M.selvaraj v. The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, 67 Race Course Road, Coimbatore

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.09.2007 CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ELIPE DHARMA RAO andTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.TAMILVANAN Writ Petition No.3856 of 2004andW.P.M.P.No.4536 of 2004 M.Selvaraj Vs ... Petitioner 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, 67 Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax rep. Union of India, 67-A Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. ... Respondents. Prayer:- Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying for the issuance of the writ of certiorarified mandamuscalling for the records pertaining to the order dated 31.01.2003 made inO.A.No.607 of 2002 of the 3[rd] respondent and the orders of the 1[st]respondent in his proceedings dated 08.11.2000 in C.No.258/Vig/98-99/CBEand that of the 2[nd] respondent in proceedings No. Nil dated 4.3.2002 andquash the same and consequently, direct the respondents to reinstate thepetitioner in service with all consequential service benefits such asseniority, promotion etc. including payment of arrears of pay andallowances. For Petitioners : Mr. Venkatachalapathy, SC, for M/s.M.Sriram. For Respondents : Mr.M.Velusamy, ACGSC O R D E R (Order of the Court was made by ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J.) The writ petition is directed against the order passed by theTribunal in O.A.No.607 of 2002, dated 31.01.2003, wherein the Tribunaldismissed the original application filed by the applicant/writ petitionerchallenging the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service passedby the Disciplinary Authority/the first respondent herein on the basis ofthe enquiry officer's report dated 27.03.2000, and also the order passedby the Appellate Authority/2[nd] respondent herein confirming the order ofdismissal. 2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition is asfollows: i.When the writ petitioner was working as Inspector of Income Tax inWard I(5), Coimbatore, he was charge sheeted on three grounds, on thebasis of the complaint given by the merchant, one R.Subramani,Proprietor of M/s.R.S.M. Vegetable and Fruit Merchant, Stall NO.35,T.K.Market, Coimbatore-641 001, which read as follows :-Ward I(5), Coimbatore, he was charge sheeted on three grounds, on thebasis of the complaint given by the merchant, one R.Subramani,Proprietor of M/s.R.S.M. Vegetable and Fruit Merchant, Stall NO.35,T.K.Market, Coimbatore-641 001, which read as follows :- a)"While functioning as Inspector of Income-tax in Ward I(5),Coimbatore, Shri M.Selvaraj visited the premises of some tradersand made certain enquiries even though he was not authorized tomake such inquiries and harassed them in various ways, therebyexhibiting conduct which is unbecoming of a Government servant ingross violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1964;Coimbatore, Shri M.Selvaraj visited the premises of some tradersand made certain enquiries even though he was not authorized tomake such inquiries and harassed them in various ways, therebyexhibiting conduct which is unbecoming of a Government servant ingross violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1964; a)"While functioning as Inspector of Income-tax in Ward I(5),Coimbatore, Shri M.Selvaraj visited the premises of some tradersand made certain enquiries even though he was not authorized tomake such inquiries and harassed them in various ways, therebyexhibiting conduct which is unbecoming of a Government servant ingross violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1964;Coimbatore, Shri M.Selvaraj visited the premises of some tradersand made certain enquiries even though he was not authorized tomake such inquiries and harassed them in various ways, therebyexhibiting conduct which is unbecoming of a Government servant ingross violation of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1964; c)While functioning as Inspector of Income-tax in Ward I(5),Coimbatore,Shri M.Selvaraj demanded bribe and received a sum ofRs.25,000/- as advance towards such bribe from Shri R.Subramani,Proprietor of M/s.R.S.M. Vegetable & Fruit Merchant, StallNo.35, T.K.Market, Coimbatore-641 001, thereby exhibiting lack ofintegrity and conduct which is unbecoming of a Government servantin gross violation of clauses (i) and (iii) of sub-rule (1) ofRule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964; andCoimbatore,Shri M.Selvaraj demanded bribe and received a sum ofRs.25,000/- as advance towards such bribe from Shri R.Subramani,Proprietor of M/s.R.S.M. Vegetable & Fruit