AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The Madras Citizens Progressive Council represented by its Secretary has moved this writ petition in the nature of vox populi. The Council has
made a grievance that the 4th respondent has been holding land in excess of the Ceiling area prescribed under the Tamil Nadu Urban Land
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the 1st and 2nd Respondents have not discharged their legal obligation
of such excess land. The petitioner has stated that the 4th respondent applied for exemption under the Act in the name of construction of additional
quarters for labourers, extension of the existing elementary school, construction of a community hall-workers samudaya Nala Kudam, construction
of godown for storing cotton bales and starting a weaving unit and a bleaching plant. Although the 4th respondent had no satisfactory explanations
to many of the objections to the request for exemption, the second respondent on 2-7-1986 conveyed to the 4th respondent that exemption was
granted subject to the condition that it would make the construction of additional labour quarters etc. within a period of one year. It is stated in the
affidavit filed in support of the petition :
I humbly submit the 4th respondent made categorical representation to the authorities to exempt the excess land from the operation of Urban
Land Ceiling Act situated within the City of Madurai for a period of one year and on the basis of the representation of the 4th respondent
authorities noted upon and the 4th respondent enjoyed the benefit of exemption from the operation of Urban Land Ceiling Act for a period of one
year due to his representation that within that period, he would make arrangement for construction stated earlier-
I humbly submit that the 4th respondent availed the benefit of the order passed by respondents 2 and 3 in respect of the excess land owned by the
company within the Madurai City Limits.
Admittedly, the 4th respondent had not taken any semblance of attempt to put up any construction or for getting the licence and needless to say the
4th respondent''s plea of construction etc., was only a ruse to adjourn the dooms-day-day of taking over by the Government the excess urban land
situate within the City of Madurai.
According to the petitioner, the 4th respondent once again managed to obtain a recommendation from the 3rd respondent as well as the second
respondent for exemption for a period of two years commencing from 29-8-1988. It is alleged that the 4th respondent has been making such
application stating wrongly that it had intentions to construct the quarters for the labourers, godown for storing cotton bales or establishing a
bleaching plant etc. The respondents, according to the petitioner, have not been discharging their legal obligations and thus the public interest is put
to jeopardy by them.
There are several other allegations in the petition. The main or the moot question, however, raised by the petitioner is based on the allegation
that the 4th respondent has got absolutely no claim to seek exemption, that respondents 1 to 3 have not cared to test the genuineness of the claims
of the 4th respondent and that although once exemption was granted on condition, aforesaid, and the condition has not been complied with by the
4th respondent, yet respondents 1 to 3 have taken no steps to acquire the excess lands in its hands.
Two affidavits, one described as counter-affidavit, and the other as additional counter-affidavit have been filed on behalf of the 4th respondent.
A counter-affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the 6th respondent. In the counter-affidavit, the 4th respondent has stated that when it applied
for exemption in respect of the excess land vide G.O. Ms. No. 1625, Revenue Department dated 29-9-1988, the first respondent granted
exemption subject to certain conditions. The conditions, inter alia, included an embargo on transfer of the said lands by way of sale, gift etc., and
also stipulated that the exempted lands should be fully utilised for the specified purposes within a period of two years from the date of grant of
exemption. Due to certain exigencies and also due to paucity of sufficient funds, the company could not immediately implement the project for
which exemption was sought. It could not, however, implement the project for which the exemption was sought and accordingly it applied for
extension of time for fulfilling the same. In the additional counter-affidavit, however, it is stated that the 4th respondent has got 6,24,035 square
metres of vacant land, whereas the 4th respondent is entitled to exemption of 6,53,590 square metres as per the circular of the State Government.
