Town Brethren Assembly, Angamaly v. State of Kerala & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT :** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC** **TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931** **WP(C).No. 29167 of 2009(M)** **----------------------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** **-----------------------** **TOWN BRETHREN ASSEMBLY, ANGAMALY REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES MR.E.M.POULOSE, EDACHERIL HOUSE, NEAR SUB-REGISTRAR'S OFFICE, ANGAMALY-683572 AND K.V.VARGHESE KOORANPLANKUDY HOUSE, KALLUPALOM ROAD, ANGAMALY-683 572.** **BY MR.P.KRISHNANKUTTY ACHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS.MR.C.HARIKUMAR MR.V.BOVAN CHERIAN VARKEY MR.VIZZY GEORGE KOKKAT SMT.MOLLY KOSHY** ## **RESPONDENT(S):** - **------------------------** **1. THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF TAXES, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **3. THE JOINT EXCISE COMMISSISONER CENTRAL ZONE, ERNAKULAM.** **4. THE ASSISTANT EXCISE COMMISSIONER ERNAKULAM.** **5. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE ALUVA.** **6. M/S.HOTEL PALACE INN, ANGAMALY REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER MR.HENISH P.V., S/O.P.V.VARGHESE, PYNADATH HOUSE, NAYATHODE P.O., ANGAMALY-683 572.** **R1 TO R5 BY GOVT. PLEADER MR.V.MANU R6 BYMR. C.C.THOMAS, SENIOR ADVOCATE R6 BY ADVS.MR.NIREESH MATHEW, MR.M.G.KARTHIKEYAN.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON 23/02/2010 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** ## **W.P.(C) NO.29167/2009** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS** **P1:- COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF PAGE NUMBER 339/CENSUS OF INDIA-VOLUME 28 TRAVANCORE PART-I REPORT OF 1931 CHAPTER 11 RELIGION -OTHER CHRISTIAN SECT.** **P2:- COPIES OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE BAPTISM REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE CHURCH.** **P3:- COPIES OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE BIRTH REIGSTER MAINTAINED BY THE CHURCH.** **P4:- COPIES OF THE EXTRACT FROM THE MARRIAGE REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE CHURCH.** ## **P5:- COPIES OF THE RITES AND SERVICES OF THE CHURCH.** **P6:-COPIES OF CERTAIN MARRIAGE INVITATION CARD OF CERTAIN BELIEVERS OF THE CHURCH.** **P7:- COPY OF THE OF THE SALE DEED DTD. 30TH MARCH 1982 OF THE CHURCH PROPERTY.** ## **P8:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 20.9.93 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY FOR PAYMENT OF THE APPLICATION FEE.** **P9:- COPY OF THE RECEIPT DTD. 24.8.89 ISSUED BY THE MUNICIPALITY FOR PAYMENT OF THE APPLICATION FEE FOR WATER CONNECTION.** **P10:- COPY OF THE NAME BOARD DISPLAYED AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE PETITIONER CHURCH DETAILING THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT.** **P11:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 18.6.07 ISSUED BY THE SECRETARY, ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY STATING THAT BUILDING NO.V/76 OF THE PETITIONER CHURCH IS EXEMPTED FROM THE PROPERTY TAX.** **P12:- COPY OF THE CERTIFICATE DTD. 29.10.08, THAT THE AFORESAID BUILDING IS USED AS PLACE OF WORSHIP AND PRAYER.** **P13:- COPIES OF THE LAND RECEIPT AS WELL AS A POSSESSION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER STATING THAT THE LAND IS OWNED AND POSSESSED BY THE PETITIONER CHURCH SINCE 30.3.1982.** **P14:- COPIES OF CERTAIN WATER AUTHORITY PAYMENT RECEIPTS DTD. 22.8.1992, 15.1.1995 AND ELECTRICITY BILLS PAYMENT RECEIPTS FOR THE MONTHS JUNE 1990,JULY 1990, OCTOBER 1994, NOVEMBER TO MARCH 1995.** ## **W.P.(C) NO.29167/2009** **P15:- COPY OF THE TESTIMONY OF THE WARD COUNCILLOR WHERE THE CHURCH OF THE PETITIONER IS SITUATED TO THE EFFECT THAT THE BUILDING IS USED AS A PLACE OF WORSHIP.** **P16:- COPIES OF THE SETTLEMENT DEED BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND NEIGHBORING LODGE.** **P17:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HONOURABLE COURT MADE IN WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.12860/08 .** **P18:- COPY OF THE RECOMMENCATION OF CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF EXCISE , ALUVA.** **P19:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF EXCISE COMMISSIONER NO.XC6-22849/08 DT. 7/12/08 BUILDING IS USED AS A PLACE OF WORSHIP.** **P20:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION FILED BY THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** **P21:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN WPC. 15589/09.** **P22:- COPY OF THE PRESS STATEMENT OF THE CARDINAL REPORTED IN MATHRUBHOOMI DAILY DT.6TH DECEMBER 1974.** **P23:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT MADE BY THIS HONOURABLE COURT IN OP. 8328/90.** ## **P24:- COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE IST RESPONDENT DTD. 6.10.09.** **P25:- COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, EXCISE DIVISION OFFICE, KOZHIKODE DTD. 11.11.08.** **P26:- COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ANGAMALY MUNICIPAL OFFICE, ANGAMALY DTD. 9.11.2009.