w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n


Bharat Biotech International Limited, rep by its Authorized Signatory v/s The Government of Tamilnadu, represented by its Principal Secretary, Chennai & Others

    W.P.NO.332 of 2011 & M.P.NO.2 of 2011
    Decided On, 25 February 2011
    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras
    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
    For the Petitioner: V.T. Gopalan, SC for S. Ramesh, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1 to R3 - G. Sankaran, Spl.G.P. Assisted by R. Murali, GA.


Judgment Text
(Prayer: This writ petition is preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records of the second respondent in Ref.No.001/M(P)/TNMSC/DRUGS/2009, dated 30.12.2010 and the decision made thereon as well as the consequential notification inviting fresh tenders in Ref.No.022/M(P)/TNMSC/ARV/2010, dated 03.01.2011 and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to award the contract to the petitioner herein for the supply of Anti Rabies Vaccine Human (Cell Culture) Drug Code No.579.)

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking to challenge an order of the second respondent, i.e., Tender Inviting Authority and the Managing Director of Tamil Nadu Medical Services Corporation Limited, dated 30.12.2010 as well as the consequential notification, dated 03.01.2011 calling for fresh tenders and after setting aside the same, seeks for a direction to award the contract to the petitioner company for the supply of Anti Rabies Vaccine Human (Cell Culture) Drug Code No.579.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 7.1.2011. Pending the writ petition, an interim stay was granted. It was extended till 14.2.2011. The second respondent has filed a counter affidavit, dated 25.1.2011 together with typed set of documents. They had also filed an additional typed set of papers, dated 14.2.2011. An additional affidavit, dated 5.2.2011 was filed by the petitioner. In reply, a further counter affidavit, dated 14.2.2011 was filed by the second respondent.

3. The facts leading to the filing of the petition are as follows:

The second and third respondents which is the wholly owned Government of Tamil Nadu undertaking had invited tenders for the supply of drugs and medicines for the year 2010-11 on 23.12.2009. The last date for receipt of the tenders was fixed on 22.1.2010. In the tender for the supply of drugs and medicines, the second respondent had prescribed the eligibility criteria and tender conditions. The bid consists of technical bid to be kept in Cover 'A' and price bid to be kept in Cover 'B'. The term No.2 of the tender conditions prescribed that the tenderer should be a manufacturer having a valid manufacturing licence or direct importer holding valid import licence. The Distributors, suppliers, agents, loan licensee are not eligible to participate in the tender. The tenders must have three years market standing as a manufacturer / importer for the drug quoted in the tender. For the drug, i.e., Anti Rabies Vaccine and Tetanus Toxoid, the tenderer should have one year market standing as a manufacturer / importer. They also should not be blacklisted either by the Tender inviting Authority or by any State or Central Governments. If any default in the supply of the Vaccine in any of the tenders floated by the Central and state Governments or Government owned or controlled institution during the past three years, then such tenderer will not be eligible to participate in the tender for that product.

4. The petitioner had submitted its bid as per the terms and conditions. The technical bids were opened on 22.1.2010. The petitioner was found qualified in the technical bid. The tenderers who had satisfied the technical bids were invited to be present on the date of opening of the price bid/cover 'B' on 26.2.2010. The petitioner had submitted its tender for the supply of drug Code No.579 which is at Sl.No.221 and Drug Code No.724 which is at Sl.No.246 in the annexure VI to the tender form.

5. The petitioner also made a complaint on 25.2.2010 to the effect that one Indian Immunological Ltd. was disqualified for 100% default in the supply of Anti Rabies Vaccine by the Kerala Government and should be debarred from participation. The second respondent had partially accepted the complaint and debarred the said tenderer, i.e., Indian Immunological Ltd. in respect of Drug Code No.579, but had accepted their bid in respect of Drug Code No.724. The said company had filed a writ petition before this court being W.P.No.4858 of 2010 to quash the communication disqualifying them from participating in the Drug Code No.579 and asked for stay of further proceedings. That writ petition was admitted on 10.3.2010 and an interim stay was also granted on the said date. However, the said writ petition was dismissed by this court by a final order, dated 30.4.2010. As against the said order, a writ appeal being W.A.No.4858 of 2010 was filed. The same was admitted during summer recess of this court in May, 2010. But no interim order was granted.

