IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR W.P.NOS.31653/2019 & 32595-32596/2019(CS-RES) BETWEEN:
1. MR. KUSHAL KUMAR B.S S/O LATE SIDRAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT BYTHARAHOSALLI VILLAGE, MYSANDRA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 221.
2. MR. BALALKRISHNA B.N S/O NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT BYTHARAHOSALLI VILLAGE, MYSANDRA HOBLI TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 221.
3. MR. M.L. PRAKASH S/O LATE B. LAKSHMANGOWDA AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT MALENAHALLI VILLAGE, VITTALAPURA POST MAYASANDRA HOBLI TURVEKERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 221.
... PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESETNED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION AGRICULTURE, HORTICULTURE SIRICULTURE, ANIMAL HUSBANDRY & FISHERIES (I/C), M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIEITES NO.1, ALIASKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052.
3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES BENGALURU REGION “SAHAKARA SOUDHA”
8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003.
4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TUMKUR DISTRICT MINI VIDHANA SOUDHA AND ADMINISTRATOR TUMAKUR DISTRICT CENTRAL CO-OPERATIVE BANK TUMAKURU - 572 101.
5. THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TUMAKURU DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE CENTRAL BANK LTD., TUMAKURU - 572 101.
6. SRI. K.N. RAJANNA S/O LATE NANJAPPA, EX.MLA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS EX.PRESIDENT OF TUMAKURU D.C.C. BANK LTD., KYTHSANDRA, TUMAKURU TUMAKUR DISTRICT - 572 104.
7. SRI. B. SHIVANNA S/O LATE DASEGOWDA EX-DIRECTOR OF TUMAKURU D.C.C. BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS KANNAGUNI, NADUMAVINAPURA POST, KUNIGAL TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.
8. SRI. S. LAKSHMINARAYAN S/O LATE T.A. SADASHIVAIAH EX-DIRECTOR OF TUMAKURU D.C.C. BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS SHRI. NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA PANDURANGANAGAR, TUMAKURU TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 101.
9. SRI. G.S. RAVI S/O LATE SANNABOREGOWDA EX-DIRECTOR OF TUMAKURU D.C.C.BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS HANDIGUNTE POST, SHIRA TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT - 572 113.
10. SRI. S.R. RAJAKUMAR S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNAIAH EX-DIRECTOR OF TUMAKURU D.C.C. BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS SINGADAHALLI, ANDANAKERE HOBLI, CHIKKANAYANAHALLI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 214.
11. SRI. NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE NARASAPPA EX-DIRECTOR OF TUMAKURU D.C.C. BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS THALEMARADAHALLI PONNASAMUDRA POST PAVAGADA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 561 202.
12. SRI. DEVARAJ B.S S/O B.R. SHIVANANJAPPA EX-DIRECTOR OF TUMAKURU D.C.C. BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS BHUVANAHALLI, ANKERE POST TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 212 13. SRI. G.J. RAJANNA S/O B.R. SHIVANANJAPPA EX-DIRECTOR OF TUMAKURU D.C.C. BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R. GOLLARAHATTI, REDDDIHALLI POST, MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 133.
14. SRI. S. HANUMAN S/O LATE SANJEEVAPPA EX-DIRECTOR OF TUMAKURU D.C.C. BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS AMMANAHALLI, SOMPURA POST KORTAGERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 121.
15. SRI. M.V. RAMACHANDRA S/O LATE VENKAPPA EX-DIRECTOR OF TUMAKURU D.C.C.BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS 6TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR TUMAKURU TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
16. SRI. THIMMARAJU S/O THIMMARAYAPPA EX-DIRECTOR OF TUMAKURU D.C.C. BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS HOOVIANAHALLI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 132.
17. SRI. R. RAJENDRA S/O K.N. RAJANNA EX-DIRECTOR OF TUMAKURU D.C.C. BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS SHIRAMPURA, TUMAKURU TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
18. SRI. T.P. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE T.R. PUTTARAJU EX-MUNICIPAL PRESIDENT OF TUMAKURU D.C.C. BANK LTD., AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS SHIRAMPURA, TUMAKURU TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 101.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.PRABHULING K NAVADAGI, A.G. A/W SMT. KAVITHA H.C, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-5;
SRI. ASHOK HARNAHALLI, SR. COUNSEL A/W SRI. VINAYAKA B, ADVOCATE FOR R-6 & R-17 SRI. G. CHANDRASHEAKRAIAH, ADVOATE FOR R-7 TO R-16 AND R-18) THESE W.Ps. ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:25.07.2019 PASSED BY THE R-2 VIDE ANNEXURE-F IN APPEAL NO.RCS/KME-8/53/2019-20.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Though matter is listed for preliminary hearing, by consent of learned Advocates appearing for parties, it is taken up for final disposal.