According to this affidavit, the Government order has not granted any special or extra textile mills seeking exemption arc allowed according to the
norms. Hence, there is no scope whatsoever for impugning the exemption order or any ground of discrimination, favouritism or subversion of the
provisions or purpose of the Act. In this affidavit, it is also stated that out of its total holding of 161.5 acres, only 46.58 acres arc within the city
limits of Madurai, the remaining lands heing situated outside the city limits, though within Madurai agglomeration. Denying a specific allegation, it is
stated :
The allegations regarding location of the factory and of the Company''s lands in the three villages, are totally incorrect. The company has two mills,
one at village Madakulam and the other at village paravai. A topo sketch of the company''s lands in the three villages will be produced whenever
required to show that the allegations are incorrect. The application for exemption was not for the purpose of constructing any new factory or mill,
but only for the purposes of the existing mills, one at Madakulam and the other at Paravai and there is no question of applying for industrial licences
for manufacturing cotton yarn and cloth at either of the two places, it is unfortunate that the petitioner has ventured to make incorrect and
misleading statements to prejudice the Court without ascertaining the true fads,
The most relevant statement of fact, is, however, available in these words :
In this writ petition impugning the validity of the exemption G.O., no question as to the violation of conditions prescribed in the G.O. can be
alleged or investigated. What is more is, the statute itself in Section 21(2) provides for the consequences of a failure to comply with the prescribed
conditions and the G.O. also provides for the same. Already proceedings have been initiated by the 1 st respondent in terms of the above
provisions and the said proceedings are pending and will take their own course, and the resultant dispute, if any may well form the subject-matter
of adjudication by this Honourable Court, or other appropriate forum in appropriate proceedings. Wherefore, this respondent is anxious that any
thing said or done in this writ petition does not cause a prejudice to this respondent s case in the proceedings pending with the 1st respondent. For
the purpose of this writ petition, this respondent submits that the statutory return and the application lor exemption made in 1977 was in pursuance
of the provisions of erstwhile Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, President''s Act No. 34/76, the application for
exemption having been made in terms of Section 20(1)(a) and (b) which provisions were in terms identical to Section 21(1)(a) and (b) of the
enactment of 1978 which repealed and replaced it. On the 1978 enactment corning into force retrospectively, the Company''s application made u/s
20 of the repealed Act was treated as an application for exemption only u/s 21(1)(a). The exemption G.O. clearly shows that company''s
application was for purposes connected with manufacturing cotton yarn and cloth vide paragraph 1 of the G.O. The gram of exemption in para 3
specifically states that the exemption is granted ''for the purpose of manufacturing cotton yarn and cloth'' and also refers to ''the specified purpose''.
This respondent, therefore, begs to submit that apart from utilising the exempted vacant land for the specified industrial purpose namely for the
purpose of manufacturing cotton yarn and cloth, no other specific purpose can be spelt out to the G.O. granting exemption. In this view also it is
not open to the petitioner to introduce into this litigation allegations as to non-fulfilment of any purpose other than what is prescribed in the G.O.
itself and as the allegation in paras 50 to 52 arc merely repetitive, it is not necessary to retraverse them.
I have taken notice of the relevant facts only to assure myself that in a proceeding of this nature, this Court could take a practical view and
approach the problem with the object of the law in view and no other purpose. I have refrained from making reference to many statement of facts
in the affidavit and further facts which have been revealed in the course of hearing of this petition to avoid any prejudice that may be caused to the
case of the 4th respondent which according to it is pending adjudication before the appropriate authority as well as to avoid any embarrassment to
the interests of the public which have been highlighted by the writ petition. What then is the scope of a proceeding of this kind?
The Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 fixed a ceiling on vacant land and envisaged a procedure of filing statement by
the person holding vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit, preparation of draft statement and final statement as regard vacant land held in excess
of the ceiling limit and acquisition of vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit. Section 11 of the Act states :--
Acquisition of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit: (1) As soon as may be after the service of the final statement u/s 10 on the person
concerned, the competent authority shall cause a notification giving the particulars of the vacant land held by such person in excess of the ceiling
limit and stating that :--
(i) such vacant land is to be a acquired by the State Government; and
(ii) the claims of all persons interested in such vacant land may be made by them personally or by their agents giving particulars of the nature of
their interests in such land to be published for the information of the general public in the Tamil Nadu Government Gazette, and in such other
manner as may be prescribed.
(2) After considering the claims of the persons interested in the vacant land made to the competent authority in pursuance of the notification
published under sub-section (1), the competent authority shall determine the nature and extent of such claims and pass such orders as it deems fit.