Merchant, StallNo.35, T.K.Market, Coimbatore-641 001, thereby exhibiting lack ofintegrity and conduct which is unbecoming of a Government servantin gross violation of clauses (i) and (iii) of sub-rule (1) ofRule 3 of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964; ande)While functioning as Inspector of Income-tax in Ward I(5),Coimbatore, Shri M.Selvaraj attempted to coerce Shri R.Subramani,Proprietor of M/s.R.S.M. Vegetable and Fruit Merchant, StallNo.35, T.K.Market, Coimbatore-641 001 to withdraw the complaintmade against him by R.Subramani before the Commissioner ofIncome-tax, Coimbatore, and by such conduct Shri M.Selvaraj hasexhibited lack of integrity and conduct which is unbecoming of aGovernment servant, thereby violating the provisions of clauses(i) and (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Central CivilServices (Conduct) Rules, 1964."Coimbatore, Shri M.Selvaraj attempted to coerce Shri R.Subramani,Proprietor of M/s.R.S.M. Vegetable and Fruit Merchant, StallNo.35, T.K.Market, Coimbatore-641 001 to withdraw the complaintmade against him by R.Subramani before the Commissioner ofIncome-tax, Coimbatore, and by such conduct Shri M.Selvaraj hasexhibited lack of integrity and conduct which is unbecoming of aGovernment servant, thereby violating the provisions of clauses(i) and (iii) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 3 of the Central CivilServices (Conduct) Rules, 1964."https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ ii.The writ petitioner denied all the charges. An Enquiry Officer wasappointed to conduct an enquiry in this regard. The Enquiry Officer,on examination of witnesses and on consideration of materials placedon record, submitted his report on 27.03.2000 holding that all thethree charges levelled against the writ petitioner were found proved.appointed to conduct an enquiry in this regard. The Enquiry Officer,on examination of witnesses and on consideration of materials placedon record, submitted his report on 27.03.2000 holding that all thethree charges levelled against the writ petitioner were found proved. ii.The writ petitioner denied all the charges. An Enquiry Officer wasappointed to conduct an enquiry in this regard. The Enquiry Officer,on examination of witnesses and on consideration of materials placedon record, submitted his report on 27.03.2000 holding that all thethree charges levelled against the writ petitioner were found proved.appointed to conduct an enquiry in this regard. The Enquiry Officer,on examination of witnesses and on consideration of materials placedon record, submitted his report on 27.03.2000 holding that all thethree charges levelled against the writ petitioner were found proved. iv.After completing all the formalities, viz., issuance of Show CauseNotice to the petitioner and on receipt of explanation from him inresponse to the said Show Cause Notice, the Disciplinary Authority,passed the order of dismissal, dismissing the writ petitioner fromservice, on 08.11.2000, which, on appeal, was confirmed by theAppellate Authority, viz., the second respondent herein, by orderdated 26.12.2000. Aggrieved of the said orders passed by theDisciplinary and the Appellate Authorities, the original applicationwas preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai,the third respondent herein.Notice to the petitioner and on receipt of explanation from him inresponse to the said Show Cause Notice, the Disciplinary Authority,passed the order of dismissal, dismissing the writ petitioner fromservice, on 08.11.2000, which, on appeal, was confirmed by theAppellate Authority, viz., the second respondent herein, by orderdated 26.12.2000. Aggrieved of the said orders passed by theDisciplinary and the Appellate Authorities, the original applicationwas preferred before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai,the third respondent herein. vi.The Tribunal, after considering the facts and circumstances of thecase and perusing the materials available on record, dismissed theoriginal application filed by the applicant/writ petitioner on theground that the Enquiry Officer, after relying on the evidence let inbefore him, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion thatthe charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved, basedon which report, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly dismissed thepetitioner from service and there was no valid reason to interferewith the order of dismissal. Aggrieved of the said order passed bythe Tribunal, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner.case and perusing the materials available on record, dismissed theoriginal application filed by the applicant/writ petitioner on theground that the Enquiry Officer, after relying on the evidence let inbefore him, both oral and documentary, came to the conclusion thatthe charges levelled against the petitioner were found proved, basedon which report, the Disciplinary Authority has rightly dismissed thepetitioner from service and there was no valid reason to interferewith the order of dismissal. Aggrieved of the said order passed bythe Tribunal, the present writ petition was filed by the petitioner. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writpetitioner and the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counselappearing for the respondents. 3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writpetitioner and the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counselappearing for the respondents. 4. As seen from the order of dismissal passed by the DisciplinaryAuthority, it is clear that three charges were framed against thepetitioner on the ground that while he was working as Inspector of Income-Tax, Ward I(5), Coimbatore, he visited the premises of four traders, viz.,(i) R.Subramani on 13.11.1998, (ii) M.Selvam on 9.9.1998, (iii)C.N.Palaniswamy on 19.11.1998 and (iv) C.L.Vincent on 19.11.1998, andharassed them, demanded bribe and also coerced R.Subramani to withdraw thecomplaint given by him, which was made against the writ petitioner. Hedenied all the charges by his letter dated 4.7.1999. An Enquiry Officerwas appointed on 9.7.1999. During the enquiry, the Enquiry Officerexamined the above four witnesses and recorded their evidence. Accordingto them, the petitioner visited the premises of the above said witnesses,which is outside his jurisdiction, and made enquiries without gettingprior permission from his superior officer. During the enquiry, oneRajagopal, Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-I, Coimbatore, was alsoexamined, who deposed that he did not give any permission to thepetitioner to conduct any inspection in the premises of the abovewitnesses. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting a detailed enquiry andhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ after taking into consideration the depositions made by the witnesses aswell as the recorded telephonic conversation, which the petitioner hadwith the complainant, found that it was established beyond reasonabledoubt that the petitioner was not authorised under Section 133 A toconduct enquiries of any kind in the aforesaid business premises and thepetitioner without getting any power/authorisation from the superiorofficers conducted enquiries and while doing so, he also demanded bribeand came to the conclusion that all the charges levelled against thepetitioner were found proved. He submitted his report on 27.03.2000,which was served on the petitioner on 28.03.2000. The petitioner submittedhis reply on 25.04.2000, wherein he denied all the charges levelledagainst him and stated that there were contradictions in the evidence ofthe witnesses during cross examination and there was also delay on thepart of the complainant in giving complaint against the petitioner and healso requested for re-examination of the defence witnesses, which wasrejected by the Enquiry Officer on the ground that there were no validmaterials placed before him for re-examination of the said witnesses.Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer was directed by the Disciplinary Authorityto hold a limited enquiry for the specific purpose of entertaining thedefence witnesses for examination, thereby given one more opportunity tothe petitioner to present his case and to prove his innocence. Though theEnquiry Officer was given him several opportunities to appear for thehearing and to produce his witnesses for examination, the petitioner didnot chosen to produce them. After completing the limited enquiry, theEnquiry Officer submitted his second report dated 12.09.2000 before theDisciplinary Authority, which was served on the petitioner on 15.09.2000and the petitioner sent his reply on 30.10.2000 raising objections to theabove said report and claimed that he was innocent and ignorant. 5. The Disciplinary Authority, while agreeing with the findingsgiven by the Enquiry Officer by applying his mind independently on theevidence available on record, fully satisfied that the findings of theEnquiry Officer were correct and therefore, came to the conclusion thatall the charges levelled against the charged official, viz., thepetitioner herein, were proved beyond reasonable doubt and the petitioner,by the above said acts, had failed to maintain absolute integrity and hadexhibited conduct unbecoming of a Government servant thereby violating theprovisions of Rules 3(1)(i) and 3(1)(iii) of Central Civil Services(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and accordingly, imposed the penalty of dismissalfrom service. 