9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (8) TMI 1191X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adequate discharge of government's affirmative [minimal or expansive] obligations, are likely without some form of intervention from a point at least partially outside of ordinary majoritarian politics American Constitutional Law - Lawrence H. Tribe - 2nd Edition - Foundation Press Judicial review provides the legitimate intervention that could steer the course of governance back on course, when it loses sight of the constitutional destination. 2. The judicial process is after all a major ingredient of freedom, despite a government under a constitutional order. The present lis is illustrative of continual executive pre-occupation with a fundamental misconception; that un-canalized, uncharted, unregulated and absolute discretion is essential for effective governance. The rigor of history of structured societies and their formal institutions of governance, ancient, medieval or modern and regardless of the architecture of governance, emphatically belies this assumption. The millenary engagement with the misconception, however continues unabated. 3. The writ petitions are by the State of Andhra Pradesh (for short 'the State') and Sri V. Dinesh Reddy, IPS (for short ' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... selection of DGP was under consideration by the Supreme Court and a decision awaited, no decision on the issue relating to constitution of Selection Committee for apex level posts of All India Service was taken by the Committee of Secretaries (CoS) under the Chairmanship of the Cabinet Secretary, on 14-09-2009; (iv) that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh by the judgment in Government of Andhra Pradesh v. S.S.P. Yadav (2011) 1 ALT 365 (the Yadav judgment) had inter alia directed the Government to make a final choice from amongst officers empanelled by the UPSC for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF), following the Supreme Court direction in Prakash Singh, but the Supreme Court issued status quo orders on 13-07-2011, in appeals preferred by the State against the Yadav judgment; (v) that subsequent appointment of Aravinda Rao as DGP (HoPF) on 31-08-2010, was challenged by Gautam Kumar and the Tribunal allowed Gautam Kumar's plea by the order dated 27-04-2011 and directed the State Government to forward the names and other particulars of DGP's to the UPSC as per the Prakash Singh directive; (vi) that the State filed a writ petition against the said judgment and this Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Committee found the other five (5) officers as "fit" for empanelment, for selection as DGP (HoPF). The five (5) officers empanelled by the Selection Committee in the inter se order of seniority are : (1) K.R. Nandan; (2) Gautam Kumar; (3) A Shivasankar; (4) Umesh Kumar; and (5) Dinesh Reddy. 9. The screened list of 'fit' officers drawn up by the Selection Committee was forwarded to the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who after apparently taking into consideration the overall performance, experience, suitability of the officers and the tenure available in the panel suggested by the Selection Committee, selected Dinesh Reddy to be posted as DGP (HoPF) observing : He has the best track record and commendable performance in various posts held by him. 10. A consequent order was issued in G.O. Rt. No. 2861, dated 30-06-2011 appointing Dinesh Reddy as DGP (HoPF). The discourse between the State and the Union : 11. Earlier, on 15-04-2011, the State (the Chief Secretary to the Government) addressed the Secretary, MHA for issue of guidelines [for selection and appointment of DGP (Apex Scale)] and requested that in the event of any delay in issue of guideline ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, the Yadav judgment) but does not operate to eclipse the judgment in Prakash Singh; (f) that as the Supreme Court had declined interim stay, [in an appeal preferred against the judgment dated 08-10-2010 of the High Court of Madras in R. Narataj v. State of Tamil Nadu and others (W.P. No. 6917 of 2010) wherein the Madras High Court declared that the Prakash Singh directive is binding, in the matter of appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF), notwithstanding the 2007 and 2008 Rules)], the obligation to follow the Prakash Singh directive cannot be avoided by the State. 