THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 81 OF 2019
ORDER: (Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought three
reliefs from this Court, which are as under:-
(a) to declare the impugned Telangana Heritage Act 2017
as illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the enabling
laws for protection and conservation of heritage
monuments;
(b) declaring the action of the 1st respondent herein
ordering the demolition of the ‘Irrum Manzil’ Heritage
structure to make for the construct the new legislature
complex in its place, as ultra vires and violative of the
constitutional scheme, pertaining to protection and
conservation of heritage monuments and buildings and the
enabling laws made thereunder; and
(c) consequently direct the respondent No. 1 to protect and
conserve the monuments set out under the Andhra
Pradesh Ancient and Historical Monuments and
Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1960 and the Rules
made thereunder and also protect and conserve the
heritage structures as set out in the HUDA Zoning
Regulations until the Telangana Heritage Act, 2017 is
judicially reviewed and the lacunae in it are cured by the
legislature.
2. The detailed facts of the case have already
been narrated in Writ Petition (PIL) Nos.79 of 2019 and
2
86 of 2019. Therefore, they are not being recorded
herein. Therefore, only the bare facts, essential for the
understanding of the controversy involved in this case,
are being narrated as under:
3. In 1870, Nawab Safdar Jung Musheer-ud-
Daula Fakhrul-Mulk himself designed, and got
constructed a 150 room palace for his family, popularly
known as ‘Irrum Manzil’. The palace is sprawled over 36
acres, 36 guntas, on top of a hillock known as
“Erragadda” or “red hill” in the Telugu language. The
word “Errum” means the colour ‘red’ in Telugu language.
The controversy in the present case revolves around the
proposed demolition of the said palace due to the Cabinet
decision dated 18.06.2019 wherein the Council of
Ministers has decided to construct a new legislative
complex at the site of the palace.
4. Keeping in mind the twin aspects of
preservation of historical monuments lying within the
former State of Andhra Pradesh, the said State had
enacted the Andhra Pradesh Ancient and Historical
Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act,
1960 (“the Act, 1960”, for short).
5. But simultaneously keeping in mind the need
to regulate, supervise and control the development of
3
urban areas, the former State of Andhra Pradesh had
enacted the Andhra Pradesh Urban Areas (Development)
Act, 1975 (‘the Urban Areas Act’, for short). The Urban
Areas Act not only prescribes the constitution of an
Urban Art Commission, which would advice the
government with regard to the preservation and
conservation of “historical monuments”, but also
empowered the then Hyderabad Urban Development
Authority (‘HUDA’), to promulgate Regulations for urban
development by invoking its power under Section 59 of
the Urban Areas Act.
6. Consequently, on 14.12.1995, the HUDA
framed and incorporated Regulation 13 within the
Bhagyanagar Urban Development Zoning Regulations,
1981 (“the Zoning Regulations, 1981”, for short). The
said regulation was duly approved by the government by
G.O. Ms. No. 542, dated 14.12.1995.
7. The said regulation was framed “for the
purpose of conserving the buildings, artefacts, structures
and/or precincts off historical and/or aesthetical and/ or
architectural and/or cultural value, which were referred to
as “Heritage Buildings and Heritage Precincts”. The said
regulation further prescribed that the government should
constitute a Heritage Conservation Committee (‘the
4
Committee’, for short). The Committee was imposed with
a duty to identity “heritage buildings” which need to be
protected by the government. Upon the recommendation
of the Committee, by G. O. Ms. No. 102, dated
23.03.1998, the Government had notified and declared
137 buildings lying within Hyderabad as “heritage
buildings”. One of the buildings, so notified and
protected as “heritage buildings”, is the Irrum Manzil,
shown at serial No.47 of the list attached to the said
notification. Subsequently, by G. O. Ms. No.185, dated
22.04.2006, fourteen more buildings were added to the
list. Thus, in total, 151 buildings were declared as
“protected heritage buildings” within Hyderabad.
8. Moreover, Regulation 13(2) of the Zoning
Regulations, 1981 restricted the demolition of the
“heritage buildings”, without the prior written permission
of the Vice-Chairman, HUDA (presently, the
Commissioner, Hyderabad Metropolitan Development
Authority, ‘the HMDA’, for short). According to the said
Regulation, the vice-chairman, HUDA (presently, the
Commissioner of Hyderabad Metropolitan Development
Authority, “the HMDA”, for short) has to act on the advice
of the Committee. Therefore, Regulation 13(2) of the
5
Zoning Regulations, 1981 prescribes the procedure,
established by law, for demolition of “a heritage building”.