6. It was contended before the Tribunal that the DisciplinaryAuthority ought to had appreciated that the charges were motivated andfalse allegations were made by the vested interests in the businesscommunity, who were angered by the persistence and sincerity of thepetitioner/applicant in doing his duty and charge No.1 does not discloseany misconduct on facts or in law and no motive or mala fide intention wasattributed when he framed the charges on 08.06.1999. Moreover, when theapplicant conducted the survey as per the instructions of the Income TaxOfficer as required under Section 133 A of the Income Tax Act, that is,pertaining to authorisation before conducting survey. Therefore, theconduct of of the applicant/petitioner in making survey was in accordancewith law and the Disciplinary Authority should not be proceeded againsthttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the petitioner at the instance of the business people, who were aggrievedof the above said survey conducted by the writ petitioner. He also raisedother grounds on the basis of the above stated facts and circumstances. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondentssubmits that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority wassustainable under law. 8. The Tribunal, on consideration of facts and circumstances of thecase and after hearing both sides, dismissed the original applicationfiled by the applicant, thereby confirming the order passed by both theDisciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority in dismissing theapplicant/writ petitioner from service, against which, the present writpetition was filed. 9. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perusedthe materials available on record. The petitioner faced three charges atthe instance of one Subramani against whose shop survey was conducted bythe petitioner and found that though the said Subramani is havingassessable income to pay income tax, he evaded to pay tax, and afternoticing the same by virtue of the above inspection and survey, he waslikely to be prosecuted. Therefore, the said Subramani foisted a falsecomplaint against the writ petitioner with the above said allegations, onthe basis of which, the enquiry was contemplated and further, on the basisof the enquiry report, punishment was imposed dismissing the writpetitioner from service. 10. With regard to conduct of survey by Income Tax Authority, theprior permission has to be obtained under Section 133-A of the Income TaxAct, which contemplates Power of Survey, which reads as follows:-" 133-A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained inany other provision of this Act, an income-taxauthority may enter- (a) any place within the limits of the areaassigned to him or (b) any place occupied by any person in respect ofwhom he exercised jurisdiction, or (c) any place in respect of which he is authorisedfor the purposes of this section by such income taxauthority, who is assigned the area within which suchplace is situated or who exercises jurisdiction inrespect of any person occupying such place. 10. With regard to conduct of survey by Income Tax Authority, theprior permission has to be obtained under Section 133-A of the Income TaxAct, which contemplates Power of Survey, which reads as follows:-" 133-A (1) Notwithstanding anything contained inany other provision of this Act, an income-taxauthority may enter- (a) any place within the limits of the areaassigned to him or (b) any place occupied by any person in respect ofwhom he exercised jurisdiction, or (c) any place in respect of which he is authorisedfor the purposes of this section by such income taxauthority, who is assigned the area within which suchplace is situated or who exercises jurisdiction inrespect of any person occupying such place. 11. Therefore, when an income-tax authority, who is assigned thearea within which such place is situated or who exercises jurisdiction inrespect of any person occupying such place, has to obtain authorisationfrom the Income-tax Authority. The petitioner, who is the Inspector ofIncome-Tax, comes within the meaning of Income-Tax Authority and he isworking in Ward I(5), Coimbatore. Though it is contended that withouthttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ authorisation from the Income-Tax Authority, the petitioner has conductedsurvey or inspection at the shop of the complainant, Mr.Subramani, alongwith others, but, during the course of evidence, it has been recorded inthe Cross Examination of the said Rajagopal, the