9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 1033X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under Section 139 of the Act. It is submitted that ''other income'' mentioned in the returns included income earned by way of commission etc. from sale and purchase of property. In the settlement applications, fourth and fifth petitioner had given tabulations and details of the commission earned by them, which was duly corroborated and supported by evidence in the form of income tax returns filed by the petitioners prior to the date of search. Thus, the "prima facie" finding of the Settlement Commission that the fourth and the fifth petitioner had made a wrong declaration as to the manner of earning undisclosed income, is nothing but a surmise, which is incorrect and baseless. This contention is without prejudice to the contention of the fourth and fifth petitioners that the Settlement Commission had erroneously and contrary to law dismissed the application filed by the fourth and fifth petitioners on tentative opinion and 'prima facie' assumption, without forming a conclusive and final opinion. We allow the present writ petition and set aside and quash the impugned order of the Settlement Commission dated 8th May, 2017 rejecting the settlement applications of the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued and served on the petitioners. The petitioners on the other hand claim that they had filed their returns after seeking extension of time on two occasions. 5. On 28th April, 2017, five separate applications under Section 245C (1) of the Act were filed by the five petitioners before the Income Tax Settlement Commission (the Settlement Commission, for short), the first respondent before us. The applications were for the assessment years 201011 to 2016-17. On the same date itself intimation regarding filing of the applications before the Settlement Commission was served on the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-I, Jaipur, the Assessing Officer and Respondent No. 2 before us. 6. The Settlement Commission by notice dated 28th April, 2017 had informed the petitioners that the applications would be taken up for hearing on 9th May, 2017. However, by notice dated 2nd May, 2017, hearing on the applications before the Settlement Commission was preponed to 8th May, 2017. 7. On 8th May, 2017, the Settlement Commission had heard ex-parte arguments addressed by the petitioners for allowing the applications to be proceeded with under Section 245D(1) of the Act. 8. The Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r re-assessment for any of the assessment years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153B in case of the applicant, being a person referred to in section 153A or section 153C, have been initiated, the additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds ten lakh rupees, (ii) in any other case, the additional amount of income-tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds ten lakh rupees, and such tax and the interest thereon, which would have been paid under the provisions of this Act had the income disclosed in the application been declared in the return of income before the Assessing Officer on the date of application, has been paid on or before the date of making the application and the proof of such payment is attached with the application. Explanation .-For the purposes of clause (ia),- (a) the applicant, in relation to the specified person referred to in clause (ia), means,- (i) where the specified person is an individual, any relative of the specified person; (ii) where the specified person is a company, firm, association of pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue a notice to the applicant requiring him to explain as to why the application made by him be allowed to be proceeded with, and on hearing the applicant, the Settlement Commission shall, within a period of fourteen days from the date of the application, by an order in writing, reject the application or allow the application to be proceeded with: Provided that where no order has been passed within the aforesaid period by the Settlement Commission, the application shall be deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with. (2) A copy of every order under sub-section (1) shall be sent to the applicant and to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. (2A) Where an application was made under section 245C before the 1st day of June, 2007, but an order under the provisions of sub-section (1) of this section, as they stood immediately before their amendment by the Finance Act, 2007, has not been made before the 1st day of June, 2007, such application shall be deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with if the additional tax on the income disclosed in such application and the interest thereon is paid on or before the 31st day of July, 2007. Explanation .-In re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interest thereon, is, notwithstanding any extension of time already granted by the Settlement Commission, paid on or before the 31st day of July, 2007. (3) The Settlement Commission, in respect of- (i) an application which has not been declared invalid under sub-section (2-C); or (ii) an application referred to in sub-section (2-D) which has been allowed to be further proceeded with under that sub-section, may call for the records from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner and after examination of such records, if the Settlement Commission is of the opinion that any further enquiry or investigation in the matter is necessary, it may direct the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner to make or cause to be made such further enquiry or investigation and furnish a report on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case, and the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner shall furnish the report within a period of ninety days of the receipt of communication from the Settlement Commission: Provided that where the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner does not furnish the report within the aforesaid period, the Settlement Commissio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee within thirty-five days of the receipt of a copy of the order by him, then whether or not the Settlement Commission has extended the time for payment of such tax or has allowed payment thereof by instalments, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at one and one-fourth per cent for every month or part of a month on the amount remaining unpaid from the date of expiry of the period of thirty-five days aforesaid. xxxxx 245-F. Power and procedure of Settlement Commission.