9. Subsequently, considering the fact that the
city of Hyderabad had grown into Metropolitan City, the
Hyderabad Metropolitan Development Authority Act,
2008 (‘the HMDA Act’, for short) was brought into force.
With the HMDA coming into existence, HUDA was
abolished. Moreover, under the HMDA Act, Section 57
empowered the HMDA to frame the regulations. In fact,
Section 59 of the Urban Area Act, and Section 57 of the
HMDA Act are identical in their contents. Hence, after
2008, the HMDA is empowered to frame the Master
Plans, Zonal Plans, and the Zoning Regulations.
10. Consequently, in 2010, HMDA formulated the
Metropolitan Development Plan along with the Land Use
Zoning Regulations with regard to the core area of
HMDA–that is the area within the Ring Road of the city.
(Henceforth, while the Metropolitan Development Plan
shall be referred to as “Plan, 2010”, the regulations shall
be referred to as “the Zoning Regulations, 2010”, for
short). On 21.8.2010, the government sanctioned the
Zoning Regulations, 2010.
11. Regulation 2 of the Zoning Regulations, 2010
demarcated different zones of the Hyderabad city, e.g. the
6
residential, the commercial, the industrial zones etc.
Interestingly, keeping in mind the existence of heritage
buildings which were already declared to be protected by
the government, Regulation 2 of the Zoning Regulations,
2010 created a particular zone, namely “the Special
Reservation Use Zone”. More pertinently, Regulation 9
(A)(ii) Zoning Regulations, 2010 provided that Regulation
13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 and other relevant
orders or amendments issued by the government from
time to time shall be applicable”. Most importantly, the
site of Irrum Manzil was earmarked in Master Plan, 2010
as falling within the Special Reservation Zone.
12. Regulation 9 of the Zoning Regulations, 2010
mentions the Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,
1981 by its title, namely G.O. Ms. No. 542 MA, dated
14.12.1995. Therefore, Regulation 13 of the Zoning
Regulations, 1981 has become part and parcel of the
Zoning Regulations, 2010.
13. However, being of the opinion that Regulation
13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 is inconsistent with
and ultra vires the Urban Areas Act, 1975, on 7.12.2015,
by G.O.Ms. No.183 the government deleted Regulation 13
of Regulations, 1981 “from its very inception”.
7
14. Moreover, being of the opinion that with the
repeal of Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981,
there was no law, which protected the “historical
monuments”, or “heritage buildings”, “historical sites”, or
“heritage sites”, and in order to protect such structures
and sites, the State enacted the Telangana Heritage
(Protection, Preservation, Conservation and SectionMaintenance)
Act, 2017 (‘the Act, 2017’, for short).
15. Furthermore, being of the view that with the
repeal of Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981
in 2015, Irrum Manzil has lost its status as “a protected
heritage building”, and wanting to construct a new
legislative complex for the new State of Telangana, on
18.06.2019, the Council of Ministers decided to construct
the legislative complex at the Irrum Manzil. As
mentioned above, the petitioner has not only challenged
the Cabinet decision to demolish Irrum Manzil, but has
also challenged the constitutional validity of the Act,
2017 before this Court.
16. Mr. P. Niroop Reddy, the learned counsel for
the petitioner, has raised the following contentions before
this Court:-
Firstly, SectionArticle 51 of the Constitution of India
imposes a duty upon the State to foster respect for
8
international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of
organized peoples with one another. Thus, it is the duty
of the State to keep in mind the obligations it has
undertaken under International Conventions.
Secondly, India is a signatory to the World Heritage
Convention, 1972 (‘Convention, 1972’, for short), which it
had ratified in 1977. SectionArticle 5 of Convention, 1972
imposes a duty upon the State “to protect and conserve
the cultural and natural heritage situated in its territory”.
It is further required “to adopt a general policy which
aims to give the cultural and natural heritage a function in
the life of the community and to integrate the protection of
that heritage into comprehensive planning programmes”.
Thirdly, keeping in mind the duties prescribed by
the Convention, 1972, keeping in mind that Entry 12,
List-II of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution of
India permits the State to enact laws for ancient and
historical monuments, the former State of Andhra
Pradesh had enacted the Act, 1960. Moreover, under
Section 39 of the Urban Areas Act, the State was required
to constitute an Urban Art Commission whose duty it
was to recommend the protection of historical
monuments and historical sites to the government.