13. The Tribunal recorded its conclusions in para 45 of its order. These read : 45. In the result, the impugned G.O. Rt. No. 2861 GA (SC.C) Department dated 30.06.2011 issued by the State Government - 2nd respondent in respect of selection and appointment of 3rd respondent as DGP (HoPF) is set aside with a direction to conduct the said selection afresh with the following observations/directions : (i) The State Government of A.P. - 2nd respondent is directed to forward the names of all the eligible officers in the cadre of HAG + scale of ₹ 75000 - (and increment 03%) - ₹ 80000 as on the date with all t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... li Sorabjee and others to draft a new Police Act in view of the socio-economic and political dynamics and the felt necessity for a change in the role of the Police in the context of the ever-new challenges posed by contemporaneous, global and domestic events such as terrorism, extremism, rapid urbanization and the nuanced aspirations of a modern democratic society; referred to the Sorabjee Committee's draft outlines dated 09-09-2006 of a new Police Act; and several other documents. The Court further adverted to the recidivist apathy by the Union and the several State Governments to usher in necessary reforms notwithstanding the observations in Vineeth Narain and others v. Union of India and another (1998) 1 SCC 226 and concluded that in view of the inexorable and non-derogable constitutional mandate for an effective, non-partisan, professional and neutral criminal justice delivery system, the Supreme Court must issue directions in exercise of its power, authority and jurisdiction under Article 32 r/w Article 142. The Court issued a raft of directives to the Central Government, State Governments and Union Territories for compliance, till framing of appropriate legislation. For t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 2007 Rules, (i.e., Above Super Time Scale), apart from Additional Director General of Police in serial No. (i); and DGP- HAG + Scale at serial No. (ii), a third scale was introduced by the 2008 amendment Rules, as serial No. (iii) and reads : (iii) Apex Scale : ₹ 80000 (fixed), Grade Pay : nil (by upgradation of one existing post of Director General of Police as head of police force in the each State cadre); (with effect from the date of issue of notification of the Indian Police Service (Pay) Amendment Rules, 2008). Note - 2 under the amended Rule - 3 is relevant and reads : Note 2: The post of Director General of Police in the apex scale shall be filled by selection from amongst the officers holding the post of Director General of Police in the State cadre in the HAG + scale of ₹ 75500-(annual increment @3%)- 80000. (Emphasis is supplied) The current status of the Prakash Singh directive and precedents : 19. Earlier herein, the context and text of the Prakash Singh directive was noticed and the relevant directive extracted. The State and Dinesh Reddy had contended before the Tribunal and reiterate before us that the Prakash Singh directive had ceased to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PSC to prepare a panel as directed in Prakash Singh and forward the same to the State, within a specified time; (iii) to the State to thereafter make a selection from amongst officers empanelled by the UPSC for appointment as DGP (HoPF); and (iv) to file a compliance report by 14-12-2010. The 8th respondent was however permitted to discharge the functions of DGP (HoPF) till the process directed above was concluded, as the Court did not wish to leave the post vacant, in public interest, by invalidating the appointment of the 8th respondent thereto. 24. We are in respectful agreement with the judgment of the Madras High Court in R. Nataraj. 25. The Madras High Court in R. Nataraj noticed and extensively extracted the relevant provisions of the 2007 and the 2008 Rules. The State of Tamil Nadu did not even venture to contend (as the State of Andhra Pradesh contends before us) that in view of issue of the 2007 Rules and the 2008 Rules, the Prakash Singh directive ceased to have operative efficacy. 26. Since such a contention however creative, is pressed into service, we will deal with it hereinafter. 27. It was admitted before the Tribunal in the present case that no stay was gr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lid?; and (iv) Whether the observations by the Tribunal regarding the relevant considerations for selection for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF) or with regard to the rationality of the order dated 7.10.2009, preferring Sri Girish Kumar over Sri Yadav for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF) and other cognate observations, are sustainable or warrant interference? 30. The Yadav judgment partly allowed the writ petitions filed by the State and Girish Kumar for the reasons recorded; and dismissed the writ petitions filed by Yadav. The several issued framed by this court, the analyses, the reasons and conclusions recorded on each of the issues framed, reveal that a raft of distinct aspects/issues arose, were framed, analysed and determined, by the Yadav judgment. 31. The appropriate procedure to be followed for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF) and whether the Prakash Singh directive and the procedure for selection (to the post of DGP) mandated thereby was non-derogable despite the 2007 Rules and the 2008 amendments thereto, was not however the only issue that fell for consideration and was decided, in the Yadav judgment. 