Master Alli Sai Deepak v. The Government Of An..., Andhra Pradesh High Court, Judgment, Law, casemine.com

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

W.P.No.17162 of 2009

Advocates

For the Petitioner: P. Srinivas
Advocate. For the Respondents: R1
G.P. for High Education
R2
B. Ashok Kumar
Advocate
R3
K. Rathangapani Reddy
Standing Counsel
University
R5
S. Niranjan Reddy
Standing Counsel for M.C.I.

Judges

Mr. Justice Ghulam Mohammed
Mr. Justice Nooty Ramamohana Rao

Acts

Rules called Andhra Pradesh Government Professional Instituions (Regulation of Admissions into Under-Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2004
Sections 3 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 issued G.O.Ms.No.136
Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983).
Amendment Act of 1993 w.e.f. August 27, 1992) and Clauses (j), (k) and (l) of Section 33."
SECTION 24 ANDHRA PRADESH STATE COUNCIL OF HIGHER EDUCATION ACT 1988
provisions of Sections 19-A and 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956.
Rule 4(3)(b)(i) of the A.P.Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation
INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT 1956
Section 20 r/w Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, 1956
Sections 3 and 15 of Act 5 of 1983, and Rule 3(5)(ii)
Section 33 of Medical Council of India Act, 1956
Section 33 of the Medical Council of India Act,
Section 33(j) of the Indian Medical Council Act,
ARTICLE 14 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA
Section 33 of the Medical Council Act
Section 15 of Act 5 of 1983
INDIAN MEDICAL COUNCIL ACT

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner sought admission to the I year M.B.B.S. course in one of the medical colleges in Andhra Pradesh and challenged Regulation No.4 of the Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (1997 Regulations) which requires a candidate to have completed 17 years of age on or before 31 December of the year of admission. The petitioner also challenged Rule 4(3)(b)(i) of the A.P. Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into Under-graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993 (1993 Rules).

Relevant facts: the petitioner (date of birth 23-3-1993) passed the SSC examination (March 2007) and completed Intermediate (science) with an 'A' grade. He appeared in EAMCET-2009 and obtained rank No.938. As he had not completed 17 years of age by 31-12-2009 (shortfall of 2 months 23 days), he was informed during counselling that he was ineligible on account of age.

Procedural history: the petitioner filed W.P. No.14725 of 2009 seeking correction of age; that petition was dismissed on 22-7-2009 leaving it open to approach the authority concerned. The petitioner then obtained G.O.Rt.No.545 dated 23-7-2009 from the State (purporting to condone the age shortfall) but respondents 3 and 4 refused to permit him to attend counselling. He filed W.P. No.14965 of 2009 (said to be pending) and subsequently the present writ petition challenging the age-related regulations and seeking directions to respondents 3 to 5 to follow the G.O. and permit counselling in the BC-D category.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the Medical Council of India (MCI) has the power and jurisdiction to prescribe a minimum age for admission to medical colleges (specifically, the validity of Regulation No.4 of the 1997 Regulations requiring completion of 17 years of age on or before 31 December of the year of admission).
Whether the corresponding provisions in the Andhra Pradesh rules (and the State Government's G.O.Rt.No.545 dated 23-7-2009 condoning the petitioner's shortfall of age) are valid or impermissibly conflict with the MCI Regulations.
Whether the petitioner's shortfall of age could be condoned by the State Government and, if so, whether such condonation is binding on the authorities responsible for admission (respondents 3–5).

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner's Arguments

The Medical Council of India is not empowered to prescribe a minimum age for admission; its statutory tasks relate to maintaining the all-India register of medical practitioners and prescribing standards for post-graduate medical education, not fixing age limits.
Fixing the age for admission is within the competence of the State Legislature; the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983) governs that domain.
The State Government, having exercised its power under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988, had relaxed/condoned the petitioner's shortfall by G.O.Rt.No.545 dated 23-7-2009, and that decision should bind respondents 3–5.
There is discrimination in prescribing minimum ages: for engineering the minimum age is 16 years while for MBBS it is 17 years, despite candidates taking the same qualifying and competitive examinations.
The MCI's power under Section 33(j) of the Indian Medical Council Act is to prescribe courses, periods of study and standards, but not to prescribe age for admission.