** **P27:- COPIES OF THE PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENT LIST FOR THE YEARS 1991-92 TO 1995-96, 1996-97 TO 2001-02 AND 2002.** **P28:- COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER & JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT (MAGISTERIAL SECTION), DISTRICT COLLECTORATE, ERNAKULAM DTD. 9.11.09.** **P29:- COPY OF THE MANUAL OF GUIDELINES TO PREVENT AND CONTROL DISTURBANCES TO COMMUNAL HARMONY DTD. 25.7.05.** **P30:- COPY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, KSEB SECTION OFFICE, ANGAMALY DTD. NIL.** **P31:- COPY OF THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, TAXES DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE SAID OFFICER DTD. 20.1.2009.** ## **W.P.(C) NO.29167/2009** ## **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS** **R6(a):- COPY OF THE STATEMENT BY THE ASST. EXCISE COMMISSIONER, ERNAKULAM IN OP. 8328/90 BEFORE THIS HONOURABLE COURT.** **R6(b):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 22.11.08 ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE OFFICER, ANGAMALY TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** **R6(c):- COPY OF THE PHOTO SHOWING THE BRETHREN ASSEMBLY HALL OF THE PETITIONER.** **R6(d):- COPY OF THE LETTER DTD. 27.6.08 ISSUED BY THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, ANGAMALY MUNICIPALITY TO THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** **R6(e):- COPY OF THE ARGUMENT NOTE DTD. 26.8.09 FILED BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT.** **TRUE COPY** ## **P.S. TO JUDGE** **tss** ## **ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ------------------------------------------------W.P.(C) NO.29167 OF 2009 (M) --------------------------------------------------** ## **Dated this the 23[rd] day of February, 2010** ## **J U D G M E N T** Prayer in the writ petition is to quash Ext.P24 order passed by the first respondent and to declare that the Brethren Assembly Hall situated in V/76 of Angamaly Municipality comprised in Sy.No. 374/12 is a Church. 2. Petitioner contends that the Brethren Assembly is congregational in nature and following Holy Bible as the only doctrinal scripture of Christianity. According to the petitioner, the Brethren Assembly purchased the property in question by Ext.P7 sale deed dated 30[th] March, 1982, where, they constructed a building which is used for their religious worship and other purposes such as baptism, Holy Communion, marriage, funeral services, Sunday School, prayer meetings on Sundays, week day prayer gatherings, Bible study, prayer meetings of women and men, family meetings and youth meetings. 3. It is stated that recognizing the Assembly Hall as a Place of Worship, as certified in Ext.P11, Municipality has exempted the building from property tax. They have also **WPC.No. 29167/09** ## **:2 :** produced as Ext.P12, another certificate issued by the Municipality, certifying that the Assembly Hall is a place of worship. Tax receipt and possession certificate are produced as Ext.P13, which also show that the property in question belongs to Brethren Assembly. Other documents such as the certificate issued by the Municipal Councilor, extract of Baptism Register, Marriage Register, Photographs of the various activities in the Brethren Assembly Hall and marriage invitations are also produced to explain the nature of activities that are going on at the Assembly Hall. 4. According to the petitioner, in respect of a hotel building situated within 80 meters from the Brethren Assembly Hall, the 6[th] respondent applied for FL-3 licence to the 2[nd] respondent. The application was recommended by the 5[th] respondent as per Ext.P18 report. The matter was finally considered by the Excise Commissioner. In the meanwhile, petitioner also had submitted complaints objecting to the grant of licence on the ground that the hotel in question is situated within the prohibited distance of 200 meters from the Brethren Assembly Hall, which according to the petitioner is a Church. The **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:3 :** matter was considered by the Excise Commissioner and Ext.P19 order was issued holding that the Brethren Assembly Hall is a Church as defined in the Foreign Liquor Rules and that since the hotel was situated within the 200 meters of the Church, the application made by the 6[th] respondent for FL-3 licence cannot be considered in the light of Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. Accordingly the application was rejected. 5. Aggrieved by Ext.P19 order, the 6[th] respondent filed Ext.P20 revision before the first respondent invoking its power under Rule 40 of the Foreign Liquor Rules. Thereafter they filed WP(c). No.15589/2009 before this court complaining of delay in the disposal of the revision. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P21 judgment directing disposal of Ext.P20 revision within two months. Accordingly, the revision was considered and Ext.P24 order was passed by the first respondent, allowing the revision and directing the 2[nd] respondent to take further necessary action in the matter. The reasoning of the first respondent contained in paragraphs 4 and 5 of Ext.P24 order, reads as under: “Government have examined the Revision petition in detail. As per note(1) to rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rule “Church” means a public place where prayer is offered by Christians. Permission for the construction of the said building for the Brethren Hall was granted to one **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:4 :** E.V.Mathai and five others, and the permit period expired on 23.10.84. The building was entered in the building register of Angamaly Municipality as “സ�ന� പ��ര�ന�ലയ�”. The Municipal authorities informed that they are not in a position to state that the Brethren Assembly Hall is a church or not. They have categorically stated that for conducting any assembly, the building owner has to comply with all the procedural requirements contemplated under Rule 55 of the KMBR Act, 1999 which mandates an NOC from the District Collector and that no such NOC was granted in respect of the Brethren Assembly Hall. It has been stated by the Municipal authorities that appropriate action will be taken by the Municipal authorities, for conducting the Assembly without complying with the provisions of the KMBR Act, 1999. In the judgment in O.P.No.8328/1990, the Hon'ble High Court dismissed the contention that a Bethel Gospel Hall which is functioning within 200 metres from the Hotel Castle Rock, Panampally Nagar, Cochin-16 is a Church. Relying on the above decision and the reports of the Municipal authorities as well as the Asst. Excise Commissioner (Intelligence), it can be concluded that the Angamaly Town Brethren Assembly Hall' is not a church coming within the meaning of the term under note(1) to Rule 13(3) of Foreign Liquor Rules.” It is challenging Ext.P24 order that this writ Petition is filed. 6. Various contentions were urged by the Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner. According to the learned Sr. Counsel, Note-1 to Rule 13 of the Foreign Liquor Rules defines “Church” as public place, where prayer is offered by Christians. Relying on Ext.P1, it was contended that the petitioner is a Congregation of Christians and that the Brethren Assembly Hall in question is a place to which members of the Congregation have access as a **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:5 :** matter of right and therefore, is a public place where prayer is offered by Christians. It was stated that since the hotel in question is admittedly situated within the prohibited distance of 200 meters from the Church, it is illegal to grant FL-3 License to the hotel. It was further argued that the finding in Ext.P24 order that the Assembly Hall is not a Church is erroneous and against the documentary evidence available. It was pointed out that the sale deed shows that the property was purchased by the Congregation, that Ext.P27 Building Register of Municipality showed that the Congregation owns the building, that as certified in Ext.P11, the Municipality has exempted the building from property tax, recognizing it as a place of worship and that Ext.P12 certifies that the Assembly Hall is a place of worship. He also made reference to the pleadings in paragraph 4 and 7 of the Writ Petition explaining the various spiritual activities in the Hall. It is stated that it was without taking into account any of these relevant aspects that the first respondent concluded that the Brethren Assembly Hall is not a Church. Learned Sr. Counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in _**Divakaran M.K. V. Commissioner of Excise, TVM. & Ors**_ . (2009(4) KHC 808), **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:6 :** where the conclusion of the Excise Authorities that a Pentacostal Mission Prayer Hall is a church was upheld by this court. 7. On the other hand, defending the impugned order, the learned Government Pleader contended that the Brethren Assembly Hall cannot be treated as a Church. It was also contended that before passing the impugned order, detailed enquiry was conducted and the report obtained also confirmed that the place cannot be considered as a place of worship or a Church. He placed reliance on the judgment in **Raman** _**Narayanan V. Sankaran Sivaraman**_ (1988(2) KLT 912) which was followed in **Ravindran v. George** (1993(1) KLT 792). Reference was also made to the judgment in _**Thirurangadi Muslim Orphanage Committee V. Government of Kerala and another**_ (2007(2) KHC 822). According to the learned Govt. Pleader, the fact that exemption has been granted from Building Tax, cannot be used for determining whether the Hall in question is a Church for the purposes of the Abkari Act. In this context, reliance was placed on the judgment of this Court in _**Surendran V. State of Kerala**_ (2010(1) KLT 204). **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:7 :** 8. On behalf of the 6[th] respondent, learned Sr. Counsel contended that the hotel in question is a Three star hotel which is entitled to be issued FL-3 licence. Sr. Counsel contended that in the close vicinity of the Brethren Assembly Hall, there is another hotel