1 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD [CASE NUMBER] * [ENTITY] Son of Mr[CASE NUMBER] Gopalji Mehrotra, Age 44 years, Managing Director and President Ford India Private Ltd[CASE NUMBER] DLF Cyber City, Phase - II, Building No[CASE NUMBER] 10 C, 3rd Floor, Gurgaon - 122 002[CASE NUMBER] Applicant[CASE NUMBER] Versus 1) The [ENTITY] Through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai[CASE NUMBER] 2) The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] 3) The Police Station Officer, MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar[CASE NUMBER] 4) [ENTITY], Age 66 years, Member of Parliament, R/o Devendra Bungalow, Acharya Anand Rushiji Marg, Ahmednagar[CASE NUMBER] Respondents[CASE NUMBER] Shri[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Advocate, for applicant[CASE NUMBER] Shri[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos[CASE NUMBER]1 to 3[CASE NUMBER] Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 Downloaded on - 04/07/2018 00:47:32 2 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 Shri[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Senior Counsel instructed by Shri [ENTITY], Advocate, for respondent no[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER] With [CASE NUMBER] * [ENTITY], Age Major, Occupation : Chartered Accountant R/o 12/13, Moti Mahal, Maheshnagar, Near RTO Office, Ahmednagar[CASE NUMBER] Applicant[CASE NUMBER] Versus 1) The [ENTITY] Through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai[CASE NUMBER] 2) The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] 3) The Police Station[CASE NUMBER] MIDC Ahmednagar[CASE NUMBER] 4) [ENTITY], Age Major, Occu: Member of Parliament, R/o Devendra Bungalow, Acharya Anand Rushiji Marg, Ahmednagar[CASE NUMBER] Respondents[CASE NUMBER] Shri[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Advocate, holding for [ENTITY], Advocate, for applicant[CASE NUMBER] Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 Downloaded on - 04/07/2018 00:47:32 3 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 Shri[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos[CASE NUMBER]1 to 3[CASE NUMBER] Shri[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Senior Counsel instructed by Shri [ENTITY], Advocate, for respondent No[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER] With [CASE NUMBER] * [ENTITY], Age 60 years Occupation : Nil, R/o 12/13, Moti Mahal, Maheshnagar, Near RTO Office,Ahmednagar[CASE NUMBER] Applicant[CASE NUMBER] Versus 1) The [ENTITY] Through the Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai[CASE NUMBER] 2) The [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] 3) The Police Station[CASE NUMBER] MIDC Ahmednagar[CASE NUMBER] 4) [ENTITY], Age Major, Occu: Member of Parliament, R/o Devendra Bungalow, Acharya Anand Rushiji Marg, Ahmednagar[CASE NUMBER] Respondents[CASE NUMBER] Uploaded on - 03/07/2018 Downloaded on - 04/07/2018 00:47:32 4 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 Shri[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Advocate, for applicant[CASE NUMBER] Shri[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Additional Public Prosecutor, for respondent Nos[CASE NUMBER]1 to 3[CASE NUMBER] Shri[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY], Senior Counsel instructed by Shri [ENTITY], Advocate, for respondent No[CASE NUMBER]4[CASE NUMBER] Coram: [ENTITY] & [ENTITY], JJ[CASE NUMBER] Date: 27 JUNE 2018 JUDGMENT (Per [ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER]):
1) [SECTION] made returnable forthwith[CASE NUMBER] By consent, heard all the sides for final disposal[CASE NUMBER]
2) All the three proceedings are filed under [SECTION] of the [ACT] for relief of quashing of [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] registered with MIDC Police Station, Ahmednagar for offences punishable under [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION], [SECTION] of the [ACT][CASE NUMBER] The crime is registered on the basis of report given by respondent No[CASE NUMBER]4 - [ENTITY], who is a sitting Member of Parliament[CASE NUMBER]
5 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018
3) In the F[CASE NUMBER]I[CASE NUMBER]R[CASE NUMBER] allegations are made by the first informant that he is fond of using four wheeler like Ford Endeavour[CASE NUMBER] It is his contention that he had friendly relations with owners of [ENTITY] Wheels Private Limited viz[CASE NUMBER] Bihani family and he had already purchased one Ford vehicle from this Dealer[CASE NUMBER] He was also using the services given by this Dealer for four wheelers[CASE NUMBER]