2. The short question that arises for consideration in these petitions is:
“Whether appellate authority namely, second respondent by order dated 25.07.2009 (Annexure-F) exercising power under Section 106(3) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) could have stayed the order dated 19.07.2019 – Annexure-B whereunder third respondent exercising the power under Section 30(2) of the Act had superseded the Tumkur District Co- operative Central Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘DCC Bank’ for short)?”
3. Facts in brief leading to filing of these writ petitions are as under:
Petitioners are said to have submitted a representation to the then Hon’ble Chief Minister on 07.06.2019 – Annexure-G alleging certain financial irregularities, administrative illegalities and the like having been committed by the members of the Managing Committee of fifth respondent – DCC and requested for Bank being removed in the interest of the members. Said representation having been placed before third respondent resulted in team of officers being appointed to enquire into the allegations made in the complaint. Said team submitted a report on 04.07.2019 which triggered the third respondent to issue show cause notice on the same day i.e., 04.07.2019 (Annexure-A) to respondents-6 to 18. Thereafter, third respondent has passed an order dated 19.07.2019 superseding fifth respondent – DCC Bank and appointing the Deputy Commissioner, Tumkur as administrator for a period of one year vide Annexure-B. Being aggrieved by the said order, appeal came to be filed by the sixth respondent herein in Appeal No.RCS/KME-8/53/2019-20 with an interim prayer to stay the operation of the order dated 19.07.2019 – Annexure-B. Appellate authority, namely, second respondent by the impugned order dated 25.07.2019 – Annexure-F stayed the order dated 19.07.2019 passed by third respondent. Being aggrieved by the said order, petitioners are before this Court.
4. I have heard the arguments of Sri.D.R.Ravishankar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners, Sri. Prabhuling K Navadagi, learned Advocate General along with Smt.Kavitha, learned HCGP appearing for respondents-1 to 5, Sri. Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel along with Sri Vinayaka B for respondents-6 & 17 and Sri G Chandrashekaraiah, learned Advocate who undertook to appear on behalf of respondents-7 to 16 and 18. Perused the records.
5. The issue involved in these petitions relates to supersession of DCC Bank and appointment of an administrator and said power has been exercised by third respondent under Section 30 of the Act.
6. It is the contention of Sri D.R.Ravishankar, learned Advocate appearing for petitioners that a plain reading of Section 106(3) of the Act would disclose that it is a qualified provision which clearly indicates that it is guided by the words prescribed therein and in the absence of said ingredients being discerned from the impugned order, exercise of said power itself would stand vitiated and as such, impugned order is liable to be quashed. He would also contend that order dated 19.07.2019 having been passed in exercise of power under Section 30(2) of the Act by third respondent and same having been acted upon, resultant effect of the interim stay granted by the appellate authority would amount to putting the clock back, which would be impermissible and as such, said order is liable to be quashed.
6.1) He would elaborate his submission by contending original authority primafacie being satisfied that there was financial irregularities in 5th respondent - Bank had opined that allegations are required to be enquired into and as such, had arrived at a conclusion that administrator is to be appointed by superseding the fifth respondent - Bank and accordingly, it has been done which finding is neither perverse nor capricious and it had not called for interference by the appellate authority and same having been interfered, it has resulted in miscarriage in the administration of justice. Hence, he prays for quashing said order by this Court in exercise of power vested under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the following judgments:
(1) (1994)4 SCC 269 INDIAN NUT PRODUCTS AND OTHERS vs UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS (2) (2005)8 SCC 618 SBP & CO. vs PATEL ENGINEERING LIMITED AND ANOTHER 7. Per contra, Sri Prabhulinga K Navadgi, learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents-1 to 5 submits that petitioners do not have no locus standi, inasmuch as, they were neither parties to the original proceedings nor parties in the appeal before first appellate authority and as such, they cannot question the order passed by the appellate authority. He would contend at the most, petitioners can seek for being impleaded in the appeal proceedings and then seek appropriate orders i.e., either to vacate or modify the order of stay granted by the first appellate authority and till then petitioners would not have any right to prosecute these petitions. Hence, he prays for dismissal of writ petitions.