6. In the meanwhile, the second respondent on 1.3.2010 had asked the petitioner to attend a meeting for price negotiation being the L-1 tenderer. It is the apprehension of the petitioner that some other persons or the authority in the Corporation bent upon denying the benefit to the petitioner being granted the Award of contract for drug code No.579. Therefore, on untenable and illegal grounds, the second respondent had blacklisted the petitioner for that reason vide an order dated 14.3.2009. It was claimed by the second respondent that the Medical Officer of the Immunisation OP of the Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children, Chennai had reported to the Director of the Institute of Child Health and Hospital for Children stating that the Anti Rabis Vaccine received from the medical stores of ICH given to the Immunisation OP counter of the medical centre at 9.00 a.m. produced allergic reactions like severe headache, shivering and vomiting found in three children within five minutes of its administering the vaccine. It necessitated them to be given antihistamine and they were kept in observation for four hours in the emergency room. Those children were not hospitalized and at the time of going home, they were normal. It was further reported that the other six vaccines in the same pack given to the other patients on the same day did not cause any adverse reaction. The Committee had called Adverse Events Following Immunisation (AEFI) was formed, which went into the complaint. It had noted that the reaction produced could be classified as unknown reaction. Based on the report of the AEFI, the Director of Public Health and Preventive Medicine-cum- State Immunisation Officer had sent a letter, dated 11.8.2009 to the second respondent that the same vaccine was tested by the Central Drugs Laboratory, Central Research Institute, Kasauli, H.P. and a report, dated 11.8.2009 was received. Based on the information received, the Director had recommended for the release of vaccine for the programme. In view of the said report, the controversy should have been put at rest.

7. But, however, the second respondent had raked up the issue once again and sent the Vaccine to be tested by the King Institute at Guindy. It was claimed that the King Institute did not have GMP standards. It was also noted that they did not produce the Anti Rabies Vaccine. The second respondent got an adverse report from the King Institute with a view to blacklist the petitioner. Since the said information was put in the website, the petitioner filed W.P.No.12531 of 2010. The writ petition was admitted and an interim stay of the blacklisting order was granted. Subsequently, when the order of blacklisting was communicated to the petitioner, they also filed W.P.No.13103 of 2010. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the first respondent to consider the appeal of the petitioner, dated 22.3.2010 in accordance with law. The said appeal was disposed of by the first respondent by G.O.Ms.No.266, Health and Family Welfare Department, dated 18.09.2010.

8. Since the counsel for the petitioner heavily relied upon this order, it is necessary to extract the operative portion of the said order found in paragraphs (iv) and (v) which reads as follows:

(iv)....The present Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation has issued show cause notice on 24.5.2010 after 13 months and during the intervening period, Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation procured one million units of the Anti Rabies Vaccine from the Appellant Firm during tender period 2009-10 and used them without any adverse quality report. Clause 19(4) of the Tender conditions for the said vaccine was not deliberately followed in this case. The para 11 (a) of Annexure X of the Terms and conditions empowers the Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation to decide only on merit of the case and impose penalty including the blacklisting of the product/supply, but it is seen that the case was not examined on merit.