(3) At anytime after the publication of the notification under sub-section (1), the competent authority may, by notification in the Tamil Nadu
Government Gazette declare that the excess vacant land referred to in the notification published under sub-section (1) shall, with effect from such
date as may be specified in the declaration, be deemed to have been acquired by the State Government and upon the publication of such
declaration, such land shall be deemed to have vested absolutely in the State Government free from all encumbrances with effect from the date so
specified .....
Besides the other provisions with which I am not concerned, there is a provision in Section 21 of the Act which reads :
Power to exempt : (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any of the foregoing provisions of this Chapter :--
(a) Where any person holds vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and the State Government is satisfied, either on its own motion or otherwise,
that, having regard to the location of such land, the purpose for which such land is being or is proposed to be used and such other relevant facts as
the circumstances of the case may require, it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do, the State Government may, by order, exempt
whether prospectively or retrospectively and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, such vacant land from the
provisions of this Chapter :
(b) Where any person holds vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and the State Government either on its own motion or otherwise, is satisfied
that the application of the provisions of this Chapter would cause undue hardship to such person, the State Government may by order exempt,
whether prospectively or retrospectively and subject to such conditions if any, as may be specified in the order, such vacant land from the
provisions of this Chapter :
Provided that no order under this clause shall be made unless the reasons for doing so are recorded in writing.
(c) Where any person holds vacant land in excess of the ceiling limit and where in respect of such excess land the State Government or the Central
Government or any company or corporation owned by controlled by the Central or State Government or any educational or medical institution has
entered into an agreement before the commencement of this Act for sale of such excess vacant land or part thereof and the State Government
either on its own motion or otherwise is satisfied that such agreement is for the benefit of the State Government or the Central Government or such
company or corporation or institution as the case may be, and that the transaction is bona fide, the State Government may, by order, subject to
such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order, exempt whether prospectively or retrospectively the vacant land or part thereof as the
case may be, from the provisions of this Chapter.
(2) If at any time the State Government is satisfied that any of the conditions subject to which any exemption under clause (a), clause (b) or clause
(c) of sub-section (1) is granted is not complied with by any person, it shall he competent for the State Government to withdraw, by order, such
exemption after giving a reasonable opportunity to such person for making a representation against the proposed withdrawal and thereupon all the
provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly.
It is under this power or jurisdiction that the 4th respondent applied for exemption. It is said that the State Government granted the exemption to
the 4th respondent on certain conditions to be complied with, within a period of two years, which conditions admittedly have not been complied
with by the 4th respondent. It is for that reason, according to the 4th respondent itself, that the State Government has taken recourse to subsection
(2) of Section 21 of the Act and a notice has been issued calling upon it to show cause why the exemption be not withdrawn.
The Government''s order granting exemption is on record. The exemption order reads :--
GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU
ABSTRACT.
Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 -- Madurai Urban Agglomeration -- Excess vacant lands held by Tvl. Srce
Meenakshi Mills, Madurai --Application for exemption u/s 21(1)(a) -- Orders passed.
Revenue Department.
G.O.Ms. No. 1625 dated 29-8-1988. Reads :--
From the Director of Handloom and Textiles, Madras, Letter No. 35725/82B.2 dated 2-7-1986.
From the Special Commissioner and Commissioner for Land Reforms, Madras Lr. No. R. Dis. H, 3 17912/88 dated 3-10-86.
ORDER :--
Messrs. Sree Meenakashi Mills Limited, Madurai which is engaged in manufacturing cotton yarn and cloth held lands in S. Nos.40/1, 4186, 42 pt.
etc. of Thirupparan-kundram, Paravai and Madakulam villages in Madurai, Urban Agglomeration have applied to the Government to exempt the
excess vacant land held by them from the provisions of Chapter III of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Tamil
Nadu Act 24 of 1978) for purposes connected with manufacturing cotton yarn and cloth.
The extent of excess vacant land held by the applicant company works out to 6,24,035 sq. mts. as indicated below:--
(i) Total extent of lands held 7,80,702
(a) Extent of agricultural land 5,998
(ii)Extent of urban land held 7,74,704
(b) Built up area 72,319
(c) Building regulation 65,000
contiguous area 9,500
(d) Pathway 850
(e) Total extent of non-vacant
land 1,47,669
(iii)Extent of vacant urban
land 6,27,035
(f) Extent of vacant urban land
eligible to be retained under
Section 5(1) in Urban Agglo-
meration as a person indus-
trial undertaking :--
(iv) Total extent of vacant
urban land 6,24,035.