Government Pleader for Higher Education (State)

The Rules are framed under Section 15 of Act 5 of 1983 and prescribe the minimum age of 17 years, which is consistent with the Medical Council of India's stipulation.
The Government's grant of relaxation in the petitioner's case (by GO) is justified by the peculiar facts and to encourage a meritorious student.

Counsel for the Fourth Respondent (University)

Reliance on State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kumari Nivedita Jain: Regulation‑I (conditions/qualifications for admission) falls within the competence of the Medical Council under Section 33 and is therefore mandatory.
The Andhra Pradesh Government framed Rules (2004) under Sections 3 and 15 of Act 5 of 1983; Rule 3(5)(ii) prescribes completion of 17 years as on 31 December of the year of admission; thus the Government's relaxation is not legal.

Standing Counsel for the Medical Council of India (MCI)

The MCI is empowered by Section 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act to make Rules and Regulations; those Regulations (1997 Regulations) are statutory and binding where they fall within Section 33's purposes.
Relied on precedent (including the Rajasthan Full Bench and a single Judge decision in U. Anveshini) in support of the proposition that prescribing minimum age is within the powers of the Council.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH v. KUMARI NIVEDITA JAIN (1981) 4 SCC 296	Held that Regulation‑I (conditions/qualifications for admission into medical course) falls within the competence of the Medical Council under Section 33 and is mandatory.	The Court cited this decision to support the proposition that Regulation‑I of the MCI Regulations is within MCI's competence and carries mandatory force.
DR. PREETI SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF M.P. (1997) 7 SCC 120	Constitution Bench observation that under the Indian Medical Council Act the Council is empowered to prescribe standards; Regulations under Section 20 read with Section 33 are binding and States cannot make conflicting rules.	The Court relied on this authority to reinforce that Regulations framed under the Medical Council Act are binding and that States cannot enact provisions inconsistent with those Regulations.
MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA (AIR 1998 SC 2423)	Paragraph cited: the Indian Medical Council Act is relatable to Entry 66, List I; it prevails over State enactments to the extent of repugnancy; Regulations under Section 33 with Central Government sanction are statutory and, if within Section 33 purposes, have mandatory force.	The Court quoted and applied this passage to hold that the MCI Regulations (1997 Regulations) are statutory where within Section 33 purposes and therefore prevail over inconsistent State action such as ad hoc G.Os.
GAUTAM KAPOOR v. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (AIR 1987 Rajasthan 174) — Full Bench	Full Bench observed courts must give due weight to MCI recommendations; the requisite maturity for medical students is normally not attained before age 17; prescribing 17 years is valid and not violative of Article 14.	The Court cited this decision to support the rational basis for fixing 17 years as minimum age and to give weight to the expert view of the MCI.
U. ANVESHINI v. CONVENOR, EAMCET-2000 (2001 (6) ALD 180)	Single Judge observed that power to prescribe minimum age is traceable to Section 19-A and that prescribing qualifications for admission may include power to prescribe minimum or maximum age.	The MCI (and the Court) relied on this view as supportive authority that the power to prescribe age-related qualifications is within the statutory scheme.
P.A. INAMDAR v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 2005 SC 3226)	Referenced by the State as a precedent in the context of framing state rules in exercise of powers under Act 5 of 1983.	The Court noted the State framed G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 30-4-2007 in pursuance of this judgment and in exercise of Sections 3 and 15 of Act 5 of 1983, aligning the State's age prescription with MCI Regulation No.4.
W.P. Nos. 3684 of 1980 and batch (Division Bench of this Court) — disposed 22-08-1980	Division Bench considered similar contentions and held that the minimum and maximum age limits for I year MBBS course are reasonable and constitute fair restrictions under Article 14; rejected discrimination contention between engineering and medical ages.	The Court relied on this prior decision of the High Court as supporting authority that prescribing 17 years for medical admission is reasonable and has a rational basis related to maturity and complexity of medical subjects.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court proceeded by identifying the relevant statutory scheme and precedents and then applying those principles to the facts:

Statutory framework: the Court noted that medical education in India is governed by the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (an Act of Parliament), and the Medical Council of India is constituted under that Act. The Council is empowered to prescribe standards of medical education, which the Court stated include age, qualifications, duration of course, internship and other mandatory requirements.
Regulations and their character: the Court examined Regulations framed under Section 33 (and related provisions such as Section 19‑A and Section 20 as discussed in precedent). Relying on the cited Supreme Court authorities, the Court emphasized that Regulations under Section 33 which fall within its purposes have mandatory force and are binding on States and other authorities; where such Regulations are statutory in character, they prevail over inconsistent State enactments or executive orders.
Application of precedent: the Court relied on the decisions (including State of Madhya Pradesh v. Kumari Nivedita Jain, Preeti Srivastava, and Medical Council of India v. State of Karnataka) to conclude that Regulation No.4 of the 1997 Regulations (which stipulates completion of 17 years by 31 December of the year of admission) is mandatory and within the competence of the Medical Council.
Rational basis for age limitation: the Court referred to earlier decisions (including the Rajasthan Full Bench in Gautam Kapoor and the Division Bench of this Court in W.P. Nos. 3684/1980 and batch) which had accepted that prescribing 17 years for medical admission has a rational basis. The Court repeated that medical education requires a degree of maturity not necessarily required in other courses (such as engineering).
Assessment of G.O.Rt.No.545 dated 23-7-2009: the Court observed that the State Government had issued an order condoning the petitioner's age shortfall despite G.O.Ms.No.16 (which stipulated the minimum age) and that the G.O.Rt.No.545 did not trace the source of power under the Rules or Act; the Court expressed displeasure at how the GO was issued and noted that the factors motivating issuance were not clearly set out.
Conduct of the petitioner: the Court observed that the petitioner took the entrance exam fully aware that he had not completed 17 years and thus was aware of the consequences of his action.
Conclusion of law applied to facts: combining the statutory character of the MCI Regulations, the binding nature of those Regulations where within Section 33 purposes, the supporting precedents, and the lack of a clear legal basis for the State GO condoning the age shortfall, the Court held that the challenge to the validity of the Regulations could not succeed and that the State GO could not be permitted to override the mandatory requirements laid down by the MCI Regulations.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The writ petition is dismissed (the court ordered the writ petition to be dismissed without any order as to costs).

Implications and immediate consequences:

Direct effect on the parties: the petitioner is not permitted to gain admission in reliance on G.O.Rt.No.545 dated 23-7-2009 condoning his age shortfall; the mandatory requirement of completion of 17 years by 31 December stands and the petitioner's challenge fails.
On legal principles: the Court reaffirmed that Regulations framed by the Medical Council under Section 33 (and related provisions) are binding where they fall within the purposes of Section 33 and that State action inconsistent with such Regulations cannot override them.
On the State G.O.: the Court expressed displeasure at the State Government issuing G.O.Rt.No.545 without tracing a legal source under the Rules or Act and noted that the reasons for it were not clearly articulated; implicitly the Court treated such ad hoc condonation as improper in the face of mandatory MCI Regulations.
Precedential effect: the Court applied existing Supreme Court and High Court authorities to dismiss the petition; the opinion does not announce a new legal precedent beyond application of those authorities to the facts of this case.

No additional facts, arguments, or legal principles have been added beyond those expressly stated in the provided opinion.