32. The above aspect (which alone is relevant for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lling for special qualities and skills. Governance is a dynamic phenomenon. This too often calls for not merely ability but aptitude. In the nature of things the Government must be accommodated the power and discretion of rational choice in the selection of officers within the zone of consideration for appointment to the post of DGP(HoPF). The decision in Prakash Singh does not derogate from and in fact fortifies the availability of legitimate and rational but adequate Governmental discretion in this area. Prakash Singh directions are in our considered view intended to be both a prophylactic and a curative to the necrosis of politicization, demoralization and regress from professional neutrality of the police; and to the attainment of that object are its directions addressed. The Prakash Singh directive that the empanelment shall be by the UPSC is intended to infuse neutrality, expertise and professionalism into the process of selection. As there is no subsequent legislative or statutory intervention or modification, the directions in Prakash Singh on the process and the selection authority are operative and bind the executive. 33. The generic analyses supra was reiterated in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction by the Supreme Court, dated 10.01.2011, since the core and substantive contention emphatically asserted on behalf of the petitioners - the State and Dinesh Reddy, is that on account of the stay of operation of the Yadav judgment the State is liberated from the obligation to follow and implement without demur, the directive in Prakash Singh, pertaining to the process of selection for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF). Another contention urged is that the stay operates as a plenary eclipse of the rationes of the Yadav judgment; including its analyses and the conclusion that the Prakash Singh directive is operative proprio vigore even after the 2007 Rules as amended by the 2008 Rules. 37. The main contentions asserted before the Tribunal by the State and on behalf of Dinesh Reddy and reiterated before us in the writ petitions are: (i) The Tribunal ought to have deferred adjudication of OA No. 678/11 till disposal of the SLP's by the Supreme Court and the writ petitions by the High Court. (W.P. Nos 13495 and 13524 of 2011 were filed by Sri Aravinda Rao and the State against the judgment dated 27.4.2011 of the Tribunal in OA No. 958/10 whereby Sri Gautam Kumar's cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of the State. We are also left with a disquiet. If the Prakash Singh judgment with regard to the process of selection to a critical and Central Service (Head of the State Police Force) is mandatory (as the MHA letter dated 09-05-2011 states) and a State has violated the Prakash Singh mandate, the Central Government has no concern and demonstrates its apathy to this critical issue by a non-responsive counter! We wonder if it is some complex Dharma at play. Substantive Analyses : 41. Earlier, we adverted and referred to the relevant statutory dynamics; the initial Pay Rules, 1954; their comprehensive supersession and substitution by the 2007 Rules; and amendment to these Rules by the 2008 Rules. Relevant provisions of the 2007 and 2008 Rules were extracted. On an interactive analyses of the 2007 Rules as amended by the 2008 Rules, the resultant position is : (i) The Head of Police Force in each State cadre is authorised a distinct scale called the Apex Scale - ₹ 80,000 (fixed) with no Grade pay - under Clause (iii) Category-D in Rule - 3; (ii) Rule - 3(2)(i) mandates appointment to the Selection Grade and to posts carrying pay above this Grade in the service to be by se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court reversed; and the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in favour of Vajpai) confirmed. 44. From the ruling in M.K. Chakraborty it is clear that prior to the 2007 Rules (as amended by the 2008 Rules) an officer holding the post of Addl. DGP or for that matter any member of the Service (IPS) could technically be appointed to the post of DGP and to head a State police force. 45. Too often in this State as well, for some inscrutable and to us an incomprehensible reason senior officers appointed substantively to the rank of DGP in sanctioned cadre posts are not considered meritorious enough to merit selection and appointment to head the State police force. Such elusive merit is too disturbingly often found only in junior officers appointed in view of ex-cadre posts in the scale of pay of DGP, i.e., posts created by the State under the first proviso to Rule - 4(2) of the cadre Rules r/w Rule - 11(7) of the 2007 Rules. Far junior officers are often appointed in a context where Rule - 4(2) of the cadre Rules enables the State to make such addition on its own only for a period of one year; and with the approval of the Central Government only for a further period not ex ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the essential and expressed concerns that led to the issue of a raft of directives in Prakash Singh (including the relevant directive) have not been altered, modified or varied by any statutory prescription set out in the 2007 Rules and the amendments thereto, by the 2008 Rules. 