The Government have carefully examined the application for exemption with connected records. Having regard to the location of the said land,
the purpose for which such land is being used and/or proposed to be used and such other relevant factors, the Government are satisfied that it is
necessary in the public interest to exempt the excess vacant land measuring 6,24,035 sq. mts. only held by the applicant company from the
provisions of Chapter III of the said Act for the purpose of manufacturing cotton yarn and u/s 21(1)(a) of the said Act, the Government hereby
exempt the said excess vacant land of sq. mets. in S. No. 40/1 etc., of Thirupparan-kundram, Madakulam and Paravai villages from the provisions
of the Chapter III of the said Act for the specified purpose.
The exemption granted in paragraph 3 above is subject to the following conditions namely :--
(a) The land exempted should be fully utilised for the specified industrial purposes only within a period of two years from the date of grant of
exemption.
(b) The land exempted should not be transferred by way of sale, gift, mortgage, lease or otherwise.
(c) The Company may raise a loan from any banking or other financial institution by mortgaging without possession (of) the land exempted.
(d) The land which the company is entitled to hold as per the provision of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978 (Tamil
Nadu Act 24 of 1978) should not be sold. In the event of the company being subjected to financial or other strains and the sale of such entitled
land alone could relieve it of such strains the company should surrender the exempted land in lieu of due compensation before selling such land.
(e) The Company should intimate to the Government through the Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms, Madras 5, the
progress of the works once in six months without fail.
(f) In case it is discovered at a later datethat the present exemption was granted by the Government either on mistake of facts or due to
suppression of some facts, the exemption granted shall be withdrawn forthwith.
(g) In case, the company violates any of the above conditions, the Government will withdraw the exemption in exercise of the powers conferred
under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the said Act, and no compensation shall be payable to the company in respect of any building or structure
constructed or erected or other improvement effected on such land.
(h) If on the date of issue of this order, the company is not holding the entire extent of urban land referred to in para 2 above or the purpose for
which the exemption was originally sought for by the company ceased to exist, it will be construed as violation of the conditions of grant of
exemption and as such liable for cancellation under condition (g) referred to above.
(5) The Special Commissioner and Commissioner of Land Reforms is also.requested to watch the progress of the works and send a verification
report on the progress report submitted by the grantee, to Government once within six months positively.
(By Order of the Governor)
Sd. R. Kirubhakaran,
Commissoner and Secretary to the
Government"".
To understand as to what the condition ""the land exempted should be fully utilised for the specified industrial purposes only within a period of
two years from the date of grant of exemption"" means, one may have to refer back to the application of the fourth respondent for exemption. The
application of the fourth respondent dated 21st February, 1977 is on record. In this application is stated :
We propose to construct additional buildings for housing the following :--
Separate Mill Stores for our weaving unit.
Additional godown for our weaving unit.
Meeting hall.
New rest shed for workers.
Extension of canteen.
Playground for staff.
Recreation club for staff.
Staff rest room.
Additional latrine for workers.
Wells and pump rooms.
Expansion of our High School.
Expansion of our Elementary School.
The State Government''s power u/s 21 of the Act is sufficiently circumscribed and it is possible to project as to what may be deemed to be
necessary or expedient in the public interest with reference to the purpose for which exemption is asked for and granted. Section 21(1)(a) under
which admittedly the exemption was granted to the 4th respondent states that before granting exemption, the State Government has to be satisfied
having regard to the location of such land, the purpose for which such land is being used or is proposed to be used and such other relevant factors
as the circumstances of the case may require that it is necessary or expedient in the public interest so to do. The State Government thus cannot
grant exemption for no predictable reason. The reason for which exemption is granted must satisfy the public interest and whether the purpose for
which such land is sought to be exempted will serve the public interest or not must be judged by the State Government in every case before the
order of exemption is granted. It will be '' deemed on the facts of this case that the State Government granted the exemption having regard to the
specified industrial purposes in the application for exemption filed on behalf of the fourth respondent. A specified industrial purpose may be
deemed to serve the public purpose. It will be indeed beyond comprehension to think that a person seeking exemption will be allowed to change
the reasons of exemption from stage to stage, say today exemption is asked for a particular purpose and when that purpose is not achieved,
tomorrow another application for exemption is made and the purpose is changed. The fourth respondent specified the purposes which were held
by the State Government to serve the public interest. The petitioner cannot say that those purposes enumerated above do not serve public interest.
