IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF OCTOBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN WRIT PETITION No.2565 of 2007 (SC/ST) BETWEEN M. BHASKARA REDDY, SON OF MALLA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 4/1, MUNISWAMAPA LAYOUT, SWAMY VIVEKANANDA ROAD, ULSOOR, BANGALORE – 560 008.
(BY SRI ABINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR SRI N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DISTRICT, BANGALORE.
2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE NORTH SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE.
3. SMT. MUNIVENKATAMMA SINCE DEAD BY HER LRs., 3(a). YELLAPPA, SON OF LATE LAKSHMAIAH, MAJOR, … PETITIONER 3(b). MUNISWAMY, SON OF LATE LAKSHMAIAH, MAJOR, 3(c). SMT. MUNIYAMMA, DAUGHTER OF LATE LAKSHMAIAH, MAJOR, (SINCE DEAD BY LRs) 3(c)(i) SOMASHEKAR, S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, 3(c)(ii) PURUSHOTHAMA, S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, 3(c)(iii) BALARAJA, S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, 3(c)(iv) KUMAR, S/O LATE MUNIYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDENT OF CHIKKABASAVANAPURA, VIRGONAGAR POST, KRISHNARAJPURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
3(d). SMT. MUNIYAMMA, WIFE OF MUNIKRISHNA, MAJOR, 3(e). MANJU, SON OF LATE MUNIKRISHNA, RESPONDENTS No.3(a) TO (e) ARE RESIDING AT CHIKKABASAVANAPURA, VIRGONAGAR POST, KRISHNARAJPURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK.
(BY SMT. SAVITHRAMMA, HCGP for R1 & R2;
… RESPONDENTS SRI B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE for R3(c)(i to iv); SRI SRIHARI A.V., ADV FOR R3 (a,b,d,e) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDERS DATED 25TH SEPTEMBER 2006 (ANNEXURE-D) PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN SC.ST (A) 40 of 2005-2006 AND ALSO THE ORDERS DATED 25TH MAY 2005 PASSED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT IN K. SC.ST.20 of 2004-2005 (ANNEXURE–C) AND CONSEQUENTIALLY REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT FOR RESUMPTION AND DECLARE THAT SECTION 4(2) OF ACT 2 of 1979 CAN BE MADE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF GRANTED LANDS WHOSE STIPULATED FOR NON-ALIENATION HAS NOT YET EXPIRED AS ON 01.01.1979.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.10.2019 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT, THIS DAY THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 25.05.2005 passed by respondent No.2- Assistant Commissioner in K.SC.ST.20/2004-05 which was confirmed by respondent No.1-Special Deputy Commissioner in SC.ST(A) 40/2005-06 vide order dated 25.09.2006.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned High Court Government Pleader.
3. The case of respondent No.3-Munivenkatamma before the Assistant Commissioner is that the land in Sy.Nos.24 & 25 of Basavanapura village, measuring 1 acre 20 guntas has been granted to her on 12.03.1979 as per Annexure-A. As per Annexure-B, the Government also issued Saguvali Chit on 19.04.1979. The respondent No.3 was in possession of the said land. Subsequently, the said land was sold by respondent No.3 to one Masthan Khan on 21.03.1994, who in turn sold the said land to R.Keshava on 21.03.1996. Thereafter, the said Keshava sold a portion of the land to an extent of 22 guntas to the present petitioner M.Bhaskara Reddy on 23.09.1996 and sold the remaining land to other two persons under different sale deeds. Based upon the sale deed dated 23.09.1996, the petitioner is in possession and enjoyment of the land and subsequently, the legal heirs of the deceased Munivenkatamma filed an application under Section 5 of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978, (‘PTCL Act’ for short) before the Assistant Commissioner for resumption and restoration of the land on the ground that the said land has been granted to the grantee under the PTCL Act. There is a bar under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act for alienation of the land without the permission of the government. The sale deed was executed in year 1994 after the commencement of the PTCL Act, which came into force on 01.01.1979. Therefore, the sale is hit by Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. On that ground, the Assistant Commissioner allowed the application filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Munivenkatamma, resumed and restored the land on 25.05.2005. Assailing the order of Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner under Section 5A of the PTCL Act. The Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 25.09.2006 confirmed the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner, in SC.ST.(A) 40/2005-06. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal, the petitioner is before this Court.