having FL-3 licence. Counsel also submitted that there is a toddy shop within 400 meters from the Brethren Assembly Hall. It was contended that the petitioner has not raised any objection, against these two establishments and therefore cannot take a different stand when it comes to the 6[th] respondent's hotel alone. He also argued that the petitioner is adopting a hostile attitude against the 6[th] respondent alone at the instance of the business rivals of the 6[th] respondent and therefore the writ petition lacks bona fides. He also submitted that the petitioner is a private trust, using the building for their own activities and that such a place cannot be a public place of worship, to qualify as a Church. Learned Counsel also placed considerable reliance on Ext.P23 judgment rendered by this court in O.P.No.8328/90, which was relied on by the Government in Ext.P24 order. 9. I have considered the submissions made. As already stated the main prayer sought in the writ Petition is to quash **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:8 :** Ext.P24 order passed by the first respondent allowing the revision filed by the 6[th] respondent against Ext.P19 order passed by the 2[nd] respondent. The question to be considered is whether this order is vitiated for any reason warranting to be interfered with in a proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 10. A reading of Ext.P24, the impugned order passed by the 1[st] respondent, shows that it has relied on the building permit issued to Sri.E.V.Mathai and five others, the entry in the building register and communication from the Municipal authorities, stating that they are not in a position to state whether the Brethren Assembly Hall is a Church or not. Further, absence of NOC as contemplated in Rule 55 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules, 1999 and Ext.P23 judgment of this Court in OP No.8328/90 have also been relied on to conclude that the Brethren Assembly Hall is not a Church as defined in Note 1 to Rule 13(3) of the Foreign Liquor Rules. However, it is to be noticed that, in this order, the 1[st] respondent has not made reference to, or overruled any of the documents or other evidence relied on by the Excise Commissioner in Ext.P19 order. This order makes reference to documents issued by the Village Officer, certificate **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:9 :** issued by the Secretary of the Municipality, possession certificate, Ext.P1 census report and such other documents. Further the order does not show that any endevour was made to find out whether the Hall is actually used as a place of worship or for any religious functions. No reference is made about Ext.P2 Baptism Register, Ext.P3 Birth Register, Ext.P4 Marriage Register, Ext.P6 Marriage Invitation Cards, Ext.P7 sale deed in the name of the trust, Ext.P11 certificate of the Municipal Secretary stating that the building in question is exempted from the levy of property tax, Ext.P12 certificate of the Municipality that the building in question is a place of worship, Ext.P13 possession certificate, Ext.P15 certificate issued by the Councillor of Ward No.5 stating that the building in question is a place of worship of the believers of the Church. Here, in this context, it should also be mentioned that from the contents of Ext.P24 order, it is not clear whether these documents were available before the Revisional Authority. In any case, it cannot be disputed that these documents are relevant to decide the issue raised in the revision. **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:10 :** 11. Along with the reply affidavit, petitioner has also produced as Ext.P31, the report submitted by the Officer, who heard the parties on Ext.P20 revision filed by the petitioner. In this report, it has been found that the Brethren Assembly Hall is a Church as defined in the Foreign Liquor Rules. In Ext.P24 order of the 1[st] respondent nothing has been stated as to why the conclusion/recommendation of the officer who heard the parties was unacceptable to the Revisional Authority, and whether, the Revisional Authority had any further material available before it to take a contrary view. 12. In Ext.P24 order, reference has been made to the Building Register of the Angamaly Municipality where the building in question is allegedly described as “സ�ന� പ��ര�ന�ലയ�”. The Building Register is Ext.P27. A reading of this Building Register shows that against the column ഉടമയ�ടട പ�ര�� പമല��ല�സ���, the entry is Brethren Assembly Hall, and against the column ക��ശക�രട�പയ���ട�ക�രട�പയ� പ�ര� , the entry is “സ�ന� പ��ര�ന�ലയ�.” A reasonable appreciation of the entry in the building register shows that the expression “സ�ന� പ��ര�ന�ലയ�” only means that the place of worship belongs to **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:11 :** the Brethren Assembly Hall, the owner of the building. On the other hand, the manner in which the said document has been appreciated and referred to in Ext.P24 would suggest that Assembly Hall has been accepted as a private place of worship. 