4) It is the contention of the first informant that on 24-12-2014 he and his son visited the office of the aforesaid Dealer and there, persons like [ENTITY], [ENTITY], [ENTITY] and the employees of the Dealer were present[CASE NUMBER] In the F[CASE NUMBER]I[CASE NUMBER]R[CASE NUMBER] name of one accused is mentioned as [ENTITY] but it is informed that his correct name is [ENTITY] and he has filed proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]994/2018[CASE NUMBER] It is the contention of the first informant that all the aforesaid persons made representation to him in respect of new Ford Endeavour vehicle of which they were Dealer and they gave information about the features of the vehicle[CASE NUMBER] It is his contention that they insisted that the first informant needs to purchase such Ford Endeavour vehicle and the 6 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 vehicle was having price of Rs[CASE NUMBER]24,87,750/- as on road price of the vehicle[CASE NUMBER]
5) It is the case of the first informant that he was already using one Ford Endeavour model but it was old and so he felt that the features of new vehicle told by the accused persons were attractive[CASE NUMBER] He agreed to pay the aforesaid amount for purchasing Ford Endeavour and, according to him, on that date he gave Rs[CASE NUMBER] one lakh by cheque drawn on one bank[CASE NUMBER] It is his contention that he made loan proposal to Union Bank of India, Branch Chitale Road of Rs[CASE NUMBER]23,87,750 and after getting sanction of that amount from his account of loan, he made payment of Rs[CASE NUMBER]20 lakh to aforesaid Dealer and he gave cash amount of Rs[CASE NUMBER]3,87,750/-[CASE NUMBER] According to him, cash amount was paid as representation was made that R[CASE NUMBER]T[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER] tax was to be paid and some amount was required for sundry expenses[CASE NUMBER] It is the contention of the first informant that after completing formalities of registration, the vehicle was handed over to him on 30-3-2015 and the vehicle was given No[CASE NUMBER]MH-16- BL-2121[CASE NUMBER] In the registration record year of manufacture was mentioned as 1/2015[CASE NUMBER]
7 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018
6) It is the case of the first informant that when he started using the vehicle he had no feeling that it was a brand new vehicle[CASE NUMBER] It is his contention that performance of the vehicle was also not good and he was required to take the vehicle for repairs frequently[CASE NUMBER] According to him, he decided to take the vehicle to a big show room for check up and so he took it to Talera Ford, Wagholi Pune[CASE NUMBER] According to him, one [ENTITY] was working as mechanic and while doing repair work [ENTITY] disclosed that the vehicle was of Model 2012[CASE NUMBER] It is the contention of the first informant that he realised only on that date that he was deceived and the model of the year 2012 was sold to him by representing that it was model of the year 2015[CASE NUMBER] It is the contention of the first informant that he also realised that the vehicle had running of 80 to 90 thousand kilometers[CASE NUMBER] He realised that there were suspicious circumstances with regard to the initial ownership and the registration[CASE NUMBER]
7) It is the contention of the first informant that after getting information of the aforesaid things he contacted the accused persons and asked explanation but 8 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 they gave evasive answers[CASE NUMBER] It is his contention that he then made correspondence with the company office situated at Chennai, Tamil Nadu and also the R[CASE NUMBER]T[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER] office and he realised that the model of the year 2012 was sold to him by representing that it was the model of 2015 and it was old vehicle[CASE NUMBER] According to the first informant to deceive him, some false record was prepared by the accused persons and that was used for registration of the vehicle[CASE NUMBER] It is his contention that he was required to pay Rs[CASE NUMBER]24,87,750/- under the transaction and he paid such amount only due to false representation made by the accused persons[CASE NUMBER]