4. Learned Counsel Sri Abhinay Y.T., for Sri. N.S.Sanjay Gowda, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued and challenged the order of the Courts below mainly on two grounds. Firstly, he contended that the order of the Courts below are not sustainable since the land was not a granted land does not fall under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. Since, respondent No.3 was in unauthorized cultivation of the land along with others, they filed applications before the Deputy Commissioner for regularization of the said lands in their favour. Accordingly, as per Annexure-A, the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, granted the said land on 12.03.1979 which is nothing but regularization of unauthorized occupation of the lands in favour of respondent No.3. Therefore, the said land does not fall under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act and resumption of land under Section 5 of the Act is not sustainable.
5. The second ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that originally, the land in question was allotted as per the order dated 12.03.1979 vide Annexure-A. As per the Saguvali Chit, there was fifteen (15) years bar for alienation of the said property, but the first sale took place on 21.03.1994. The land was granted on 12.03.1979 and fifteen (15) years have already lapsed. Therefore, if the land was not granted under the PTCL Act, the question of bar under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act would not arise. Even then fifteen (15) years have already lapsed when the first sale took place after the land was regularized on 12.03.1979. Alternatively, learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that though the Saguvali Chit was issued by the Government on 19.04.1979, but that cannot be considered as taking over possession of the property in question since respondent No.3 was already in unauthorized occupation of the said land and in view of the grant on 12.03.1979, her possession was regularized. Therefore, the Saguvali Chit issued by the Government on 19.04.1979 has no consequence. Therefore, for computation of the non-alienation period of fifteen (15) years, the date of Saguvali Chit cannot be considered. He further contended that the sale took place on 21.03.1994 i.e. after fifteen (15) years of the grant. Subsequently, the second sale deed was executed on 21.06.1996. The petitioner was a bona fide purchaser of the land in question by paying valuable consideration. Therefore, if at all the registration was prohibited under Section 6 of the PTCL Act, the Sub-Registrar ought not to have registered the sale deed executed by the vendor of the petitioner. There was negligence on the part of the Sub-Registrar, which is a government authority. The very sale is permitted by the Sub-Registrar. However, if there is any wrong or negligence on the part of the Sub-Registrar in registering the Sale Deed, as required under the Act, the petitioner has to be suitably compensated by way of compensation in terms of money. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition.
6. Per contra, *Sri.A.V.Srihari, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.*3(a)(b)(d) and (e) the legal heirs of the original grantee, supported the orders passed by both the court below and has contended that the land in question though granted on 12.03.1979, saguvali chit was issued on 19.04.1979. The date of issue of saguvali chit has to be considered for calculating the bar of fifteen (15) years to alienate the granted land and the alienation was made on 21.03.1994 within 15 years from the date of issue of saguvali chit. Further, the learned counsel contended that even otherwise, if the land is said to be granted on 12.03.1979, as per Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, permission of the Government is mandatory for acquiring or alienating the granted land and no permission is obtained by any of the persons for alienating the property of the petitioner. Therefore, all the sale deeds are null and void, which are hit by Section 4(2) of the PTCL *Corrected vide Court order dated:25.11.2019.