- (1) In addition to the powers conferred on the Settlement Commission under this Chapter, it shall have all the powers which are vested in an income tax authority under this Act. (2) Where an application made under Section 245-C has been allowed to be proceeded with under Section 245-D, the Settlement Commission shall, until an order is passed under sub-section (4) of Section 245-D, have, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of that section, exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of an income tax authority under this Act in relation to the case: Provided that where an application has been made under Section 245-C on or after the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly concerned with sub-section (1) to Section 245D, which states that the Settlement Commission shall within 7 days of the receipt of the application issue notice to the applicant to explain as to why the application should be allowed to be proceeded with and within a period of 14 days from the date of application pass an order in writing allowing or rejecting the application to be proceeded. The proviso states that if no order is passed within the stated period, the application is deemed to have been allowed to be proceeded with. Sub-section (2) states that the order passed under subsection (1) would be communicated to the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Thus, at this stage only the applicant is heard and the statute does not mandate oral hearing or written representation by the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. As the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner do not get opportunity to respond and ague at this stage, their stand and stance remains unknown. 12. Sub-section (2B) to Section 245D states that the Settlement Commission shall within thirty days of the application being allowed to be proceeded with, call for report from the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion (4) to Section 245D of the Act shall include demand by way of tax, penalty or interest, the manner in which sum due would be paid and all other matters to make the settlement effective and also stipulate that the settlement would be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that the settlement has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. Subsection (6A) states that in case tax is not paid within thirty-five days from receipt of the order under Section 245D(4) of the Act or the extended period, tax as determined, interest etc. would be payable. Sub-Section 6A authorises the jurisdictional Assessing Officer to recover demands of the additional tax and interest (and also penalty imposed for default) not paid in terms of order under Section 245D(4) of the Act. 14. Provisions with regard to payment of additional tax, and interest (and penalty in default) in terms of the decision by the Settlement Commission under Section 245D(4) of the Act and payment/recovery post the decision does indicate and affirms that there could well be cases where the tax payable as computed as per the settlement application could be enhanced requiring deposit of additio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me-tax authorities under the Act till a final order is passed. The Settlement Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise power and performs functions of the Income-tax Authorities under the Act in relation to the case. However, unlike the Income-tax authorities, the Settlement Commission does not proceed to make an assessment but passes an order of settlement. The Supreme Court in The Commission of Income-tax Vs. Om Prakash Mittal, [2005] 143 Taxman 373 (SC), has held that Section 245D(4) of the Act uses the word order and not assessment and observed that the order passed is not like an original assessment, regular assessment or reassessment. In that sense, the Commission exercises plenary jurisdiction. 16. We would now refer to other case law dealing the power and nature of jurisdiction exercised by the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIXA of the Act, which was introduced by Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, pursuant to Wanchoo Committee Recommendations. Interpreting the provisions, the Supreme Court in CIT versus B.N. Bhattacharjee, (1979) 4 SCC 121 had expressed a degree of reservation and had cautioned that the provisions could become a panacea for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anner in which said income has been derived are essential and mandatory pre-requisites of a valid application. Therefore, unless the Settlement Commission records their satisfaction on the said aspect, it would not have jurisdiction to pass an order on a matter covered by the application. Reference was made to form No. 34B, which in different columns, requires the assessee to make full and true disclosure and also give full details of issues for which application for settlement is made, nature and circumstances of the case, as well as complexities of investigation involved. This decision makes it clear that the question of full and true disclosure as well as manner in which the undisclosed income is derived can be examined at different stages and is finally decided while passing the order under Section 245D(4) of the Act. The Settlement Commission is not denuded of its power to examine the aforesaid two quintessential aspects, when the application is allowed to be proceeded with under Section 245D(1) of the Act or thereafter not declared invalid under Section 245D(2C) of the Act. These are steps in the proceedings. At each stage, the Settlement Commission is required to conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in conformity with the requirements of sub-section(1) of section 245C which would include filing of an application in the prescribed manner and also making necessary disclosures as required therein. There are also additional requirements of sub-section(1) of section 245C such as payment of requisite tax and interest thereon which would have been payable under the provisions of the Act, had the income disclosed in the application been declared by the assessee in the return of income before the Assessing Officer. It would thus be well