Income-tax Authority,that he has granted permission to inspect the area by the petitioner. Thepetitioner has succeeded in recording the evidence in the followingmanner:- Cross examination dated 23.02.2000 with Shri K.Rajagopal. The Q and A are as under:- Q. Did you give instruction to your inspector to conductenquiries for unearthing new assessees. A.Yes. I have given general instructions. From the above, there is no question of specific direction/instructions to make enquiries. a)In office practical life, even for survey u/s. 133 A, most ofsurveys- suggestions and survey operations were done only onthe basis of oral instructions and occasionally in writing.In ward I(5), cbe, I assisted/suggested atleast 27 survey u/s.133 A cases only after enquiry by oral. This can be verifiedfrom the office records.surveys- suggestions and survey operations were done only onthe basis of oral instructions and occasionally in writing.In ward I(5), cbe, I assisted/suggested atleast 27 survey u/s.133 A cases only after enquiry by oral. This can be verifiedfrom the office records. b)Please refer my confidential report for the period from 1.4.98to 31.3.99 – part 1 to be filled in by the administrationsection in column no.8 – main duties assigned 'assisting tothe ITO in assessment work, enquiries, audit revisioncollection etc.' From the above, the enquiries are routinework, thus no question of authorised inquiries or notauthorised inquiries. Anyhow, I informed to the office on thesame time of my enquiry.to 31.3.99 – part 1 to be filled in by the administrationsection in column no.8 – main duties assigned 'assisting tothe ITO in assessment work, enquiries, audit revisioncollection etc.' From the above, the enquiries are routinework, thus no question of authorised inquiries or notauthorised inquiries. Anyhow, I informed to the office on thesame time of my enquiry. c)Please refer my report dated 30.11.98, addressed to the ITOWard I(5), Cbe in 1[st] para "As per the direction andinstruction of the incometax officer, ward I(5), CBE, .....investment". This was accepted by the ITO ward I(5), cbe on30.11.98. From 30.11.98 to till date, no objection wasreceived from him. So the inquiries made by me wereauthorised one.Ward I(5), Cbe in 1[st] para "As per the direction andinstruction of the incometax officer, ward I(5), CBE, .....investment". This was accepted by the ITO ward I(5), cbe on30.11.98. From 30.11.98 to till date, no objection wasreceived from him. So the inquiries made by me wereauthorised one. d)I have reported the inquiry in the case of Shri R.Subramani on18.11.98 voluntarily, but the enquiry was conducted on13.11.98. 13[th] was Friday, 14[th] and 15[th] Saturday and Sunday,16[th] Monday, I assisted for survey u/s. 133A with my ITO ShriK.Rajagopal. This was accepted in his report dated 21.2.2000.Please refer Q and A 12. 17th also I assisted for survey. Icould not remember the case. On 18[th], I came to office earlierthan normal office hours and prepared a report in the case ofR.Subramani and reported voluntarily to the ITO about theenquiry in the case of Shri R.Subramani.18.11.98 voluntarily, but the enquiry was conducted on13.11.98. 13[th] was Friday, 14[th] and 15[th] Saturday and Sunday,16[th] Monday, I assisted for survey u/s. 133A with my ITO ShriK.Rajagopal. This was accepted in his report dated 21.2.2000.Please refer Q and A 12. 17th also I assisted for survey. Icould not remember the case. On 18[th], I came to office earlierthan normal office hours and prepared a report in the case ofR.Subramani and reported voluntarily to the ITO about theenquiry in the case of Shri R.Subramani. e)On 18.11.98, I discussed with ITO ward I(5), about theinformation given by R.Subramani in the case of ShriC.L.Vincent that he has potential business, one is having atT.K.Market and another business shop at Mettupalayam Road,Coimbatore. After getting the ITO's oral instruction/approval,I went to Mettupalayam road (M.G.R. Market) Coimbatore. On19.11.98, from the shop of Shri C.L.Vincent, I telephoned tothe ITO about the inquiry in the case of Shri C.L.Vincent.The ITO directed me to come back and give report. Iunderstood that I should give report after making enquiry. SoI asked Shri C.L.Vincent to write his business activities,addressing to ITO Ward I(5), CBE. On 19.11.98, C.L.Vincent has not given or shown hispermanent account no. to me. If he had shown or given hispermanent account no. on that day, I would not have asked him towrite his income tax details from him." 12. From the above evidence, which was recorded during the cross-examination of the said Rajagopal, who is the Income-tax Officer, it isclear that he gave authorisation to inspect the area by the