The petitioner, however, has made a grievance that the 4th respondent has not shown any inclination to utilise the exempted land for any of the
above purposes. In its affidavits, the fourth respondent has taken shelter under a technicality with reference to the provisions in sub-section (2) of
Section 21 of the Act to which I shall later advert. It has not been stated that it still intends to fulfil the purpose aforementioned. It is, in this
situation, one may doubt the intentions of the 4th respondent and give credit to the petitioner for bringing the case to the Court if not for any
immediate relief to the public at large, at least for vindicating the cause that a person who satisfied the public purposes at one stage but is not
interested in fulfilling them, yet it has sought exemption and the State Government has granted the exemption.
The exemption order itself has referred to the consequences of non-fulfillment of the conditions of the grant of exemption. It clearly stated in
case the company violates any of the above conditions, the Government will withdraw the exemption in exercise of the powers conferred under
sub-section (2) of Section 21 of the Act and no compensation shall be payable to the company in respect of any building or structure constructed
or erected or other improvement effected on such land. It is conceded that a notice has already been issued under sub-section (2) of Section 21 of
the Act. The logical conclusion in this behalf will be that after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard and making a representation against
the proposed withdrawal to the 4th respondent, the State Government would decide whether the 4th respondent has fulfilled the conditions or
taken steps to fulfill its control, those conditions have not been fulfilled. In case it is found that the 4th respondent has not taken any steps to fulfil
the conditions or the conditions have not been fulfilled by the 4th respondent and if there is no reason beyond its control why the conditions have
not been fulfilled, would follow. There has also been an attempt before me on behalf of the 4th respondent to suggest that the Government''s
exercise of discretion under S. 21(1)(a) is not such that cannot be reviewed and there can be no estoppel against the 4th respondent in applying for
a fresh order of exemption or for an extension of the order of exemption already made. This contention is first sought to be based on the language
in Cl. (a) of sub-sec. (1) of S. 21 where it is said, the State government may, by order, exempt whether prospectively or retrospectively and
subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in the order. What is sough! to be read in these words is that the jurisdiction of the State
Government is not exhausted by the grant of exemption as there may be such further facts made available to the State Government upon which the
State Government may decide to make a fresh order or exemption retrospectively to cover the previous exemption or the period prior to it. If this
power is conceded in the State Government, there shall be no end of applications for exemption and revocations and there shall be never a finality
to the exemption granted by the State Government. All that this provision has contemplated is to take notice of the purposes aforementioned and
decide whether to grant exemption or not because it is always in the public interest that the excess land in the hands of any person is acquired and
utilised for the public purposes envisaged in the Act. Unless it is accepted that the Act has been passed to acquire the excess land in the hands of
certain persons for a public purpose, it will be difficult to countenance the challenge to the vires of the Act. Since the Act is intra vires and no
question as to its vires has been raised before me it has to be accepted that acquisition of surplus is in the public interest. It is only in the case of
another public interest being served or likely to be served that the exemption may be granted. Thus, in every case of grant of exemption, it is the
public interest uppermost and it is the public interest alone which has to determine whether the exemption has to be granted or not. Once such a
public interest is noticed and exemption is granted, one shall have to abide otherwise the public interest shall suffer both on account of acquisition
being delayed and not effected as well as the public interest for which the exemption was granted not served.
Secondly, it is contended that S. 15 of the Madras General Clauses Act gives the power to the State Government to review its earlier orders.