8. Sri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents-6 & 17 would not only reiterate the contentions raised by learned Advocate General, but he would also elaborate his submissions by contending that petitioners have nowhere stated as to their right in the lis or right to support the original order passed by third respondent or oppose the order passed by appellate authority and without disclosing the same they would have no locus standi to challenge the appellate authority’s order which is impugned in the present writ petitions. He would also contend that respondents No.1 to 3 had acted in haste by initiating proceedings leading to appointment of administrator by superseding fifth respondent DCC Bank and the very fact that on the same day on which report came to be submitted by the team of officers, show cause notice having been issued would reflect the haste in which authorities have acted to supersede fifth respondent - Bank. He would also contend that order passed by third respondent - original authority would disclose that show cause notice issued to Board of fifth respondent -Bank has not been served on them and even before the postal authorities had returned the registered post articles, fresh hearing date has been fixed from 15.07.2019 to 18.07.2019 and further hearing date having not been intimated to the petitioners was also the fact which was taken note of by the appellate authority to stay the impugned order. He would further contend that under the impugned order itself, there is a communication addressed to the Reserve Bank of India and even before response could be received, third respondent has appointed an administrator by superseding fifth respondent - DCC bank which is primafacie illegal and contrary to statutory provision and as such it was liable to be stayed and same has been rightly stayed by the appellate authority. Hence, he seeks for dismissal of the petitions.
9. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for parties, this Court is of the considered view that pivotal issue in these petitions revolve around Section 30 of the Act and it reads as under:
“30. Supersession or suspension of the board:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law of the time being in force, no board of a co-operative society shall be superseded or kept under suspension for a period exceeding six months:
Provided that in case of a co- operative society carrying on the business of banking, the provision of this clause, shall have effect as if for the words “six months”, the words “one years” had been substituted.
(2) If in the opinion of the Registrar, the board of a co- operative society.-
(i) persistently makes default or is negligent in the performance of the duties imposed on it by this Act, or the rules or the bye-laws; or (ii) commits any act, which is prejudicial to the interest of the society the board; or (iii) where there is a stalemate in the constitution or functioning of the board; or (iv) has serious financial irregularities or frauds which have been detected; or (v) fails to provide books and records, necessary information and assistance to the election commission as per the calendar set out by the election commission to conduct elections to the board within the stipulated time and as a result or otherwise, the election commission has failed to conduct elections to the board within the stipulated time;
Registrar, may, after giving the board an opportunity to state objections, if any, by order in writing, supersede or suspend the said board and appoint an administrator to manage the affairs of the society for such period not exceeding six months:
Provided that the board of any co-operative society shall not be superseded or kept under suspension where there is no Government share holding or loan or financial assistance or any guarantee by the Government.
Provided further that the supersession or suspension of the board of a co-operative bank shall be done only after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India/National Bank as the case may be and the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949 shall also apply:
Provided also that, no member of the Board superceded under sub- section (2) shall, be eligible for being elected as a member of the Board of such society or any other Co- operative Society for a period of one year from the date of removal of such Board and no such order of disqualification for contesting the election to the Board shall be made unless a reasonable opportunity of being heard, is given to the person against whom such order is made; and]”
A plain reading of Section 30 would disclose that if the board of a Co-operative Society is to be superseded or kept under suspension for a period exceeding one year, Registrar is required to afford an opportunity to the said board to state its objections if any, and may by order in writing, supersede or suspend the said board and appoint an administrator to manage the affairs of the Bank. Third proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 30 would indicate that where supersession or suspension relates to a co- operative Bank, it has to be done only after consultation with Reserve Bank of India/National Bank as the case may be and the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 would also apply.