Act. Further, the learned counsel contended that as per Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, any land granted to a person who belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community amounts to the land granted under the PTCL Act and therefore, merely there was a mention regarding unauthorized occupation by the grantee and it was regularized by the Government, but it was not mentioned as regularization of the unauthorized occupation of the land in Annexure-‘A’, but mentioned that it was a granted land, under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act, the land granted can be treated as granted land and the same is covered by the judgment of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Pushpavathi Vs. S.Papanna (Deceased) by L.Rs. and others reported in 2006 SCC Online Kar 367. Hence, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
7. Further, it is argued by the learned counsel that in respect of Section 6 of the PTCL Act with regard to prohibition of registering the land in question, the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court in Sri K.A.Haridas Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District and Others reported in ILR 2014 KAR 5943 has clarified that registration of land cannot be a ground for the petitioner to seek for allowing the petition. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
8. Smt.Savithramma, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 supported the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner as well as the Assistant Commissioner and also contended that once the land granted to a person who belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community, it must be construed as land granted under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act. The date of issue of saguvali chit is the criteria for calculating 15 years period for non-alienation, but not the date of order of grant. In support of her arguments, she relied upon the decisions of this Court in Laxmamma and etc. Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 1983 SCC Online Kar 3: AIR 1983 Kar 237 and Karappa Bovi Vs. Special Deputy Commissioner, Mysore & Others reported in 1990 SCC Online Kar 520: (1990) 3 Kant LJ 361 (DB). Learned HCGP further contended that as per the saguvali chit issued by the government for calculating the date of alienation, it comes within fifteen (15) years and even if fifteen (15) years lapsed from the date of grant, but permission for alienating the property is mandatory as per Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. In this case, there is violation of the condition of the land granted by the Government. The alienation was effected without prior permission from the Government. Therefore, the learned HCGP prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
9. Upon hearing the arguments of learned counsel on both side and perusal of the record goes to show that it is an admitted fact that the land in question in Sy.Nos.24 & 25 measuring 1.20 acres has been granted by the Deputy Commissioner on 12.03.1979 as per Annexure-A. It is also not in dispute that previously this grantee and others were unauthorizedly cultivating the said land and they belonged to Bovi community, which falls within the category of persons belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community within the meaning of the Act. The land has been granted on 12.03.1979. Admittedly, the saguvali chit Annexure-B produced by the petitioner would go to show that Form No.4 certificate of grant of saguvali chit has been issued on 19.04.1979.
10. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that the land in question was granted on 12.03.1979. Though saguvali chit was issued on 19.04.1979, but the grantees were already in possession and cultivation of the said land even prior to the issuance of grant certificate or grant order. Therefore, he has contended that for all practical purpose, the date of land grant i.e., on 12.03.1979 shall be considered for calculating 15 years period for alienation.
11. Per contra, the same is countered by learned HCGP by contending that in a similar situation the Division Bench of this Court in Karappa Bovi’s case (supra) has held that for all purpose the date of issuance of saguvali chit is required to be considered for the purpose of computation of fifteen (15) years and at paragraph No.7 it has been held as under:
“7. The learned Counsel for respondent No.3, however, maintained that according to the provision of the Land Grant Rules, the grant became effective only from the date on which the Saguvali Chit was issued and as the sale in the present case had been effected on a date prior to the date on which the Saguvali Chit was issued, the provisions of the Act were not attracted. In support of the above contention, the learned Counsel for the 3rd respondent relied on a Division Bench decision of this Court in Laxmamma v. State of Karnataka (1983 (1) Kar. L.J. 417). As can be seen from paragraph 73 of the Judgment, the Division Bench was considering as to the date with effect from which the period of bar for alienation of the land should be computed. The Division Bench held the period of prohibition for sale of land granted to a member of Schedule Caste/Scheduled Tribe, would run from the date on which the Saguvali Chit was issued in his favour and not from the earlier date of grant where there had been some time lag between the date of grant and the date of issue of Saguvali Chit. We fail to see how the ratio of the above decision is helpful in any way to the petitioner, for, according to the decision the period of bar imposed on the sale of granted land would get extended, in that, it would operate until the expiry of 15 years from the date of issue of Saguvali Chit. The effect of the ratio of that decision on this case is, though the grant was made on 28-4-1965, as the Saguvali Chit was issued on 29-4-2965, the bar continued till 29-4-1980. As the sale in the present case is before the bar ceased to operate, the sale has to be declared invalid and was rightly done so by the Assistant Commissioner.”
12. The Division Bench of this Court in Laxmamma’s case, has clearly held that for the purpose of calculating fifteen (15) years, the date of issuance of saguvali chit has to be considered. In the case on hand, Annexure-B, the saguvali chit was issued by Tahsildar on 19.04.1979. Therefore, computation of fifteen (15) years period bar commences from 19.04.1979, but not as on the date of 12.03.1979 on which day the grant was made. Therefore, the first sale effected on 21.03.1996 is within the period of fifteen (15) years, which is barred under Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not hold any water and the same cannot be acceptable and rejected.