(v)Para 8 of the Annexure "X" of the Tender conditions indicates that three batches of particular item supplied failed in quality test during the tender period, then the particular item shall be blacklisted after observing the procedure As per para 10(b) of the Annexure "X" of the tender conditions four batches of particular item supplied by the supplier fails and reported by the Government Analyst, then the particular product shall be blacklisted after observing the procedure. The Appellating Company supplied 10,000 vials and minor reaction was report in the case of 3 children in the ICH, Chennai. The Medical Officer, ICH has failed to notice the vaccine literature contained in the Batch while minor action was noticed by him. The Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation should have arranged for the testing of samples again which was not followed. The blacklisting was not done during the tender period. Under the above circumstances, the order of the blacklisting of the Vaccines Anti Rabies Vaccine Human (Cell Culture) of M/s.Bharat Biotech International Limited is not in consonance with the law and the order is unjustified. Therefore, it has been decided to set aside the orders of the Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation. The Government accordingly set aside the orders of the Managing Director, Tamil Nadu Medical Service Corporation in reference No.141/QC/TNMSC/2010, dated 7.6.2010, blacklisting the product of Rabies Vaccine Human (Cell Culture), Intra Muscular Injection of the M/s.Bharat Biotech International Limited for a period of five years."

(Emphasis supplied)

9. Therefore, the petitioner being the tenderer with L-1 rank for drug Code No.579 did not suffer any disqualification. They are entitled to have the contract awarded in their favour. But, in the meanwhile, one Chiron Behring Vaccines Pv. Ltd. filed a writ petition being W.P.No.9174 of 2010 challenging the tender condition by which prescription of market experience of one year for this vaccine was made. They had also raised other grounds in which the petitioner was made as the fourth respondent. The Indian Immunological Limited which was awarded the contract for Drug Code No.947 was also a party to that writ petition. This court by a final order, dated 1.12.2010 dismissed the writ petition filed by that company. After dismissal, it was made virtually clear that the petitioner being the tenderer with L-1 rank and the only objection raised by M/s.Chron Behring Vaccines Pvt. Ltd against the petitioner having been rejected by this court, should have been awarded the contract. Even during the pendency of the writ petition, no whisper was made about the cancellation of all tenders and the decision to call for a fresh tender. After the judgment was rendered on 1.12.2010, the petitioner had sent a representation, dated 18.12.2010 to the second respondent and had requested him to finalise the tender at the earliest. As there was no response, a legal notice was sent by the counsel for the petitioner on 27.12.2010. After the receipt of the legal notice, the representatives of the petitioner company were requested to go to the office of the second respondent and to meet the Managing Director. Though a meeting took place on 30.12.2010, on the same day, the impugned order, dated 30.12.2010 came to be passed. The impugned order read as follows:

"In the reference cited, TNMSC invited tenders for the supply of the drug Rabies Vaccine Human (Cell Culture) Inj. Intra Muscular (Drug Code: 579) for the year 2010-11 and your firm have participated in the tender for the above item. TNMSC decided to cancel this tender and proposed to call for fresh tenders. Since you have participated in the earlier tender floated for the drug Rabies Vaccine Human (Cell Culture) Inj. Intra Muscular we request you to participate in the forthcoming tender for the same." 10. Consequent upon the impugned order of cancellation of the earlier tender process, a further notice was issued calling for fresh tenders for the supply of vaccine for the period 2010-11. As seen from the impugned order, the petitioner was asked to participate in the forthcoming tender and were informed that they need not submit fresh tender. It is these two orders which are under challenge in this writ petition.

11. It was also brought to the notice of this court that the subject of the award of the tender came to be placed before the Board meeting in the 90th Board meeting held on 21.12.2010. The Board on considering item No.22 relating to the award of the contract had passed the following resolution :

"The Board took note of various issues related to the drug Rabies Vaccine Human (Cell Culture) Inj. (Intra Muscular) and after detailed discussion resolved to authorize the Managing Director to cancel the tender floated for the drug Rabies Vaccine Human (Cell Culture) Inj. (Intra Muscular) (Drug Code-579) in tender ref.no.001/M(P)/TNMSC/DRUG/2009, dt.23.12.2009 and call for fresh tender with the tender conditions as approved in the 87th Board meeting held on 08.09.2010 for the quantity required upto May-2011."

12. Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Mr.S.Ramesh, counsel for the petitioner had submitted that if the decision of the Board was taken on 21.12.2010, then there was no necessity for the petitioner's representatives to be called upon to meet the Managing Director. Therefore, the whole exercise by the respondents throws lots of suspicion.

13. In the first counter affidavit file by the second respondent, the allegations made by the petitioner were denied. It was claimed that the third respondent is a Nodal agency for procurement and distribution of Drugs, Surgical and Suture items for 11000 Government Medical Institutions all over Tamil Nadu and has been in existence from the year 1995. It also gives special training for the representatives of the various State Governments. It also procures drugs, medicines, surgical and suture items by floating tenders. Tenders are floated on annual basis. The tenderers with L-1 rank were awarded the contract in a transparent manner. The activities of the third respondent are governed by the Tamil Nadu Transparency In Tenders Act, 1998 (for short TTT Act). When the tender was floated, the petitioner was blacklisted. However they filed an appeal before the Government under Section 11 of the TTT Act. The Government though had set aside the blacklisting of the petitioner did not find fault with the analytical report submitted by the Kings Institute as can be seen from the order extracted elsewhere.

14. Under Section 12 of the TTT Act, the tender inviting authority is vested with power to reject all the tenders for reasons including higher rates, change in the scope of procurement, new technologies, substantial design changes, lack of anticipated financial resources, Court orders, accidents or calamities and other unforeseen circumstance. In fact, in the tender in which originally the petitioner gave their bid contained clause 2(f) in which it was stipulated that if there was any failure of vaccines manufactured by the tenderer anywhere in India during the past three years, then the tenderer was not eligible to participate in the tender for that product. Therefore, based on the report given by the King Institute, the petitioner could have been easily disqualified. But, when the new tender was floated, that condition was deleted so as to allow even the petitioner also to participate in the bid. Hence there was no lack of bonafides on the part of the second respondent.

15. It was further stated that the validity of previous tender was only 90 days from the date of price bid opening and it was done on 26.2.2010. Therefore, 90 days came to an end on 28.5.2010. Since no extension was sought for by the tender inviting authority and since the tender was not finalised within the original validity period, if not extended, the tender will become invalid and a fresh tender will have to be called for. Paragraph 1(b) of the tender condition reads as follows:

"1.(b)The bid will be valid for a period of 90 days from the date of opening of Cover B (Price Bid) and prior to the expiration of the bid validity the Tender Inviting Authority may request the tenders to extend the bid validity for another period of 30 days. The tenderer may refuse extension of bid validity without forfeiting the Earnest Money deposit."

It is further stated that under clause 10(3) of the tender condition, the tender inviting authority has right to accept or reject the tender without assigning any reason.

16. It is further stated that in the tenders floated, there were only two contenders, i.e., the petitioner and M/s.Chiron Behring Vaccines Pvt. Ltd. The said company had quoted Rs.283/- per vial which is higher than the prevailing market rate of nearly Rs.150/- per vial. Therefore, taking into account all the circumstances, the tender came to be cancelled. In calling the fresh tenders, it cannot be said that any right of the petitioner was affected or that the decision taken was malafide.

17. In the counter affidavit filed by the second respondent the allegation that no reply was sent to the letter dated 01.02.2011 received from the Principal Secretary was denied and all the factual positions were clarified. The petitioner was attempting to bring extraneous pressure to influence the decision making process. Therefore, the second respondent sent a letter to the first respondent on 5.2.2011 regarding the non feasibility of finalizing the tender, dated 23.12.2009 which was already cancelled by the Board and also the reasons for floating the fresh tender.