Since the fourth respondent has made a representation that the earlier exemption order was a misconception of facts and law, the State
Government can, according to learned counsel for the 4th respondent, review its earlier order in exercise of its powers under S. 15 of the Madras
General Clauses Act. I do not propose to exercise on it more than stating what is contained in J. Sudharshantal Gupta represented by his power of
attorney agent Naresh Kumar Mittal v. State of Tamil Nadu (W.P. No. 6617 of 1989 dated 7th September, 1989). I have dealt with this aspect in
the above writ petition and concluded on the basis of various authorities that the provision like the one in S. 15 of the General Clauses Act is
applied to statutory order. It is an executive Act of the State and assumes quasi-judicial character because it affects a certain right at least of a
person who is denied the exemption. 1 have alrady held in W.P. No. 6617 of 1989 that the State Government or for that matter any other
statutory authority shall have no power to review, rescind or recall the order since in my view the order of exemption is one falling under the
discretion of an executive and of quasi-judicial nature and the State Government has no power to review the same because the power to review its
order is inherent to a Court of law only. Any other authority under statute shall have such power only if it is specifically conferred upon it.
It is still not possible in the instant case to issue a mandamus of or direction to the respondent-State Government and its officers to acquire the
excess land in the hands of the fourth respondent unless the proceedings in accordance with S. 21(2) of the Act are concluded. It is however,
necessar, to examine what the State Government may do in exercise of its power under sub-sec. (2) of S. 21 of the Act. Can it extend the period
of two years for fulfilling the conditions? The answer may be in the affirmative, but not without any condition. The condition in such a situation will
be to find out whether there was any attempt on the part of the person who had obtained the conditional exemption order to fulfil the conditions or
not and if such attempts have been made by him, whether it was for the reason beyond his control that the conditions were not fulfilled. The State
Government cannot just at its whim and caprice decide to extend the period of exemption. It will have to assign reasons and the reasons must
conform to the purpose of the Act being not to allow any person to hold lands in excess of the ceiling area. It will be for that person who obtained
an exemption to show that he had good reasons for not implementing or fulfilling the conditions. The State Government, however, cannot substitute
any new conditions for the conditions already imposed. It cannot also entertain any new ground for exemption because any such thing done while
deciding whether to withdraw the exemption or not, will amount to varying the order of exemption which I have already indicated is not
permissible. The State Government shall have to adhere to the conditions and require compliance of such conditions by the 4th respondent.
Having considered the case for the limited purpose, as aforesaid without entering into the other controversies on the merits of the case, I am of
the opinion that this is a fit case which the State Government should be directed to dispose of the proceedings under S. 21 (2) of the Act within a
reasonable time in the light of the directions and observations as above.
Before, however, I part with this case, with great reluctance, I have to say a few words about the conduct of the petitioner. It is now a
recognised rule of locus standi that a vox populi or the cause of public can be brought to the notice of the court by any concensus group of people
or individual. The law in this regard has been candidly stated by the Supreme Court in S.P. Gupta Vs. President of India and Others, . Courts have
recognised presence of such wider interest of the public in any person who shows concern for the cause of the public. The petitioner, by showing
such concern with respect to a matter of public interest, has done nothing wrong and thus has got locus standi to maintain the instant writ petition.
But there are certain facts brought to my notice which I only indicate without adjudicating into them in the hope that the petitioner shall, in future,
not repeat them. Why the petitioner, before it was registered as a society, claimed in its communications to several persons which are all brought
on record of this case, it was a registered society when actually it was not registered. Why did it decide to give legal notices to the 4th respondent
and persons like the 4th respondent when there is no such legal notices contemplated for a public interest action? The petitioner''s such conduct in
matters of vox populi like one in the case of the 4th respondent may cause apprehensions about the intention of the petitioner. Learned counsel for
the 4th respondent has rightly stated that in all proceedings in Court it is necessary that utmost caution is taken to be fair and untainted. Any
suspicion that the petitioner moves with unclean hands may in some case result in the petitioner''s intentions doubted. Learned counsel for the
petitioner has assured the Court that in future the petitioner shall not indulge in any such practice. In deference to his words, 1 accept the statement
made on behalf of the petitioner.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the limited extent indicated above. The first respondent-State Government is directed to dispose of
the proceedings under S. 21(2) of the Act as expeditiously as possible in the light of the directions and observations made above. No costs.
Petition partly allowed.