8) It is not disputed that the applicant [ENTITY] from proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]1004/2018 is the Director of the aforesaid private company[CASE NUMBER] The applicant from proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]994/2018, [ENTITY] is son of [ENTITY][CASE NUMBER] It was submitted by his counsel that he is Chartered Accountant and he has no connection with the aforesaid company[CASE NUMBER] The applicant from proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]951/2018 is the Managing Director and President of the company, Ford India Private Limited and it his contention that he [CASE NUMBER] has no concern with the transaction which took place between the first informant and the aforesaid dealer company[CASE NUMBER] Argument was advanced for the applicant on one more circumstance that order of investigation is made by this Court in a proceeding like [CASE NUMBER] which was filed for direction by some of the accused persons as police were avoiding to make investigation into the allegation of accused that the first informant was a politician and his men were harassing the dealer and they were virtually extracting money as ransom from them[CASE NUMBER] Investigation of that crime is to be made by C[CASE NUMBER]I[CASE NUMBER]D[CASE NUMBER] as per the order made by this Court[CASE NUMBER] The said order was made on 23-2-2018 and the present F[CASE NUMBER]I[CASE NUMBER]R[CASE NUMBER] came to be given on 4-3-2018[CASE NUMBER] This Court is avoiding to discuss the material which was produced before this Court in [CASE NUMBER] as the material of the present case needs to be considered separately to ascertain as to whether there is substance in the allegations made by the first informant of the present matter or whether the allegations do not constitute any offence[CASE NUMBER] Only after that as an additional circumstance, the aforesaid direction given by this Court 10 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 in [CASE NUMBER] can be considered in the matter like the present one[CASE NUMBER] The inference can be drawn on the basis of material available as to whether allegations are false or there is some substance in the allegations[CASE NUMBER]
9) The applicant of [CASE NUMBER] is admittedly the Managing Director and President of Ford India Private Limited[CASE NUMBER] His counsel took this Court through various clauses of dealership agreement[CASE NUMBER] The agreement was made in the year 2011[CASE NUMBER] Part of the agreement having title as "Dealer Sales and Service Agreement Standard Provisions" and particularly clause 2(b) runs as under :-
" 2[CASE NUMBER] Responsibility with respect to Company Products[CASE NUMBER]
(b) Orders: To enable the Company to schedule production efficiently, the Dealer shall furnish to the Company each month, on the date or dates and in the manner designated by the Company, an order or orders for Company Products that the Dealer will purchase during such subsequent months as shall be designated by the Company and in connection therewith, or separately, as requested by the Company, estimates of the Dealer's requirements for Company Products for such succeeding months as the Company from time to time may request[CASE NUMBER]
Each order shall indicate the quantity, models, 11 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 specifications and desired time of shipment of Company Products, and each Company Vehicle order shall include any optional equipment available from the Company which may be required under applicable motor vehicle laws and regulations of the state or national government or in the Dealer's Locality and, as the case may be, to permit the importation and sale of Company Vehicles therein[CASE NUMBER] Each such order or estimate also shall be placed in accordance with the requirements fixed from time to time by the Company as to the minimum number of Company Products that may be ordered at any one time by the Dealer[CASE NUMBER]"
The learned counsel for the applicant of this proceeding submitted that under the aforesaid clause the Dealer was required to purchase vehicle from the manufacturer and then he had the absolute power to sell the vehicle to any customer and for all subsequent transactions made by the Dealer in respect of such vehicle the Company cannot be held responsible[CASE NUMBER] There is force in this submission in view of the wording of the aforesaid clause[CASE NUMBER] As per the trade practice also when a customer purchases a vehicle from a Dealer, that transaction is between the Dealer and the customer[CASE NUMBER] Whenever there is dispute about amount taken etc[CASE NUMBER] by the Dealer or the dispute of the present nature like the Dealer has deceived the customer, the Company cannot be roped in as an accused or defendant in that 12 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 matter[CASE NUMBER] Only when the manufacturer is liable due to some manufacturing defect in the vehicle action can be taken against the manufacturer[CASE NUMBER] Similarly when there is false representation in the advertisement of the Company (manufacturer) or in the broacher of the manufacturer, action is possible against the manufacturer[CASE NUMBER]
