclosed; v) Such reasons may have to be placed before the High iourt in the event of a challenge to formation of the br:lief of the competent authorit5r in which event the Court would be entitled to examine the reasons for the formation of the belief, though not the sufhciency or adequacy thercof' In other r,\"'ords, the Court will examine whether the rcasons recorded are actuated by mala hdes or on a mere Pretence and that no extraneous or irrelevant material has been considered; vi) Such reasons forming part of the satisfaction note are to satisfy the judicial consciousness of the Court and any part oif such satisfaction note is not to be made part of the order; vii) The question as to whether such reasons are adequale or not is not a matter for the Court to review in a r'r'rit petition' The sufhciency of the grounds which induced the competent authority to act is not a justiciable issue; viii) The relevance of the reasons for the formation of the betiet is to be tested by the . judicial restraint as in administrative action as the Court does not sit as a Ccurt o[ 7 I l SP, ] & RRN,] Wp_925_2024 appeal but merely revieu/s Lhe manner in which the decision was made. The Court shall not examine Lhe sufhcie ncy or adequacy thereof; :].ll ,9i-\" of the explanation inserted by rhe Finance Act, 2017 witi:, retrospective effect from 1.4.1962, such reasons to believe as recorded by income tax authorities are not required to be disclosed to any person or any authority or the Appellate Tribunal.\" (Emphasis Supplied) 22. In view of \"litmus test,' latd down in the aforesaid judgments, \"satisfaction note\" is to be tested. In view of element of confidentiality involved, we are not reproducing any portion of the satisfaction note 23. We have gone through the said note carefully. The 'satisfaction note' talks about discrete enquiry, but no such material relating to discrete enquiry and information gathered thereupon became part of the .satisfaction note,. Thus, nature and character of information cannot be gathered from perusar of the 'satisfaction note' which ultimately became reason for recording \"satisfaction\". In both the judgments of Spacewood Furnishers (Pl Ltd. (supra) and Laljibhai Kanjibhai Mandalia (supra), it was held that the authority must have information in its possession on the basis of uthich a reasonable belief can be formed. I ,l I _tb SP, ] & RRN,] p _925 _2O2 4 24. The 'satisfaction note' nowhere reflects the basis to derive a satisfaction that the petitioners who were in possession of money will not disclose the same in due course' The petitioners' as noticed, received appreciation certificates for their prompt payment of the taxes' The 'satisfaction' cannot be recorded merely because the authority is of the opinion that the true financial affairs will never be revealed unless search seizure operation is carried out' 25. In catena of judgments, the Apex Court opined that \"reasons to believe\" cannot be equated with \"reasons to suspect\"' Thus, the competent authority must be equipped with some cogent incriminating material prior to the seizure on the strength of r,r..hich a satisfaction can be recorded' The said satisfaction neither can be tested on suspicion nor can be justified on the basis of unexpiained possession of amount' In the instant case' we are constrained to observe that satisfaction note is based on suspicion and is not pregnant with any cogent incriminating material which can form basis for an action under Section 132 of the Act {see Indian Oil Corpn' v' ITOtz, Pasari Casting & Bolling Mills (Pf Ltd. v. ITDr3, Anita Sahai v' Director of \" 1rs861 : scc aos 1r 2024 SCC OnLine.lhar 451 ry 17 Income-Tax (Investigationf r+ and 5P, ] & RRN,J Wp 925_1024 M/S Coronation Agro lndustries Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle rs) 26. We will be tailing in our duty if the Division Bench judgment cited by the learned counsel for the respondents is not considered. In W.p.No. 11667 of 2021, the interference was declined because after opening the sealed cover provided by the Income Tax Department, arld on perusal of the record, the Court opined that preliminar5r search and subsequent proceedings were in accordance with law. Thus, the said finding is based on the record of the said case, and therefore, this order is of no assistance to the respondents in the present case. 27. In view of foregoing discussion, the impugned action of the respondents in seizing ald withholding Rs.6,51,OO,OOO/_ cannot be countenanced. Resultantly, the impugned search and seizure is set aside. The said amount be returned to the petitioners forthwith. However, it is made clear that this order will not come in the way of the respondents to proceed against the petitioners in accordance with law, 14 2OO4 scc Ontline A 1769 tt 2016 SCC online Bom 15175 I I I I l ffi ., 18 5P, ] & RRN,.J W p -925 -2024 q 28. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above' There shall be no order as to costs' Miscellaneous applications pending' ir anv' shall stand closed rii;r:r,i[ftYt{$$*tE I'TRUE COPY,I SECTT& OFFICER MBC B ( lj r1 J Jr.2t12t HlGH COURT SP,J & RRN,J DATED: 2610612024 e E. ST4l€: o r E, -h * * D.! 9 r, r,1g '-,JiC Gr4\"s ORDER WP.No.925 of 2024 ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION r zQ- WITHOUT COSTS "