Show full summary ...

Master Alli Sai Deepak v. The Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Higher Education Department Others

Ghulam Mohammed, J.

The petitioner, who is seeking admission into

I year M.B.B.S. course in one of the medical colleges in the State of Andhra Pradesh, challenges the validity of Regulation No.4 of Graduate Medical Education Regulations, 1997 (for short ‘1997 Regulations’) stipulating that the candidate should have completed the age of 17 years on or before 31^st December, prescribed by the Medical Council of India, so also Rule 4(3)(b)(i) of the A.P.Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission into Under-graduate Professional Courses through Common Entrance Test) Rules, 1993 (for short ‘1993 Rules’).

The petitioner alternatively seeks direction to respondents 3 to 5 to follow G.O.Rt.No.545 dated 23-7-2009 issued by the first respondent and permit the petitioner to participate in the counselling for admission to medical stream in BC-D category.

The core issue that arises for consideration in this writ petition is the power and jurisdiction of the Medical Council of India to fix the minimum age regulating the admission process to the Medical Colleges.

The factual matrix relevant for deciding the issue may be stated thus: The petitioner had passed SSC examination held in March, 2007 and was placed in first division and he had also finished Intermediate course with science subjects and secured ‘A’ grade. He had appeared for the EAMCET-2009, which is a Common Entrance Test for admission into Medical, Engineering and other allied courses in the State of Andhra Pradesh, and obtained rank No.938. While so, the petitioner’s date of birth being 23-3-1993, he has fallen short of 2 months 23 days for completion of 17 years by 31-12-2009, which is the minimum age limit fixed by the State Government for admission into a medical course after Intermediate. Therefore, the petitioner was informed during the counselling for admission into medical stream that he is not eligible for admission in view of shortage of age. Then, the petitioner moved this Court by way of W.P.No.14725 of 2009 for correction of age and the said writ petition was dismissed by order 22-7-2009 leaving it open to him to approach the authority concerned. He had approached the first respondent–State Government for relaxation of age and the first respondent passed orders in G.O.Rt.No.545, Higher Education (EC-2) Department, dated 23-07-2009 condoning the shortfall of his age in order to secure admission into I year medical stream for the academic year 2009-2010. It is averred that respondents No.3 and 4 had still refused to permit the petitioner to attend for the counselling and thus, he filed writ petition being W.P.No.14965 of 2009, which is said to be pending. Hence, the present writ petition.

Heard Sri P.Sreenivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Higher Education for first respondent, Sri B.Ashok Kumar, learned counsel for second respondent, Sri K.Rathangapani Reddy, standing counsel for the third respondent, Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, standing counsel for Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences and Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, standing counsel for Medical Council of India, and also perused the material available on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the provisions of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 and 1997 Regulations made thereunder, and contended that Medical Council is assigned the task of maintenance of all-India register of medical practitioners and to prescribe the standards for the post-graduate medical education throughout India but it is not empowered to deal with the prescription of minimum age. He further contended that the fixation of age for regulating admission to educational institutions is within the domain of the State Legislature, for which purposes it has enacted Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admissions and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 (Act 5 of 1983). Learned counsel also contended that the State Government in exercise of power conferred under Section 24 of the Andhra Pradesh State Council of Higher Education Act, 1988, had relaxed and condoned the shortfall of age and the said decision is binding on the 3^rd, 4^th and 5^th respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in respect of admission to engineering course, the minimum age of 16 years is prescribed, whereas a candidate seeking admission to MBBS course has to complete 17 years of age, therefore it amounts to discrimination especially when candidates write the same qualifying as well as competitive examinations. He also contended that under Section 33(j) of the Indian Medical Council Act, the Council is empowered to prescribe the courses, period of study, practical training to be undertaken, subjects and standards of proficiency therein to be obtained only, but it does not deal with the prescription of age for admission to a course of study.