18. On the basis of these pleadings, Mr.V.T.Gopalan, learned Senior Counsel had submitted that deliberate attempts were made to derail the petitioner's right to get contract awarded and it is arbitrary. This Court can give an appropriate relief even for the grant of Award of contract and cancellation of fresh tenders. Regarding the scope of judicial review over the Government's policy, he relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Shimnit Utsch India (P) Ltd. v. W.B. Transport Infrastructure Development Corpn. Ltd., reported in (2010) 6 SCC 303. He relied upon the following passage found in paragraph 52 of the said judgment, which reads as follows:

"52. We have no justifiable reason to take a view different from the High Court insofar as correctness of these reasons is concerned. The courts have repeatedly held that the government policy can be changed with changing circumstances and only on the ground of change, such policy will not be vitiated. The Government has a discretion to adopt a different policy or alter or change its policy calculated to serve public interest and make it more effective. Choice in the balancing of the pros and cons relevant to the change in policy lies with the authority. But like any discretion exercisable by the Government or public authority, change in policy must be in conformity with Wednesbury7 reasonableness and free from arbitrariness, irrationality, bias and malice."

The learned Senior Counsel stated that in that case, a learned Single Judge of the Orissa High Court gave a positive direction. When it was upheld by a division bench of that Court, on appeal the Supreme Court had also confirmed the view of that court. Therefore, there was no impediment for this court to grant the relief claimed by the petitioner as the facts are not in dispute.

19. The learned Senior Counsel also placed reliance upon a judgment of this court in Deepika Transports Vs. General Manager, Dindigul Cooperative Milk Producers Union Ltd. reported in 2009 (5) CTC 56 and relied upon the following passage found in paragraph 8, which reads as follows:

"8....Once the process of finalisation of tender was initiated and some of the people have been declared successful tenderers in respect of technical bid, without showing any reason for cancelling the commercial bid and particularly when there is no fault occurred till the opening of technical bid, the respondent have wrongly invited the re-tender in respect of commercial bid.

"In contractual sphere as in all other State actions, the State and all its instrumentalities have to conform to Article 14 of the Constitution of which non-arbitrariness is a significant facet. There is no unfettered discretion in public law: A public authority possesses powers only to use them for public good. This imposes the duty to act fairly and to adopt a procedure which is 'fairplay in action'."

20. Per contra, Mr.G.Sankaran, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the contesting respondents referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Jagdish Mandal v. State of Orissa reported in (2007) 14 SCC 517 and referred to the following passage found in paragraph 22, which reads as follows:

"22. Judicial review of administrative action is intended to prevent arbitrariness, irrationality, unreasonableness, bias and mala fides. Its purpose is to check whether choice or decision is made 'lawfully' and not to check whether choice or decision is 'sound'. When the power of judicial review is invoked in matters relating to tenders or award of contracts, certain special features should be borne in mind. A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:

(i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone;

OR

Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say: 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached';

(ii) Whether public interest is affected.

If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226. Cases involving blacklisting or imposition of penal consequences on a tenderer/contractor or distribution of State largesse (allotment of sites/shops, grant of licences, dealerships and franchises) stand on a different footing as they may require a higher degree of fairness in action."

Therefore, in the light of the above, on this short ground, he requested for the dismissal of the writ petition.

21. He further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in BSNL v. Telephone Cables Ltd., reported in (2010) 5 SCC 213 and referred to the following passages found in paragraphs 21,24,26 and 29, which reads as follows:

"21. At the outset, what should be noticed is that there was no contract or agreement between the parties (except in regard to the contracted quantity of 0.536 LCKM for which an order was placed by BSNL, but that is not the subject-matter of the present dispute). Bid documents did not constitute a contract, or an agreement or an agreement to enter into a contract. It was merely an invitation to make an offer. It informed the prospective bidders, how they should make their bids; how the bids would be processed by BSNL; how contracts would be entered by placing purchase orders; and what terms would govern the contracts, if purchase orders were placed.

24. As per the scheme of the bid documents, there is a clear division of the terms that will govern the tender process, and the terms that will govern the contract, when the bids are accepted. One part regulated the tender process that led to placing of purchase orders. That part contained a provision as to what should be the forum of dispute resolution, if there was a dispute at the tender or bidding stage. The other part stipulated the terms and conditions which will govern the contract, if and when purchase orders were placed. That part also contained a provision as to what should be the forum if there was a dispute after the contract was entered into. Clause 30 of the instructions to bidders makes it clear that in regard to tender stage disputes, the forum will be civil courts. Clause 20 of the general conditions on the other hand was intended to operate when contracts were made and it specified that if disputes arose in regard to the contracts, the forum for dispute resolution will be the Arbitral Tribunal.