50. On the above analyses, we are clearly and compellingly of the view and hold that the Prakash Singh directive has continuing vitality, is non-derogable and the State must comply with it, without demur or artifice. 51. Even in E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu (1974) 4 SCC 3, Bhagwati, J (as his Lordship then was) in a concurring opinion, while accommodating a discretion in the State (the Chief Minister as the Head of the Government) to shift the Chief Secretary to another post, clearly sounded a caveat : ... It may, however, be pointed out that such an action would not, we think, ordinarily be taken except for the most compelling reasons, because, if resorted to without proper justification, it would tend to affect the political neutrality of the public service and lead to demoralization and frustration amongst the public servants. (para 87) Two other contentions on behalf of the petitioners : 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess of selection for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF)], is eclipsed due to the stay of operation of the Yadav judgment, ordered by the Supreme Court on 10-01-2011; and the eclipse continues during pendency of the SLP's; and (b) since efficacy of the Prakash Singh directive was declared in the Yadav judgment; and operation of that judgment stayed by the Supreme Court, the Prakash Singh directive itself would not operate in the State till disposal of the SLP's. To summarize, stay of Yadav amounts to suspension of Prakash Singh. 57. The learned Advocate-General relied on Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. v. Church of South India Trust Association (1992) 3 SCC 1 to support the contention that stay of operation of the Yadav judgment by the Supreme Court operates to eclipse the ratio, the analyses, the findings, conclusions, interpretation of the several statutory provisions and the several precedents including Prakash Singh, set out in the Yadav judgment. The ratio of Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd. : 58. The relevant facts in brief, in Shree Chamundi Mopeds Ltd., require to be considered. The appellant a Public Limited Company had taken the premises of the respondent-Trust Associ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... January 7, 1991. While considering the effect of an interim order staying the operation of the order under challenge, a distinction has to be made between quashing of an order and stay of operation of an order. Quashing of an order results in the restoration of the position as it stood on the date of the passing of the order which has been quashed. The stay of operation of an order does not, however, lead to such a result. It only means that the order which has been stayed would not be operative from the date of the passing of the stay order and it does not mean that the said order has been wiped out from existence. This means that if an order passed by the Appellate Authority is quashed and the matter is remanded, the result would be that the appeal which had been disposed of by the said order of the Appellate Authority would be restored and it can be said to be pending before the Appellate Authority after the quashing of the order of the Appellate Authority. The same cannot be said with regard to an order staying the operation of the order of the Appellate Authority because in spite of the said order, the order of the Appellate Authority continues to exist in law and so long as i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or fait accompli before the final hearing. 64. In Koduru Venkata Reddy v. Land Acquisition Officer (1988) 170 ITR 15, the question was, where a judgment of a Full Bench is suspended by the Supreme Court whether the dicta of the Full Bench would be binding and ought to be followed. A Full Bench of this Court had held that payment of compensation in installments works out to payment that is less than the market value; that Section - 3(4) of the A.P. Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Lands) Act, 1973 is therefore unconstitutional to the extent of acquisition of lands coming within the purview of Article 31A(1); and compensation cannot be paid in installments for lands acquired from a farmer, who holds lands below the ceiling limit and personally cultivates them. 65. The learned Division Bench in Koduru Venkata Reddy answered the reference (made to it by a learned single Judge), as under : We are of the view that when a judgment of the High Court is the subject-matter of an appeal and the said judgment is suspended, the only effect of such suspension is that that judgment cannot be executed or implemented. But so long as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... djudication of Gautam Kumar's application and must have deferred adjudication till conclusion of the SLP's by the Supreme Court (preferred by the State against the Yadav judgment). Several decisions are cited by Sri V. Venkataramana and by C.V. Mohan Reddy, (the learned senior Advocate for Gautam Kumar) to explain the principle of comity. 