within the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to examine whether the application for settlement fulfills such requirements or not. Such scrutiny of-course would be summary in nature. We may recall that the Settlement Commission upon receipt of such an application within seven days thereof, has to issue notice to the assessee and pass a final order either rejecting the application or allowing the application to be proceeded within fourteen days of the date of application. Proviso to sub-section(1) of section 245D makes it further clear that when no such order is passed rejecting the application within the period prescribed, the application shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5C(1) of the Act. Such disclosures were however, revised and additional income was disclosed in the revised annexures. The Apex Court held that the assessee had no right to revise an application under section 245C(1) of the Act and further that such revised annexure making further disclosure of undisclosed income alone was sufficient to establish that the initial application made by the assessee could not be entertained as it did not contain true and full disclosure of the undisclosed income and the manner in which such income had been derived. 21. Referring to the aforesaid provisions, a Division Bench of this Court in Commission of Income-tax Vs. Income-tax Settlement Commission, [2014] 360 ITR 407 (Delhi), had observed and referred to the different stages the Settlement Commission examines the application and can reject the same. The first stage is when an order under Section 245 D(1) of the Act is passed, followed by the order under Section 245D (2C) of the Act and finally the order under Section 245 D (4) of the Act. The first two orders under Section 245 D (1) and (2C) are not final orders and they are subject to final orders to be passed under Section 245 D (4) of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t [2008] (4) SCC 144 the Supreme Court considered the expression as considered necessary and opined that the term consider means to think over and it connotes that there should be active application of the mind . Earlier in CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 , a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court, while dealing with the power of the first appellate authority under the Income Tax Act to enhance the assessment, observed that the word consideration (in its verb form) means that there must be something in the assessment order to show that the income tax officer applied his mind to the particular subject matter or the particular source of income with a view to its taxability or to its non-taxability and not to any incidental connection. It is necessary to remember that the ITSC is not deciding a case inter-parties; they are assessing or estimating the amount on which, in the interests of the country at large, the tax payer ought to be taxed. The observations made by the Court of Appeal in England in King Vs. Income Tax Special Commissioners [1936] 1K.B. 487 are relevant. Lord Wright observed that the Special Commissioners were not in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sees do not take undue advantage of the finality of the order of settlement. It is no doubt open to the ITSC to take the assistance of its officers in the matter of doing the ground work and carrying out the verification of the record, seized materials, documents, account books etc., but in the present case, having regard to the grave charges levelled against the assessee-applicant in the report of the CIT, the ITSC ought to have itself examined independently the claim of the assessee-applicant and the officers of the Income Tax Department that everything stood reconciled or explained by the assessee. This important step in the decision making process does not appear to have been carried out by the ITSC. The aforesaid paragraphs highlight the importance of the need to have detailed and in-depth examination of the contentions of both the Assessee and the Revenue, for the Settlement Commission is invested with the power to determine the tax payable, which power is exercised in the interest of the society at large. Therefore, it is necessary that the Settlement Commission should consist of members of integrity and outstanding ability having special knowledge and experience in pro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... open as it has done in the instant case to be examined at a later stage or at the stage of final disposal of the application. What is important is that there must be full and true disclosure to the satisfaction of the Commission before any relief can be granted to the applicants which implies that the requirement of such a full and true disclosure is a continuing requirement that needs to be satisfied from the beginning of the proceedings till the conclusion thereof. The Commission may consequently be justified in throwing out the application at any stage if it comes to the conclusion that the disclosure made by the assessee is either incomplete or untrue. The passage relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner simply emphasises the significance of a full and true disclosure but stops short of making such a disclosure or a finding on the satisfaction of that requirement as a condition precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction. The aforesaid passage was quoted in Income-tax Settlement Commission (Supra), to observe as under: 22. From the above, it is clear that in True Woods (P.) Ltd. (supra), a specific argument had been raised on behalf of the Revenue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ey may be proceeded with further. 24. An order under Section 245D(1) of the Act has to be passed within a rigid time frame of 15 days. Principal Commissioner/Commissioner is unrepresented at this stage. The scrutiny or the inquiry at this stage, is summary in nature. This however, does not take away or dilute the power of the Settlement Commission to reject the application for settlement which in its opinion does not satisfy the legal requirements and more particularly the two pre-conditions mentioned in Sub-Section(1) of section 245C of the Act. We must affirmatively acknowledge and accept that the Settlement Commission at the stage of 245D (1) can examine and go into the question whether the applicant fulfils the legal requirements and conditions for invoking jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission; like pendency of proceedings, payment of tax and interest on the undisclosed income etc. The Settlement Commission would also without doubt examine the two core conditions, full and true disclosure of undisclosed income and the manner in which the said income was derived. Onus to show that the pre-conditions for allowing the application to be proceeded with is on the applican ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ive a definitive finding for rejection after the initial and preliminary hearing, proceeding to the second stage is the only option. The deemed approval provision when the Settlement Commission is unable to decide and form an opinion supports the above interpretation. 