10. Keeping above statutory provision in mind, when facts on hand are examined, it would emerge from records that third respondent before embarking upon conducting an enquiry with regard to exercise of the power under section 30 of the Act, had issued show cause notice on 04.07.2019 vide Annexure-A to the board of Directors of 5th respondent - Bank. Said show cause notice issued to respondents-7,15 & 18 (Directors of fifth respondent - Bank) has been returned with postal shara ‘absent, returned to sender”. Insofar as notice issued to respondent-8, same has been returned as “refused”. Whereas, notice issued to respondents—9 & 14 has been returned with a postal shara “not in station – returned to sender”. In respect of notice issued to other respondents, postal article dispatched by the postal department has not been returned. However, third respondent has made an attempt to effect service of notice to respondents-6 to 18 through the aegis of Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Society, Tumkur who also made an attempt in that regard, but was not successful on effecting service of notice on respondents Nos.6 to 18 on account of said addressees not being available or not being in station at the time of service of notice. In other words, there is no effective service of notice as contemplated under first proviso to Section 30(2) of the Act. This fact has also been recorded in the order dated 19.07.2019 and as such, he has fixed fresh hearing date as 18.07.2019. As rightly contended by learned Senior counsel appearing for respondents-6 & 17, hearing date fixed on 18.07.2019 has not been notified to the petitioners. However, third respondent under the impression that on the next date of hearing, they would appear, as being aware of the proceedings, has postponed the hearing date and on the next date i.e., on 19.07.2019, order appointing an administrator by superseding the DCC Bank came to be passed.
11. Grant of opportunity to the board of Directors of Bank is in-built under Section 30 of the Act, as otherwise, it would be in violation of principles of natural justice. As already noticed herein above, exercise of power to supersede the Bank or to keep the Board under suspension results in civil consequence flowing there from. Hence, adherence to principles of natural justice cannot be given a go by. In fact, under similar circumstance, Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS vs SANJAY NAGAYACH AND OTHERS reported in (2013)7 SCC 25 has held that statutory authority exercising statutory power is required to follow the rigour of law and should not act with pre-conceived notions. In the said case, issue relating to supersession of the board of directors of District Cooperative Central Bank Limited, Panna was under consideration whereunder, Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to examine Section 53 of the Madhya Pradesh Co- operative Societies Act, 1960 which provision is analogous to Section 30 of the Karnataka Co- operative Societies Act, 1959. Hon’ble Apex Court has held:
“37. The Registrar/Joint Registrar, while exercising powers of supersession has to form an opinion and that opinion must be based on some objective criteria, which has nexus with the final decision. A statutory authority shall not act with pre-conceived notion and shall not speak his masters’ voice, because the formation of opinion must be his own, not somebody else in power, to achieve some ulterior motive. There may be situations where the Registrar/Joint Registrar are expected to act in the best interest of the society and its members, but in such situations, they have to act bona fide and within the four corners of the statute. In our view, the impugned order will not fall in that category.”
Having said so and taking judicial note of the fact that such type of matters/litigations was mushrooming in various courts across the country whereunder supersession of elected committees are under challenge, has issued general directions and the directions so issued by Hon’ble Apex Court reads:
“42.1. Supersession of an elected managing Committee/Board is an exception and be resorted to only in exceptional circumstances and normally elected body be allowed to complete the term for which it is elected.
42.2. Elected Committee in office be not penalised for the short- comings or illegalities committed by the previous Committee, unless there is any deliberate inaction in rectifying the illegalities committed by the previous committees.
42.3. Elected Committee in Office be given sufficient time, say at least six months, to rectify the defects, if any, pointed out in the audit report with regard to incidents which originated when the previous committee was in office.
42.4. Registrar/Joint Registrar are legally obliged to comply with all the statutory formalities, including consultation with the financing banks/Controlling Banks etc. Only after getting their view, an opinion be formed as to whether an elected Committee be ousted or not.
42.5. The Registrar/Joint Registrar should always bear in mind the consequences of an order of supersession which has the effect of not only ousting the Board out of office, but also disqualify them for standing for election in the succeeding elections. The Registrar/Joint Registrar therefore is duty bound to exercise his powers bona fide and not on the dictation or direction of those who are in power.
42.6. The Registrar/Joint Registrar shall not act under political pressure or influence and, if they do, be subjected to disciplinary proceedings and be also held personally liable for the cost of the legal proceedings.
42.7. Public money not to be spent by the State Government or the Registrar for unnecessary litigation involving disputes between various factions in a co-operative society. Taxpayers’ money is not expected to be spent for settling those disputes. If found necessary, the same is to be spent from the funds available with the Bank concerned.”
12. Keeping the above said principles in mind, when the facts are re-looked, it would clearly indicate that third respondent even before ink in the show cause notice could dry had acted hastily and proceeded to pass as order superseding fifth respondent - Bank. In fact, there was no service of notice on some of the respondents to whom notice had been issued which is also evident from the order dated 19.07.2019. Yet, third respondent proceeded to pass said order. Be that as it may. For the limited purpose of examining the present petitions, this observation has been made.