71. Normatively comity (latin root - Comitas Legum), refers to legal reciprocity - a principle that one jurisdiction will extend certain courtesies to other nations (or other jurisdictions within the same nation), particularly by recognizing the validity and effect of their executive, legislative and judicial acts. Applied to adjudication, the term refers to a concept that courts should not act in a way that demeans the jurisdiction laws or judicial decisions of another jurisdiction. Inherent in the presumption of comity is that other jurisdictions will reciprocate the courtesy shown to them. 72. In The Law Lexicon, 'comity' is explained to be not a rule of law but one of practice, convenience and expediency. It is something more than mere courtesy, which implies only deference to the opinion of others, since it has a substantial ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ving : ... The result of our going into these appeals before us on the merits would be either to confirm the judgment which has been pronounced by the High Court or to differ from it. If we did the former the appellants would be out of Court, if, however, perchance we came to the contrary conclusion and accepted the latter view, namely, that the High Court was wrong in not granting the applications of the appellants under section 66(2) of the Act there would be two contrary decisions, one by the High Court and the other by us and we would be in effect, though not by the proper procedure to be adopted by the appellants in that behalf, setting aside the judgment of the High Court. This is an eventuality which we cannot view with equanimity. It is contrary to all notions of comity of Courts and even though we are a Court which could in certain events set aside the overrule the decisions of the High Court concerned, we cannot bypass the normal procedure which is to be adopted for this purpose and achieve the result indirectly in the manner suggested by the appellants. We, therefore, think that in the circumstances here it would be inappropriate on our part to enter upon an adjudicati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... facts, the Tribunal or the High Court must defer consideration and suspend the adjudicatory process till conclusion of the appeal pending in the superior court, unless the superior court mandates interdiction of further proceedings. The doctrine merely connotes, in the municipal law context (as distinct from an International law circumstance), that conflict of judicial orders must be avoided and to that end courts must defer adjudication, to avoid conflict or obsolescence of a lawful order passed by an authorized Tribunal/Court. 79. In our considered view, extending the principle delineated in the several authorities referred to above, to the factual matrix presented before us, would lead to adjudicatory paralysis. In service Law litigation, for instance, the appropriate principles governing inter se seniority between direct recruits and promotees would be pending consideration in several courts across the Republic and quite often in the Supreme Court as well, involving idiosyncratic factual and legal matrices. Several nuances of the appropriate principles would fall for appellate or co-ordinate consideration, often in the context of specific statutory rules having a bearing on d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government having addressed the Central Government for guidelines or for advice, on 15-04-2011 (with reminders on 27-04-2011 and 10-05-2011); after stay of operation of the Yadav judgment by the Supreme Court, on 10-01-2011; and having received a direction from the MHA (on 09-05-2011), curiously proceeded with a self-generated and contrived process of selection for appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF). The State persuaded itself that not only the Yadav judgment, even the Prakash Singh directive issued by the Supreme Court, (under Article 32 r/w Art. 142) is of no consequence, has no binding efficacy and the State was liberated and immunized from the obligation of fidelity, both to the Yadav declaration of principle and the Prakash Singh directive. This is an extravagant conduct and process pursued by the State, despite the unambiguous Central Government's direction, to the contrary. How the direction by the Central Government was subverted : 85. As earlier stated we perused the record of the State leading to the process of selection and appointment of Dinesh Reddy as DGP (HoPF), including