10) The learned Senior Counsel for the first informant-respondent submitted that there are other clauses in dealership agreement and they show that without the permission of the Ford Company it was not possible for the Dealer to sell used vehicles[CASE NUMBER] It is true that under clause 4(b) of the same part, without written consent of the company the dealer cannot deal in used vehicles[CASE NUMBER] Even if this clause is read as it is that cannot help the first informant or the prosecution in future[CASE NUMBER] It is not the case of the first informant and it does not appear from the papers of investigation that such consent was obtained from the Company by the Dealer[CASE NUMBER] There is record to show that such consent was not obtained and behind the back of the Manufacturer, the transaction in question was made[CASE NUMBER] The Court is expected to go with presumption [CASE NUMBER] that the things happened in usual course of business, as per trade practice also and that needs to be done by Court as provided in [SECTION] of [ACT][CASE NUMBER]
11) The record is produced to show that on 17-9- 2013 present Dealer had purchased the vehicle involved in the present matter from Sequel Motors Pvt[CASE NUMBER] Ltd[CASE NUMBER] Nagpur, a Ford Dealer[CASE NUMBER] On the date of the sale its price was shown as Rs[CASE NUMBER]14,58,860/- and some amount was charged as VAT and as destination charges[CASE NUMBER] This record is not disputed by the applicants from proceeding [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] This record further shows that the value of the vehicle of 2012 Model was not Rs[CASE NUMBER]20,54,667/-[CASE NUMBER] The brochure of Model 2014 shows that the model of 2014 was having basic price of Rs[CASE NUMBER]20,54,667[CASE NUMBER] In the proforma invoice supplied to the first informant the show room price of the vehicle sold is shown as Rs[CASE NUMBER]20,86,415/-[CASE NUMBER] Amount of Rs[CASE NUMBER]29,651/- is shown as amount of extended warranty and the amount of R[CASE NUMBER]T[CASE NUMBER]O[CASE NUMBER] tax is shown as Rs[CASE NUMBER]2,71,233/-[CASE NUMBER] Thus, the model of the year 2012 of which apparently value was not fixed by the Company as Rs[CASE NUMBER]20 lakh and when it was much below Rs[CASE NUMBER]20 lakh, the 14 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 Dealer showed the price of Model 2014[CASE NUMBER] All these things were done by the Dealer, applicants from other two proceedings and not by the applicant of proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]951/2018[CASE NUMBER]
12) It was submitted for the applicants that the first informant had taken the papers from the Dealer for registration and the Dealer had not informed that it was 2015 Model[CASE NUMBER] On this point, the learned Senior Counsel for the first informant took this Court through Form No[CASE NUMBER]20 prepared under [SECTION] of the [ACT][CASE NUMBER] This rule shows that it is the responsibility of the Dealer to see that before handing over the vehicle to the purchaser, the vehicle is duly registered[CASE NUMBER] Admittedly the vehicle was registered as 2015 Model[CASE NUMBER] Information was supplied that, the model was of the year 2015 and the tax was collected from that year for the period of 15 years[CASE NUMBER] This record, the provision of law and the papers of investigation show that information was supplied by [ENTITY] Wheels Pvt[CASE NUMBER] Ltd[CASE NUMBER], the Dealer to the RTO office that the model was of the year 2015[CASE NUMBER] Specific date was informed like 10-1-2015 as the date of manufacture[CASE NUMBER] The 15 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 colour mentioned in the information was also different than the colour which was there when the vehicle was collected by this Dealer from the Nagpur Dealer[CASE NUMBER] Thus, the colour was also changed before selling the vehicle to present first informant[CASE NUMBER] Actually, the vehicle was manufactured on 8-8-2012 as per the record[CASE NUMBER] The papers of investigation contain the correspondence made by the RTO office with Ford Company and it also shows that it was of model of 2012 and it was sold by the manufacturer to the aforesaid Dealer from Nagpur and not to [ENTITY] Dealer, Ahmednagar[CASE NUMBER] These circumstances