petitioner.Therefore, once he has authorised the petitioner to inspect the area,accordingly, the petitioner has inspected the area and found that thecomplainant is having assessable income for tax. The complainant, inorder to evade from submitting his returns for consideration and assessthe income for tax, made a complaint, on the basis of which, the chargeswere framed. Therefore, the Department should not have taken thecomplaint as a basis to frame charges for conducting the enquiry andthereafter removing the petitioner from service. Once, the authority haspermitted the petitioner to conduct inspection, it satisfies theprovisions of law U/s.133 A of the Income-tax Act, and therefore, theinspection can not be termed as unauthorised inspection, for which, thepetitioner has violated the code of conduct Rules. 13. Therefore, considering the above said facts and circumstancesof the case and after going though the materials available on record, weare of the considered opinion that the petitioner has conducted theinspection within the area authorised him by the Income Tax Authorityand found that the complainant Subramani is having assessable income fortax. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority should not have initiated thedepartmental enquiry against the petitioner on the ground that he hasunauthorisedly inspected the shop of the complainant and violated the Codeof Conduct. 14. The second circumstance that the petitioner has conductedinspection in the shop of the complainant/Subramani, which is not withinthe jurisdiction, is concerned, when the petitioner has gone to the abovesaid shop, he contacted the Income Tax Authority and the Income TaxAuthority, in turn, has instructed the petitioner to proceed withinspection and directed him to submit the report of inspection andhttps://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accordingly, the petitioner submitted his report of inspection on18.11.1999. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has followed theinstructions given by his superior officer, viz., the Income TaxAuthority, in discharging his duties. 15. The third circumstance is that though inspection was conducted bythe petitioner on 13.11.1998, the complaint was given only on 25.11.1998.As far as this circumstance is concerned, when it is noticed that there isdelay in making a complaint against the petitioner by the said Subramani,he gave another complaint by way of explanation for the delay insubmitting the complaint on 7.12.1998. 16. By going through the above said circumstances, we are of theconsidered opinion that the inspection conducted by the petitioner is asper the authorisation required under Rule 133 A of the Income Tax Act andthe department should not have proceeded against the petitioner at theinstance of a tax evader, who gave the complaint against the petitioneronly to protect his interest and to evade from the further consequencesfor not paying the tax. We also found thatthe action of the petitioner is legal and it is within the provisionscontemplated under Section 133 A of the Income Tax Act and his action inconducting inspection in the premises of the complainant is perfectlycorrect. The Department, instead of protecting the officer, whodischarged his duty in the interest of the Department, at the instance ofa tax evader, proceeded against the officer and removed him from service,which, in our opinion, is unfortunate and illegal and we are of thefurther opinion that the piece of evidence recorded during cross-examination of Mr.Rajagopal, the Income Tax officer, has lost sight of bythe Enquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Honourable TamilNadu Administrative Tribunal, and therefore came to a wrong conclusion,which amounts to miscarriage of justice. Therefore, we are of the viewthat the order passed by the Tribunal and the impugned order are liable tobe set aside. Once we have held that the complaint made against thepetitioner at the instance of the complainant was only to protect himfrom then prosecution from evading tax, the other charges are also liableto be set aside as without basis. Accordingly, the impugned order passedby the Tribunal is set aside. The writ petition is allowed. ConnectedM.P. is closed. No costs. bs/ Sd/-Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar To 1. The Commissioner of Income-Tax, 67 Race Course Road, Coimbatore. Coimbatore. 2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Union of India, 67-A Race Course Road, Coimbatore. 3. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai. +1 cc to Mr.M.Sriram, Advocate Sr.No.59896. +1 cc to Mr.M.Veluswami, Advocate Sr.No.60160. VG(CO) dcp/19.11 W.P.No.3856 of 2004