26. Sub-section 3 to Section 245 C states that an application once made under sub-section 1 shall not be allowed to be withdrawn. We would also record consequences when an application is rejected or declared invalid. As per sub-section (2) to Section 245F, subject to Sub-Sections (3) and (4), the Settlement Commission has exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and functions of the income tax authority from the date application for settlement is made till an order of rejection under 245D(1) or invalidity order under Section 245D(2C) or an order under Section 245D(4) of the Act is passed. Section 245HA deals with abatement of proceeding before the Settlement Commission and that on abatement, proceeding before the Income Tax Authority recommence or revive as if no application under Section 245C(1) had been made. Abatement of proceedings has been defined for the purpose of the Section 245F as to include an order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the two tabulations given above, it shall be clear that the gross profit percentage of RT Industries is less than that of other similar entities and also the Rajesh Products. The reason for the same is that, in RT Industries, the Applicant was indulging in inflation of purchases of mustard seeds from the farmers, due to which a lower rate of GP has been shown by it in its case. The applicant has not maintained complete record of the inflation of purchases. The applicant has admittedly been suppressing its income by inflating the amount of purchases of mustard from the illiterate farmers on one . pretext or the other and manipulating its gross profit rate. It is evident from its GP rate which is lower than to the GP rate being shown by other comparable as also M/s Rajesh Traders referred to above in similar line of business. 7. The applicant has stated that while working out the higher GP rate, the unaccounted investments / personal expenses were also seen so as to explain that unaccounted investments resulting from the undisclosed income. It was also mentioned during the course of hearings that the present surrender on account of GP rate amounting to ₹ 3.20 crores i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r from any subsequent documentation or from books of account, disclosed or undisclosed to suggest that the unaccounted income was earned in this manner and to this extent. There is not an iota of evidence to suggest which farmers were advanced these monies, when were the amounts advanced and at what rate. Thus, both in the case the firm and the partners, the mode of earning income and manner of earning income remained unsubstantiated. The authenticity of earning the income and the manner as claimed by the firm and invested by the partners is highly suspect. The comparison made by the firm with the trading results of Rajesh products is also questionable. If profit results of other entities are compared, it is possible that we come across instances of still better gross profit. In that situation, why should the comparison be restricted to Rajesh Products or to other entities brought before us by the applicant. Rajesh products is also not a trustworthy comparison on account of two factors. One, it is a related concern, and therefore, any comparison will be self serving. And two, because Sh. Trilok Chand Jain had himself referred to this entity during the questioning at the time of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the premises of the two applicants. However, there is no indication or hardly any indication that the present applicants were the facilitators/ mediators in the transaction which resulted in commission income. Even if, Sh. Ashok Kumar Jain and Sh. Rajesh Kumar Jain were facilitators, then the question to be answered is how were the HUFs concerned with these transactions. These were matters brought to the hilt by virtue of professional expertise/ knowledge of the individuals. The role of the HUFs in the transactions, if any, is doubtful,. to say the least. If, it was only professional expertise, then the applicants should have been the individuals rather than their HUFs. Needless to say, once again that the claim of the applicants have no evidentiary backing. The other claim that the applicants also earned from a business of money lending and this became a source of income, is also only a claim made without any evidence being led on the issue. If there was any such income, the pertinent question would be as to whom was the money was lent, for what period and at what rate. During the course of hearing, no evidence on these transactions could be brought to our knowledge. 29. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not objected to and adversely commented upon by the Settlement Commission. 32. Selection of comparables was objected to, for the reasons recorded by the Settlement Commission. While reliance placed on the gross profit rate declared by Rajesh Products, a sister concern, who were subjected to search was clearly a suspect and unreliable, there was no evidence or material to reject the trading results of the other two entities, namely, Goyal Udyog and Goyal Products for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 averaging 4.05% and 5.71%, respectively. Their trading results were rejected by observing that the Settlement Commission may come across cases or instance of still better gross profit. However, there was no evidence and material to establish better results. The observation is therefore hypothetical. The reasoning would only show the uncertainty in the mind of the Settlement Commission and that they were unable to opine on whether the profit results of the two entities could be used as a comparison. Use of the word possible with reference to ''other'' two entities would indicate that the Settlement Commission was unable to conclude and had predicated their cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eration of the entire material on record and evidence brought to their notice, they cannot with ''reasonable certainty'' hold that full and true disclosure had been made. These observations in the conclusions are not only with reference to the first petitioner, but would equally apply to rejection of applications filed petitioner Nos.2 to 5. 