26. A contract is entered in pursuance of the bid, when a purchase order is placed by BSNL on a bidder [vide Clauses 1(f) and 28 of Section II instructions to bidders]. When a purchase order is not placed, there is no contract or agreement and if there is no contract or agreement, the terms of the general conditions including the arbitration clause do not come into existence. In other words there is no arbitration agreement at all. BSNL intended to have arbitrations only where it had entered into contracts and there were disputes relating to such contracts. It did not intend to have arbitrations in regard to tender stage disputes or pre-contract differences, at a stage when there was no privity of contract.

29. Therefore, only when a purchase order was placed, a 'contract' would be entered; and only when a contract was entered into, the general conditions of contract including the arbitration clause would become a part of the contract. If a purchase order was not placed, and consequently the general conditions of contract (Section III) did not become a part of the contract, the conditions in Section III which included the arbitration agreement, would not at all come into existence or operation. In other words, the arbitration clause in Section III was not an arbitration agreement in praesenti, during the bidding process, but a provision that was to come into existence in future, if a purchase order was placed."

22. In the light of the above passage, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that since the petitioner's tender was not accepted and no purchase order was given, there was no locus standi for the petitioner to file such a writ petition. This Court has got no jurisdiction to grant the direction prayed for by the petitioner.

23. The learned counsel also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajasthan Housing Board Vs. G.S. Investments reported in (2007) 1 SCC 477 and referred to the following passage fo

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
und in paragraph 11, which reads as follows: "11. ..... If in such a case the State Government took a decision to disapprove the auction held and issued a direction for holding of a fresh auction, obviously the said decision was taken in larger public interest. In these circumstances there was absolutely no occasion for the High Court to entertain the writ petition and issue any direction in favour of the contesting respondent. The orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 4-8-2004 and the order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court on 23-9-2004 are clearly erroneous in law and are liable to be set aside." 24. The learned Special Government Pleader also submitted that on earlier occasions, the petitioner had availed the remedy by way of an appeal under the TTT Act. In the present case, the Board has taken a firm decision to cancel the tender. Therefore, the allegations cannot be directed against one individual. When inviting fresh tenders, the petitioner was also asked to participate without offering any fresh bid. The disqualification condition was also waived though the third respondent could have done it. If ultimately pursuant to the fresh tender condition, if any contract is awarded, the TTT Act itself provides for an appeal. There was no case made out for this court to interfere with at this stage and no cause of action hae arisen for the petitioner to come to this court. 25. In the light of the above, it can be clearly seen that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the writ petition at this stage. The third respondent had taken a policy decision to cancel the previous tender bids and the earlier notification. They are well within their right to do so both in terms of the TTT Act as well as in terms of the notice inviting tender. The fact that the earlier bid cannot be kept alive beyond 90 days is a valid point. Due to various circumstances, the tender period itself had come to close. The petitioner cannot insist upon that his offer alone should be accepted. The allegation of ulterior motive made against the second respondent is not clearly established before the court with concrete materials. The allegation of malafide cannot be lightly made without concrete proof being forthcoming. The petitioner cannot be said to be aggrieved either by cancellation of the earlier bid or by the notice calling for fresh tender especially when the earlier financial year had also come to a close. Even when a tender is finalised and contract awarded, the jurisdiction of this court for a judicial review is very limited. In the present case, the petitioner did not even have the award of contract in their favour. Therefore, with their feeble challenge to the cancellation of tender process and inviting fresh tenders, they cannot get a positive direction to the respondents to award a contract in their favour. 26. In the light of the above factual matrix and the legal precedents, there is no case made out to entertain the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition stand closed.
O R