13. The second contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the land in question was not a granted land, but it was a land which was regularized by regularization of unauthorised occupation and do not fall under the PTCL Act and in support of his contention, he also relied upon the order of ‘land grant’ as per Annexure-A.
14. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents as well as learned HCGP contended that though the grantees were unauthorized occupants of the land, but they belong to the Bovi community which falls under the category of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes community and the government has granted the land in their favour. Even though they were in unauthorized occupation, once land has been granted to the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes community, the said land shall be construed as the land granted under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act.
15. Upon hearing the rival contentions, it is worth mentioning the meaning of Section 3(1)(b) of PTCL Act, which is as under:
“(b) Granted Land means any land granted by the Government to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices or rights and the word “Granted” shall be construed accordingly;”
16. A bare reading of the provision of Section 3(1)(b) of PTCL Act makes it clear that any land granted to a person belonging to any of the Scheduled Caste or Schedule Tribe and includes the land allotted or granted to such person under the relevant law for the time being in force relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams, other than that relating to hereditary offices shall be construed as granted land under the PTCL Act.
17. In a similar case, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Bhemanna vs. Deputy Commissioner, Chitradurga District and others reported in ILR 2010 KAR 5011, has held as under:
“In the instant case the definition of granted land under Section 3(1)(b) does not contain any ambiguity. It means, land granted by the Government to any of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes and includes land allotted or granted to such person under the law relating to agrarian reforms or land ceilings or abolition of inams. There is absolutely no room to infer that such granted land will enjoy the characteristic of granted land as per the definition, only till the non-alienation period or the conditions imposed with regard to the same at the time of grant are in force. Any attempt to read into the definition such a requirement will tantamount to super adding a condition into the definition of the term granted land. If that was the intention, the legislature would have made it clear while enacting and definition clause of ‘granted land’ stating that it would remain granted land only during the non-alienation period and not thereafter. The language of the statute has to be read as it is. Addition of words is permissible only when it appears to the Court that such words have been accidentally omitted or if such addition is not resorted to, the existing provision or some of the words used therein will be rendered meaningless. In other words a departure from the rule of literal construction may be legitimate in order to avoid any part of the statute becoming meaningless or in order to give effect to the intention of the legislature which is apparent from the Act read as a whole.”
18. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of M.Pushpavathi vs. S.Papanna (Deceased) by L.Rs. and others reported in (2006) 6 Kant LJ 16: (2006) 4 AIR Kant R 683, at paragraph 18 has held as follows:
“18. The fact that the land had been granted due to the reason that it was earlier under unauthorized occupation of a person makes little difference for understanding the phrase ‘granted land’ as referred to above. For understanding the expression ‘granted land’ for the purpose of this Act is concerned, what matters is that it should be one given by the Government to a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe Community. In fact, the definition clause travels beyond and includes such grants under other agrarian reforms also. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the land in question is a granted land and has been rightly recorded so in terms of the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner and affirmed by the Deputy Commissioner.”
19. In view of the decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, though the land in question was occupied by the grantee as an unauthorized occupant and subsequently, the land has been granted to the grantee by the government under Annexure-A cannot be considered as regularized land in favour of the unauthorized occupants, but, the land which was granted by the government to the Bovi community people falls within the category of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes community. Therefore, once the land is granted to a person belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, then the land in question is construed as the granted land which would fall under Section 3(1)(b) of the PTCL Act.
Therefore, the second contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not acceptable and it is held that the land falls under the category of granted land under the PTCL Act.
20. Now, coming to the conditions of land grant order dated 12.03.1979 vide Annexure-A and Certificate of Grant of Saguvali chit dated 19.04.1979 vide Annexure-B, the conditions at Paragraph 9 reads as follows:
“Conditions of the Grant:
The grant of land in this case is subject to the following conditions namely.
(i) The land granted shall not be alienated for a period of fifteen years from the date of the grantee taking possession of the land and when such alienation has to be sanction it should be subject to the payment of twenty percent of the prevailing market value of such land from the Grantee.