13. Yet another fact which cannot go unnoticed is, second proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 30 would indicate that where supersession or suspension of the board of a co-operative bank is to be done, it has to be done and shall be done only after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India as well as National Bank. The expression used in the second proviso being “shall”, has to be necessarily read as “must” and it cannot be “may”, inasmuch as, consequences flowing from supersession of elected body would visit with civil consequence to the persons administering the institution and as such, provision itself mandates that all precautionary steps should be taken before superseding the institution. It is in this background, Hon’ble Apex Court in SANJAY NAGAYACH’s case referred to supra, has held that Registrar/Joint Registrar as the case may be, are expected to act in a bonafide manner and within the four corners of the statute. Third proviso to Section 30(2) clearly indicate that before taking steps to supersede the Bank it has to be done only after consulting Reserve Bank of India/National Bank as the case may be. In the instant case, though intimation/communication came to be issued by third respondent to consult Reserve Bank of India simultaneously with the issuance of show cause notice dated 04.07.2019 to board of Directors of 5th respondent - Bank, it did not choose to elicit the views of Reserve Bank of India and even before any reply was received from Reserve Bank of India, third respondent has proceeded to pass order dated 19.07.2019 appointing an administrator by superseding fifth respondent - DCC bank. It is these two facts which had swayed in the mind of appellate authority to exercise the power under Section 106(3) of the Act to stay the order dated 19.07.2019 by way of an interim measure and though contentions have been raised by the learned Advocate appearing for parties with regard to its effect, this Court would not undertake to examine said contentions as it would not be necessary in the facts of the present case. Hence, same is left at it for being adjudicated in appropriate proceedings.
14. One another factor which cannot go unnoticed is with regard to locus standi of the petitioners. Undisputedly, petitioners have set the ball in motion by submitting representation to the Hon’ble Chief Minister alleging certain financial and administrative irregularities/illegalities in the fifth respondent – Bank. However, pleadings do not disclose either legal right which they possess or consequences which would flow from non- consideration of their grievance resulting in legal injury being caused to them. Principle of Damnum sine injuria is a sine qua non for the applicant/for the person to seek for enforcement of a right. Division Bench of this Court in the case of PARAPPA vs NANDARAYAPPA AND OTHERS reported in (1998)6 Kar.L.J. 557 while dealing with disqualification of a member based on a complaint given to the director under the provisions of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marking (Regulation) Act, 1966 has held that proceedings for disqualification can be initiated suo motu or on a complaint given by third party, but no individual person has statutory right to invoke such jurisdiction of the Registrar, though if the complaint is made by any individual person making allegation regarding disqualification of a particular member, then, the Registrar can consider such complaint as an information for the purpose of invoking his suo motu jurisdiction but the complainant cannot claim any right either to defend or to support any proceedings so initiated.
15. However, in the judgment of RAVI YASHWANT BHOIR vs. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, RAIGAD AND OTHERS reported in (2012)4 SCC 407 while dealing with the issue of removal of elected members for misconduct and the issue of proper and necessary party to such proceedings, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that where the complaint was filed by the complainant alleging abuse of public office, he having remote interest cannot seek to be a party on the ground of public interest. Dealing with the principle of Damnum sine injuria , Hon’ble Apex Court, at paragraphs 58 and 61 has observed that person who suffers from legal injury can only challenge the act or omission. There may be some harm or loss that may not be wrongful in the eye of law because it may not result in injury to a legal right or legally protected interest of the complainant, but juridically harm of this description is called damnum sine injuria. Hon’ble Apex Court has further held at paragraph 59 that in such a case, complainant has to establish that he has been deprived of or denied of a legal right and he has sustained injury to any legally protected interest and in case, he has no legal peg for a justiciable claim to hang on and he cannot be heard as a party to the lis. It is further observed that a person cannot be heard as a party unless he answers the description of aggrieved person. In the instant case, pleadings on hand do not disclose the right of petitioners to either challenge the impugned order or to defend or support the order dated 19.07.2019 for lack of locus on their part. Thus, this Court is of the considered view that both on merits as well as on issue of locus standi of petitioners to challenge the impugned order, these writ petitions cannot be entertained and there is no merit in these writ petitions.
Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER (1) Writ petitions are dismissed.
(2) Costs made easy.
SD/- JUDGE *sp