Furthermore, even under Regulation 13 of the Zoning
9
Regulations, 1981, the government had constituted the
Heritage Conservation Committee. Upon the
recommendation of the said Committee, 151 buildings
were declared as “protected heritage buildings”.
However, Act, 2017 has brought about a horde of
confusion in the laws dealing with historical monuments
and heritage buildings. In order to support this
argument, the learned counsel has presented the
following sub-arguments:-
(a) In its Statement of Objects and Reasons, the
Act, 2017 has clearly stated that “there is no other
legislation to deal with heritage buildings, precincts
including rock formation in other rural and urban areas of
Telangana State outside the HMDA area”. Thus, the
impression being created is that, but for the HMDA area,
there is no legislation to deal with the preservation and
conservation of heritage buildings, rock formations etc.,
in the rest of the State. Thus, it clearly reveals that the
legislature was well aware of the existence of Regulation
13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 under which 151
“heritage buildings” were given the status of being
“protected”. And yet, Section 1(2) of the Act, 2017 claims
that the Act extents to the “whole of the State of
10
Telangana”. Thus, it is unclear whether the Act repeals
Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 or not?
(b) SectionThe Act further compounds confusion. For,
the Act, 2017 repeals neither the Urban Areas Act, nor
the Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981.
Under Section 39 of the Urban Areas Act, the State is
required to constitute an Urban Art Commission, yet
under the Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981,
the State is required to constitute the Committee. But
under Section 6 of the Act, 2017, the State is required to
constitute the “Telangana State Heritage Authority” (“the
Authority”, for short). Interestingly, “the Commission”,
“the Committee”, and “the Authority” are bestowed with
the same set of duties, namely to recommend the
preservation, conservation of “historical monuments,
archaeological sites, heritage buildings and heritage
sites”. Therefore, it is unclear as to which of these
entities is required to recommend to the government?
Furthermore, it is also unclear as to recommendations of
which entity would be binding upon the government?
(c) According to SectionArticle 11(2) of the Convention,
1972, the State is required “to establish, to keep up to
date, and to publish the list of ‘World Heritage'”.
However, under the Act, 2017, no such list exists. In the
11
absence of proper list, being mentioned and published,
the very purpose of the Act, 2017 stands self-defeated.
(d) Even the Schedules, attached to the Act, 2017,
have been drawn up without application of mind. For,
important monuments from the ancient and medieval
periods have been included. However, the monuments
created by the Qutb Shahi and the Asaf Shahi period (the
Nizam period) have not been included in the Act, 2017.
Thus, gapping holes exist in the Act, 2017. Most
interestingly, Schedule-I of the Act, 2017 includes certain
monuments, such as megalithic monuments, which no
longer exist. Therefore, the Act, 2017 suffers from non-
application of mind. Hence, the Act, 2017 is an
unconstitutional one.
17. On the other hand, Mr. J. Ramchandra Rao,
the learned Additional Advocate General has countered
these arguments as under:-
Firstly, undoubtedly, under SectionArticle 51 of the
Constitution of India, the State is under a legal duty to
fulfill its obligations under Treaties and Conventions.
However, the Act, 2017 is, in fact, enacted for the State to
fulfill its duties under the Convention, 1972.
Secondly, the entire challenge to the
constitutionality of the Act, 2017 is highly misplaced.
12
For, the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the
Act, 2017 on the three well-known grounds, namely (i)
lack of competency of the State to enact the laws; (ii)
violation of fundamental rights mentioned in Part-III of
the Constitution of India; and (iii) the Act being so
manifestly absurd that the legislature could not have
enacted the law. Therefore, the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
Thirdly, since Regulation 13 of the Zoning
Regulations, 1981 was already repealed on 7-12-2015, by
G.O. Ms. No. 183, there was no occasion for the Act,
2017 to repeal the said regulation. Moreover, since the
new State of Telangana was enacting a new law for the
protection of “historical monuments”, “heritage
buildings”, there was no need for the Act, 2017 to repeal
the Act, 1960.
Fourthly, under SectionArticle 246(3) of the Constitution of
India read with Entry 12, List-II of Seventh Schedule of
the Constitution of India, the State is competent to enact
a law for the protection of “ancient monuments” and
“heritage buildings”. Even if Entry 12 of the Seventh
Schedule of the Constitution of India does not use the
word “heritage building”, even then, the “heritage
building” is a species of “historical monuments”. Hence,
13
the State legislature is competent to enact Act, 2017
dealing with “historical monuments” and “heritage
buildings”.