Learned Government Pleader for Higher Education contended that the Rules are framed in terms of Section 15 of Act 5 of 1983 and the minimum age of completion of 17 years is prescribed, which is not inconsistent and it is in pari materia with the minimum age stipulated by the Medical Council of India. He further supported the GO granting relaxation in view of the peculiar fact situation, to encourage an otherwise meritorous student.

Learned counsel for the fourth respondent – University has drawn our attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KUMARI NIVEDITA JAIN (1981) 4 SCC 296) and contended that Regulation-I which lays down the conditions or qualifications for admission into medical course falls within the competence of the Medical Council of India under Section 33 of Medical Council of India Act, 1956 and hence any such stipulation is mandatory. He further contended that even the A.P. State Government had framed Rules called ‘Andhra Pradesh Government Professional Instituions (Regulation of Admissions into Under-Graduate Medical and Dental Professional Courses) Rules, 2004 in exercise of powers conferred by Sections 3 and 15 of Act 5 of 1983, and Rule 3(5)(ii) thereof stipulates that the candidate should have completed 17 years of age as on 31^st December of the year of admission, therefore the relaxation of age given by the Government is not legal. The learned standing counsel for MCI, while supporting the above plea, also relied upon the Full Bench decision of Rajasthan High Court in GAUTAM KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (AIR 1987 RAJASTHAN 174) in support of the proposition that prescribing minimum age of 17 years is valid and not violative of article 14 of the constituion of india and that the Court must give weight to the recommendations of the Medical Council. He has also relied upon the decision of a learned single Judge in U.ANVESHINI Vs. CONVENOR, EAMCET-2000 (2001 (6) ALD 180) wherein it was observed that the power to prescribe the minimum age is traceable to Section 19-A of the Act and the power to prescribe the qualifications for admission to undergraduate courses includes the power to prescribe the minimum or the maximum age, as the case may be.

Learned standing counsel for the fifth respondent – Medical Council of India contended that by virtue of Section 33 of the Medical Council of India Act, the Council is empowered to make Rules and Regulations.

In the instant case, we are concerned with the provisions of Sections 19-A and 33 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956. Admittedly, the medical education in India is regulated and governed by the provisions of Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, which is enacted by Parliament, and in order to give effect to the Act, the Medical Council of India is constituted and the Council is empowered under the Act to prescribe standards of medical education, including the age, qualfications, duration of course, internship and any other mandatory requirements which would further the quality and standard of medical profession in the country, be it at the under-graduate level or post-graduate level. While this being the role of Medical Council of India, 1997 Regulations have been framed and Regulation No.4 thereunder deals with the eligibility criteria for admission to the medical course, which stipulates that the candidate shall complete the age of 17 years on or before 31^st December of the year of admission. Likewise, the Government of Andhra Pradesh in pursuance of the judgment of the Supreme Court in P.A.INAMDAR Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (AIR 2005 SC 3226) and in exercise of powers conferred under Sections 3 and 15 of the Andhra Pradesh Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Prohibition of Capitation Fee) Act, 1983 issued G.O.Ms.No.136 dated 30-4-2007 whereunder the age limit is fixed and the candidate should have completed the age of seventeen years on or before 31^st December of the year of admission. This is in conformity with the Regulation No.4 of the Medical Council of India. The question as to whether the Regulations framed under Section 33 of the said Act are mandatory or not, has been considered by the Supreme Court in STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. KUMARI NIVEDITA (1 supra) and it was categorically held that Regulation-I which lays down the conditions or qualifications for admission into medical course falls within the competence of the Council under Section 33 of the Act and hence is mandatory. Further, the Council has used language to manifest the mandatory character clearly, whereas Regulation-II which deals with the process or procedure for selection from amongst eligible candidates for admission is merely recommendatory and directory in nature, as laying down the process or procedure for selection for admission of candidates out of the candidates eligible or qualified for such admission under Regulation-I.