13. In Ext.P24 reference is also made to the information given by the Municipal authorities that they are not in a position to state whether the Brethren Assembly Hall is a Church or not. In my view, the view expressed by the Municipal authorities is inconsistent with Ext.P12, the certificate issued by the Municipality itself where it is stated that the building in question is a place of worship. That apart, treating the building in question as a place of worship, the building has also been exempted by the Municipality from the levy of property tax. It is so certified in Ext.P11. Ext.P15 is the certificate issued by the Councillor from Ward No.5, which also says that the place in question is a place of worship. Therefore, the information said to have been given by the Municipality, which is relied on in Ext.P24 , at least prima facie appear to be inconsistent with the contents of the aforesaid three documents and this aspect is also not adverted to in Ext.P24.In this context it should be noted that relying on _**Surendran's**_ **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:12 :** _**case**_ (2010(1) KLT 204), learned Government Pleader contended that even if the Hall has been treated as a place of worship for the purposes of Municipality Act, the same yardstick cannot be adopted for the purposes of Abkari Act. Though there cannot be any quarrel with the proposition canvassed by the learned Govt. Pleader, in this case the Municipality itself has taken inconsistent stands about the status of Hall in Ext.P12 and in the communication mentioned in Ext.P24. 14. In so far as the absence of NOC issued under Rule 55 of the KMBR is concerned, petitioner's argument before this Court is that the requirement of the NOC as mentioned in this order came into force w.e.f. 9/10/2001 whereas the building in question has been in existence since 1980. It was therefore contended that the requirement of an NOC cannot apply to the Brethren Assembly Hall of the petitioner. This also is a matter to be considered. 15. In so far as Ext.P23, the judgment in OP No.8328/1990 relied on against the petitioner is concerned, it should be stated that a reading of the judgment shows that the Learned Judge on facts had found that apart from various meetings that are held in **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:13 :** the building owned by a private trust, no prayer is conducted inside the hall. On the other hand, in this case, the materials produced, at least prima facie shows otherwise. Therefore, the relevance of the judgment is also a matter which needs a deeper consideration. In this context the judgment of this Court in _**Divakaran M.K. V. Commisioner of Excise Tvm. Ors**_ . (2009 (4) KHC 808) when the finding that Pentecostal Mission Prayer Hall is a Church was upheld by this court, is also relevant. 16. On behalf of the party respondents, it was strenuously argued that there is a bar hotel and a toddy shop situated within the prohibited distance from the petitioner's Assembly Hall and that the petitioner having not raised objections against the bar hotel and the toddy shop, cannot oppose the 6[th] respondent's application and that the objection now raised lacks bona fides. This contention of the petitioner is answered in para 5 of the reply affidavit of the petitioner, where it is stated that both the hotel and the toddy shop do not have a direct access to the Church and that though the bar in the neighbourhood causes inconvenience to the Church going public, the petitioner has been trying to prevail upon the Government to persuade the Hotel Hills **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:14 :** Park to remove themselves to a more distant place. If as a matter of fact, the location of these two shops do not cause any inconvenience to the petitioner, the fact that they have not opposed to its location will not by itself dis-entitle the petitioner to raise their objection, if a new shop is proposed to be located at an inconvenient location nor such conduct of the petitioner, without anything more, suggests any mala fides. The correctness of what is contended in the reply affidavit is a matter for the Government to ascertain and consider and I leave it at that. 17. On an over all appreciation, I am satisfied that while disposing of the revision filed by the 6[th] respondent, the 1[st] respondent did not advert to the issues in the proper perspective and therefore Ext.P20 revision needs to be reconsidered. Therefore, I set aside Ext.P24 and direct the 1[st] respondent to hear the parties and pass fresh orders on Ext.P20 revision filed by the 6[th] respondent against Ext.P19 order. It is made clear that it will be open to both the parties to produce and rely on additional documents, if they wish to do so, and that the 1[st] respondent shall decide the matter, adverting to the documents produced and the contentions urged and untrammeled by the observations in this ## **WPC.No. 29167/09** **:15 :** judgment. The revision shall be disposed of as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within 6 weeks of production of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above. **(ANTONY DOMINIC) JUDGE** vi/