are supporting the contentions of the first informant that [ENTITY] Dealer, its Directors, owners made false representation to him, they created false record to show that it was the model of 2015 and that was done to get more amount from the first informant[CASE NUMBER] As per the record [ENTITY] Dealer did get more amount from the first informant than the Company price and that could happen due to the aforesaid record created and used by [ENTITY] Dealer[CASE NUMBER] This record is sufficient to show that there is substance in the allegations made by the first informant against the Dealer[CASE NUMBER] The allegations are directly against the applicant of Criminal Application 16 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 No[CASE NUMBER]1004/2018 and the the applicant from proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]994/2018[CASE NUMBER] In addition to that, there is record showed to the Court to show that the applicant of Proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]994/2018 was actually participating in the business of [ENTITY] Wheels Private Limited[CASE NUMBER] It was submitted for the applicant from proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]994/2018 that he is a Chartered Accountant and so he was not expected to do the business and so the allegations made against him cannot be accepted[CASE NUMBER] This submission is not acceptable[CASE NUMBER] It is true that persons involved in the profession like Chartered Accountant are not expected to do the other business but that does not mean that the Court should go with the presumption that the present applicant is not doing other business[CASE NUMBER] In the present matter there are specific allegations against the applicant of Proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]994/2018 that he made false representation and further there is record including many photographs to show his participation in the said business[CASE NUMBER]
13) Some record was shown to this Court in respect of the applicant-[ENTITY] from proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]1004 of 2018 and it was submitted that [ENTITY] was virtually 17 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 paralyzed and so it cannot be presumed that he was active in the business[CASE NUMBER] This Court has carefully gone through the record but on facts it is not possible to infer that [ENTITY] was bed-ridden[CASE NUMBER] The medical papers show that for short time he was sick but he had recovered[CASE NUMBER] Admittedly he is Director of the company and there are specific allegations against him that he made false representation and induced the first informant to purchase the vehicle[CASE NUMBER]
14) The record collected by police and the submissions made show that on the date when the vehicle was handed over to the first informant, it had running of more than 40,000 kilometers though it is the case of the first informant that there was running of more than 80,000 kilometers[CASE NUMBER] The independent record shows that it had running of more than 40,000 kilometers when the vehicle was handed over[CASE NUMBER] It was submitted that vehicle was handed over 2-3 months prior to registration[CASE NUMBER] The running of 40,000 kilometers is of that date[CASE NUMBER] That record is sufficient to show that it was a used vehicle and it was being used from the year 2012[CASE NUMBER] More observations can be 18 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 made with regard to the illegal manner in which it was used[CASE NUMBER] Unfortunately other material is not collected by police to ascertain as to how for such long period the vehicle was used without getting proper registration[CASE NUMBER] Ordinarily only for a short period such vehicles are used on temporary registration and they are required to be sold and after that the other vehicles are used for giving the Demo to the customers[CASE NUMBER] In any case, it cannot be said in the present matter that new model of 2014 or 2015 model was sold by [ENTITY] Dealer to the first informant[CASE NUMBER] Considering the price which was taken from the first informant and the allegations and the other record, this Court holds that it is not possible to give relief in favour of the applicants from proceeding [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER]