The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in DR. PREETI SRIVASTAVA Vs. STATE OF M.P. (1997) 7 SCC 120) per majority view, inter alia, observed that under Indian Medical Council Act, 1956, the Indian Medical Council is empowered to prescribe, inter alia, standards in respect of medical education and the Regulations framed under Section 20 r/w Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, 1956 governing the medical education, are binding and the States cannot make Rules and Regulations which are in conflict with or adversely impinge uopn the Regulations framed by the Medical Council of India.

The Supreme Court in MEDICAL COUNCIL OF INDIA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA (AIR 1998 SC 2423) held as under:

"25. The Indian Medical Council Act is relatable to Entry 66 of List I (Union List). It prevails over any State enactment to the extent the State enactment is repugnant to the provision of the Act even though the State Acts may be relatable to Entries 25 or 26 of List III (Concurrent List). Regulations framed under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act with the previous sanction of the Central Government are statutory. These regulations are framed to carry out the purposes of the Medical Council Act and for various purposes mentioned in Section 33. If a regulation falls within the purposes referred under Section 33 of the Medical Council Act, it will have mandatory force. Regulations have been framed with reference to clauses (fa), (fb) and (fc) (which have been introduced by the Amendment Act of 1993 w.e.f. August 27, 1992) and Clauses (j), (k) and (l) of Section 33."

A Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in GAUTAM KAPOOR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (2 supra), while dealing with a similar issue, observed as follows:

"Court must give due weight to the recommendation of the Medical Council of India in this behalf which is being followed uniformly for a long time throughout the country and which is undoubtedly based on experience of experts in the field. It is their opinion that the requisite degree of maturity of body and mind for entry into a Medical College is not attained normally before the age of 17 years."

A Division Bench of this Court has considered similar contentions and after considering the entire matter elaborately, negatived the same in W.P.Nos.3684 of 1980 and batch, which was disposed of 22-08-1980. It was also observed that the minimum and maximum age limits prescribed for admission into I year MBBS course are reasonable and fair restrictions within the meaning of

Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The contention that the minimum age of 16 years prescribed for engineering course while minimum age of completion of 17 years is prescribed for medical course amounts to discrimination, cannot be accepted for the reason that in respect of the medical course, a candidate is required to take a great load on his mental faculties in view of the vastness of subjects involved in the medical course and the maturity and understanding the same needed certain minimum age. Hence, prescribing minimum age of 17 years has direct relationship with the understanding of complex subjects. A well-trained candidate can turn out to be a good Doctor who will serve the society better. Thus, there is a rational basis for fixing 17 years of age for admission into medical course.

It is not disputed that the Medical Council of India has framed 1997 Regulations in exercise of Section 33 of the said Act, which are mandatory. In the case on hand, the State Government has also framed ndhra Pradesh Common Entrance Test Rules for entry into Engineering, Architecture, Pharmacy, Agriculture, Medical and Dental Course Rules, 2004 prescribing completion of 17 years as on 31^st December of the year of admission as the requisite condition. The petitioner had taken the entrance exam knowing fully well that he has not completed 17 years of age and thus, he is aware of the consequences of his action. It is suprising to note that the State Government while referring to G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 25-2-2004 had issued G.O.Rt.No.545 dated 23-7-2009 condoning the shortage of age in respect of the petitioner. In fact, G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 25-2-2004 stipulates minimum age of completion of 17 years and while so, the State Government had issued G.O.Rt.No.545 dated 23-7-2009 without tracing the source of power under the Rules or Act. We express our displeasure at the way in which the State Government issued G.O.Rt.No.545 dated 23-7-2009 contrary to the Rules governing the field and the factors that led to issuing of the said G.O.Rt.No.545 are not clearly spelt out.

For the foregoing reasons and having regard to the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court as aforestated, the writ petition is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.

Master Alli Sai Deepak v. The Government Of An...