the note-file. The note-file clearly brings out how the Prakash Singh directive; the Ya ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive as well, the in-house "selection process" would be followed and the screening committee was summoned to session; ix) The meeting of the screening committee (designated - The Selection Committee) was scheduled on 29-06-2011; x) The Committee referred to the available six officers in the DGP rank; and eliminated Sri Balwinder Singh for active consideration (for the reason, he was to retire shortly). The Committee found the other five officers "fit" for empanelment Dinesh Reddy was the fifth candidate (and last in seniority among the five). It is thus clear that the 'Selection Committee' merely screened the officers for determining their fitness (except for eliminating Sri. Balwinder Singh on short tenure ground); xi) Eventually, following a Curzonesque 19 but speedier process, the issue reached the Hon'ble Chief Minister, who having perceived the best track record and commendable performance in various posts held, by the fifth (and junior-most) officer, ordered his appointment as DGP (HoPF). The four senior-most officers, found 'fit' by the screening/selection committee however failed to measure up to the 'exacting' standard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... P. State police service or the Sub-ordinate police service, the State could perhaps have ventured an argument, of the need to have a wide discretion (though not uncanalized), for administering the said post. 89. Since head of the State police force is a post in the rank and scale of DGP (HoPF), a cadre post in the IPS (a Central Service, governed by the field of legislation enumerated in Entry - 70 of the Union List); and the several conditions of service relating to this post are regulated by the All India Services Act, 1951 and the Rules made thereunder including the 2007, Rules, the State is per se authorized no role in the appointment to the post of DGP (HoPF). 90. The functions that the State may lawfully exercise in relation to an All India Service, are only those accommodated or conferred to a State under the 1951 Act and the relevant Rules made thereunder. 91. The contention by the State that since the appointment in question is to the head of the State police force, it must have an absolute discretion and unregulated freedom, is a contention that proceeds from a fundamental misconception of our Constitutional architecture. 92. The contention is misconceived and therefo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rly declared the principle that the Supreme Court's directive in Prakash Singh is operative notwithstanding the 2007 and 2008 Rules. (iii) The Yadav judgment insofar as the principles spelt out therein are concerned continue to operate proprio vigore; the ratio in Yadav that the Prakash Singh directive is in force and binds the State Government, is not eclipsed on account of stay of operation of this judgment, granted by the Supreme Court [on 10-01-2011 in S.L.P. (Civil) Nos. 34798 and 34799 of 2010]. (iv) Stay of operation of the Yadav judgment would not in any event, tantamount to suspension or eclipse of the Supreme Court judgment in Prakash Singh v. Union of India. The State has therefore no escape from unquestioned fidelity and ungrudging obedience to the mandate of the Prakash Singh directive. (v) The impugned judgment of the Tribunal (that the order of the State Government in G.O. Rt. No. 2861, General Administration (SC.C) Department, dated 30-06-2011, selecting and appointing Sri V. Dinesh Reddy as DGP in the Apex Scale of ₹ 80,000 (Fixed), is illegal and unsustainable), is valid and suffers from no infirmity warranting interference in judicial review, unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly disregarded and violated the specific, unambiguous and non-derogable directive of the Supreme Court in Prakash Singh v. Union of India; and on specious, artificial and extravagant grounds, we deem it appropriate to dismiss these writ petitions with costs of ₹ 5,000/- (five thousand only), payable by the appellant - the State of Andhra Pradesh (the petitioner in W.P. No. 19026 of 2012) to the Andhra Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The writ petitions are dismissed, with the directions specified above and with costs, as ordered. 19. Lord Curzon addressed a despatch to the Secretary of State, recording a scathing observation about the administration during his time. Krishna Iyer, J, reproduces the relevant observations in State of Kerala v. T.P. Roshana [ (1979) 1 SCC 572]. Said Lord Curzon in the despatch : Your despatch of August 5 arrived. It goes to Foreign Department. Thereupon Clerk 1 paraphrases and comments upon it over 41 folio pages of print of his own composition, dealing solely with the Khyber suggestions in it. Then comes Clerk 2 with 31 more pages upon Clerk 1. Then we get to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