15) Allegations made as against the applicant from Proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]951/2018 are of different nature[CASE NUMBER] It was submitted for the first informant that when the Minister of Public Enterprises, Government of India, had contacted the Company to inform the grievance of the first informant, who is a sitting Member of Parliament, the 1[CASE NUMBER] Company had informed that there was nothing wrong in the transaction and so it can be said that the applicant from the Proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]951/2018 had also joined hands with the owners of [ENTITY] Dealer[CASE NUMBER] This submission is not at all acceptable[CASE NUMBER] First the vehicle was purchased by Nagpur Dealer and then the vehicle was purchased by [ENTITY] Dealer from Nagpur Dealer and the Company had no control over those transactions[CASE NUMBER] Similarly the Company had no control over the representations made by [ENTITY] Dealer with the first informant and it cannot be said that false representations were made by the Company that it was 2015 model[CASE NUMBER] The offence of cheating is completed when on the basis of false representation, consideration passes[CASE NUMBER] Before coming into picture of applicant from proceeding 951/2018, offence was complete and support or explanation given for [ENTITY] by the manufacturer after the offence cannot be called as the act of abating the crime of cheating or any offence creating false record[CASE NUMBER] This Court has no hesitation to hold that relief needs to be granted in favour of the applicant from [CASE NUMBER][CASE NUMBER] On the basis of the allegations made against this applicant and the aforesaid material, it 20 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 is not possible to even frame charge against this applicant and nothing can be achieved by asking him to face trial for the aforesaid offences[CASE NUMBER]
16) Both the sides placed reliance on some reported cases in the present matter[CASE NUMBER] Learned Senior Counsel for the first informant placed reliance on the cases reported as :
(1) [PRECEDENT] (In re [PRECEDENT] ([PRECEDENT] ([PRECEDENT] ([PRECEDENT] ([PRECEDENT] (Mosiruddin Munshi v[CASE NUMBER] Mohd[CASE NUMBER]
Siraj)
21 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018
17) The learned counsel Shri[CASE NUMBER] [ENTITY] for the applicant from [CASE NUMBER] has placed reliance on the case reported as [PRECEDENT] [CASE NUMBER]
18) The Apex Court has discussed the law developed on the power of this Court under [SECTION] of the [ACT] and [SECTION] of the [ACT] with regard to the proceedings like the present one[CASE NUMBER] In all these cases cited by both the sides, the Apex Court has laid down that when there are allegations which constitute cognizable offence, at initial stage it is never desirable to quash the F[CASE NUMBER]I[CASE NUMBER]R[CASE NUMBER] For giving such relief, there should be the circumstances as mentioned in the case of [ENTITY] (cited supra)[CASE NUMBER] It is also made clear that the Court needs to keep in mind the statutory power given to police of investigation into cognizable offences and ordinarily the Court needs to avoid interference into the investigation at the initial stage[CASE NUMBER] Submissions were made that not only in the present matter but in other matters it is noticed that [ENTITY] Dealer was involved in creation of false record and 22 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018 complaints of cheating are filed against it by other persons[CASE NUMBER] In such cases only after thorough investigation more material can be collected and more offences can be detected[CASE NUMBER] Such offences involve fraud against Government also as it is noticed that taxes like VAT or taxes to the local body are not paid when such transactions are made by the Dealer[CASE NUMBER] There is power with the investigating agency to make investigation on that line also[CASE NUMBER] Thus this is not a fit case to grant relief in favour of the persons who were doing business of dealership like the applicants from [CASE NUMBER] but the relief can be granted in favour of applicant from Proceeding No[CASE NUMBER]951/2018[CASE NUMBER] In the result, following order[CASE NUMBER]
19) [CASE NUMBER] is allowed[CASE NUMBER] Relief is granted in terms of prayer clause (B)[CASE NUMBER] Rule is made absolute in those terms[CASE NUMBER]
20) [CASE NUMBER] are dismissed[CASE NUMBER] Rule discharged in these two proceedings[CASE NUMBER] Interim relief stands vacated[CASE NUMBER]
23 Applications 951, 994 & 1004/2018
21) Learned counsels for the applicants whose proceedings are dismissed requested for continuation of interim relief[CASE NUMBER] The request is rejected[CASE NUMBER]
Sd/- Sd/- ([ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER]) ([ENTITY], J[CASE NUMBER]) rsl