35. We would, therefore, observe that the finding of the Settlement Commission that the petitioner No.1 had not declared and made full and true disclosure is not an affirmative but an inconclusive and plausible view, which required a deeper and detailed scrutiny at the second stage. The Settlement Commission should have as per the statutory mandate called the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner to submit their report as second stage examination under Section 245D(2C) was required. It is at that second stage after the Revenue has submitted their report that more in-depth scrutiny and verification takes place, notwithstanding the earlier preliminary scrutiny under Section 245D(1) of the Act. At each passing stage, the scrutiny and examination becomes more extensive and decisive. The relevance of rejection at the initial stage u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gher interest was charged. Reference was made to loose sheets, namely, AS-3 and AS-5 in which rate of interest was mentioned as 1.4% and 1.5%. These were short-term advances given to third parties other than farmers. The two petitioners had prepared a tabulation of year-wise income earned after considering the entire seized records. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 had accordingly declared additional income of ₹ 46,02,472/- and ₹ 46,24,341/-, respectively. 38. Our attention was drawn to the income tax returns filed by the Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 under Section 139 of the Act in which they had shown interest from parties under the head income from other sources or income from other sources , which it is stated included interest income. They have also relied upon details of mode and manner of earning interest income mentioned in the settlement application. Submission is that interest income was disclosed and accounted for by the second and third petitioners in their returns of income, prior to search and seizure operations and, therefore, the settlement application should not have been dismissed on mere ''tentative'' or presumptive prima facie opinion, without a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e matter of detailed verification. Firm and conclusive finding would require examination of the past position; whether the two HUFs were engaged and had earned income by way of commission or brokerage. However, the Settlement Commission was itself uncertain and has not given any firm or conclusive opinion as it has observed that the role of the HUFs in the transactions, if any, was doubtful to say the least . The Settlement Commission had also observed that the claim was lacking evidentiary backing, notwithstanding the fact that the Settlement Commission itself had recorded that rough sheets seized indicated property dealings and payment of commission. Statement that the two petitioners had not made any reference or given particulars of the deals as well as full details of the commission/brokerage earned, is contested. The petitioners had accepted that they had not kept complete records of the brokerage/commission earned as the papers were destroyed or torn off after the deal had materialized. However, they had filed details and calculations. Uncertainty in the mind of the Settlement Commission is clearly reflected when they had used the word doubtful with reference to the ro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... committed grave or patent error of jurisdiction and failed to abide by and act in accordance with the provisions of the Act. The Settlement Commission is a fact finding body, whose orders have been given finality. A writ court would hesitate and not go into the merit of the decision taken by the Settlement Commission to reappraise disputed questions of fact, specially, in view of the nature of the jurisdiction and questions, which come up before the Settlement Commission. What is amiable and can be scrutinized while exercising power of judicial review is the decision making process and not merits of the decision. While examining and scrutinizing the decision making process, there is a limited scope for the writ Court to appreciate the facts under the grounds of illegality, irrationality and pre-procedural impropriety [see State of U.P. Anr. Vs. Johri Mal (2004) 4 SCC 714 and R. B. Shreeram Durga Prasad and Fatehchand Nursing Das v. Settlement Commission (IT and WT) and Anr., (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC)]. 44. In Jyotendrasinhji Vs. S.I. Tripathi and Ors., (1993) 201 ITR 611 (SC), the Supreme Court observed that given the nature of power that Settlement Commission enjoys, it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order was passed in Delhi. In the context of the present writ petition, we would record that notice in this writ petition was issued by a Division Bench of this Court on 19th May, 2017. In these circumstances, it would not be appropriate to invoke doctrine of forum conveniens. 46. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we allow the present writ petition and set aside and quash the impugned order of the Settlement Commission dated 8th May, 2017 rejecting the settlement applications of the petitioners under Section 245D(1) of the Act, with an order of remand to the Settlement Commission to pass a fresh order under the said section within a period of fourteen (14) days from the date a copy of this order is received by them or served on them by the petitioners or the Revenue, whichever is earlier. In order to cut delay, we direct the parties to appear before the Settlement Commission on 20th of September, 2018, when a date of hearing would be fixed. Observations made in the judgment are for disposal of the present writ petition and would not be construed as observations on merits on different issues raised in the settlement application including question of pre-conditions, which are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