Provided that such land may be alienated with the previous sanction of the Government and subject to such conditions as the Government may specify, if the government is of the opinion that in the circumstances of any case, it is just and reasonable to permit such alienation either for purposes for acquiring some other land or for any other purpose;”
21. The aforesaid condition at paragraph 9(i) clearly stipulates that the land granted shall not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of the grantee taking over possession of the land as per the Saguvali Chit i.e., Annexure-B, dated 19.04.1979, and even as per the proviso of the condition under paragraph 9(i), the permission is necessary and the government can accord permission for such alienation either for the purpose of acquiring some other land or for any other purpose. But here in this case, it is an admitted fact that no permission or sanction was obtained by the grantee or transferee for transfer of the property as on 21.03.1994. Even the provisions of Sections 4(1) & (2) of the PTCL Act, reads as under:
“4. Prohibition of transfer of granted lands:
(1) Notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer.
(2) No person shall, after the commencement of this Act, transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government.”
22. The provisions of Sections 4(1) & (2) of the PTCL Act clearly bars any alienation of the granted land after commencement of the Act in contravention of the terms and conditions of the grant and any such alienation shall be null and void. No right, title or interest of such land shall be conveyed or deemed to have been conveyed by such transferee and Sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the PTCL Act defines that no person shall after commencement of the Act transfer the granted land acquired by the person without any prior permission of the Government. The land in question has been granted on 12.03.1979 and the Saguvali chit was issued on 19.04.1979 after commencement of the Act which came into force from 1.1.1979 and the sale deed was effected on 21.03.1994. As per Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act, there is a clear bar for the alienation of the granted land within fifteen (15) years or after fifteen (15) years without prior permission of the Government. Admittedly, no permission or sanction was obtained by the parties for alienation of the property on 21.03.1994 or even for subsequent alienation dated 21.06.1996 and 23.9.1996. Therefore, the sale deeds are hit by Section 4 of the PTCL Act. Therefore, another ground raised by the petitioner is also not sustainable either in law or on facts.
23. The learned counsel for the petitioner also raised one more contention during the course of arguments that the petitioner was bona fide purchaser from his vendor Keshava on 23.09.1996. Even though there is a bar under Section 6 of the PTCL Act, which prohibits registration of the any granted land by the Sub-Registrar, but the Sub- Registrar permitted the registration of the sale deed by ignoring the law. The Sub-Registrar ought to have refused to register the sale deed. Therefore, due to the negligence of the Sub-Registrar, the legal property right of the petitioner cannot be deprived and the petitioner shall be suitably compensated for the negligence on the part of the registering Authority.
24. On the other hand, the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner has been countered by the learned counsel for the respondents by relying upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri K.A.Haridas Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Kolar District and Others reported in ILR 2014 KAR 5943 and prayed for dismissal of the petition. Considering of the rival contentions of the learned counsel and on perusal of the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri K.A.Haridas (supra), wherein it has been clearly held that Section 6 of the Act is not available to the transferee. After considering Section 6 of the Act, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court discussed in Pushpavathi’s case (supra) at para 9 of the judgment and dismissed the petition of the transferee. The advocate Sri N.S.Sanjay Gowda himself had appeared in the said case and also in the present case. Therefore, when there is no sanction obtained for the alienation of property of the granted land, any sale deed executed or conveyed stands void as per Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is not sustainable under the law.
25. Apart from that, it is also brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that in respect of the same land there are two other sale deeds executed by the very same vendor of the petitioner namely, R.Keshava on 2.8.1996 to one Devraj and Bhagyamma on 15.12.1997. Apart from the sale deed of the petitioner on 23.09.1996, Chennamma who is the wife of Devraj and Bhagyamma also filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.Nos.65139/2016 c/w 65141/2016 and this Court upheld the order of respondent Nos.1 and 2 after resumption of the land wherein in the said case the very petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.5. The same advocate addressed the arguments before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court and this Court dismissed the petition of the other transferee of the same land vide judgment dated 23.08.2019 and till date there is no appeal filed against the said order of the Court.
26. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the dismissal of the petition filed by other transferee and also non obtaining of permission from the Government for alienation of the property, respondent Nos.1 and 2 have rightly passed the order of resumption and restoration of the land and held that the sale deeds are void and hit by Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. Therefore, the petition is devoid of merits and hence, liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, Writ Petition stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE mv/pb/gbb