Fifthly, Act, 2017 does not violate the fundamental
rights of the people. In fact, since “heritage” is part of the
identity of an individual, by protecting “heritage
buildings”, the Act, 2017 enforces and protects the right
to life. For, the right to life also includes the identity of
an individual, and the dignity of an individual.
Therefore, Act, 2017 per se promotes fundamental rights
mentioned in Part-III of the Constitution of India.
Moreover, Act, 2017 is also in consonance with the
Directive Principles contained in SectionArticle 49 of the
Constitution of India, whereby the State is duty bound
“to protect every monument or place or object of artistic
or historical interest”.
Sixthly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has
needlessly tried to create an impression that the Act,
2017 has ushered a plethora of confusion. However, no
such confusion exists in reality. In order to support this
argument, the learned counsel has raised the following
sub-arguments before this Court:-
(a) Although Section 39 of the Urban Areas Act
prescribes the constitution of the Urban Art Commission,
14
such a Commission was never established by the State.
Therefore, there is no Commission, which was functional
in the past, or is functioning in the present.
(b) Since Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,
1981 has been repealed by the State the question of
existence of the Committee does not even arise.
(c) Therefore, the Authority is the only entity,
which is required to be created by the State. But even
the said Authority has not been constituted, so far, by
the State. Hence, the question of three different
authorities working simultaneously in the same field
does not even arise.
(d) Since Act, 2017 has been enacted within the
competency of the State legislature it is for the State
legislature to decide which monument needs protection,
and which monuments need not be protected. Moreover,
the Schedules attached with the Act, 2017 are not rigid.
They are open to amendments, modifications, and
alterations. Therefore, nothing precludes the government
from incorporating other monuments, which have not
been incorporated in the Schedules, so far. Thus, the
learned counsel for the petitioner is unjustified in
claiming that the Schedules attached to the Act, 2017
reveal non-application of mind.
15
(e) The learned counsel for the petitioner is
simultaneously blowing hot and cold. For, on the one
hand, he claims that the Schedules attached to the Act,
2017 suffer from non-application of mind. Yet, on the
other hand, claims that “no list” exists in Act, 2017.
Obviously, Schedules are the very “list” which are
required to be declared and published under SectionArticle 11(2)
of the Convention, 1972. Hence, Act, 2017 is not only in
consonance with the Constitution of India, but is in
compliance of the Convention, 1972. Thus, according to
the learned Additional Advocate General the Act, 2017 is
constitutionally valid.
18. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and
considered the record.
19. It is, indeed, trite to state that there is a
presumption in favor of the constitutional validity of an
enactment. The burden of proof lies on the party who
claims that the law is unconstitutional to establish the
said claim. Thus, it is for the petitioner to discharge the
burden of proof.
20. It is, indeed, trite to state that the
constitutional validity of a provision of law can be
challenged only on three grounds; (i) lack of competency
of the legislature, (ii) violation of fundamental rights of
16
the people, and (iii) if the Act suffers from
unreasonableness to the extent of being covered by
Wednesbury principle of unreasonableness i.e. if the law
is so absurd and unreasonable that a reasonable person
could have never enacted such a law. Interestingly, in
the present case, the learned counsel for the petitioner
has frankly conceded that he is not challenging the
constitutional validity of Act, 2017 on these three
grounds. Instead, the challenge is on the ground that
the Act, 2017 is in violation of Convention, 1972. And it
has ushered a cornucopia of confusion in law. Thus, it is
unreasonable. But, merely because a law may not be
well drafted, and may be unclear, that itself would not
make the law unconstitutional.
21. Statement of Objects and Reasons of Act, 2017
is as under:
According to SectionArticle 51A (f) under Part IV-A
‘Fundamental Duties’ of Constitution of India, it
shall be the duty of every citizen of India to
value and preserve the rich heritage of our
composite culture.
The Telangana Ancient and Historical
Monuments and Archeological Sites and
Remains Act, 1960 (Act VII of 1960) inter alia
deals mainly with ancient, and historical
monuments and antiquity, subject to certain
conditions specified therein.
Regulation 13 of Hyderabad Urban
Development Authority Zoning Regulations 1981
as amended in 1995 made under the
Telangana Urban Areas (Development) Act,
1975 dealt with the conservation of listed
17building, areas, artefacts, structures and
precincts of heritage and / or aesthetical and /
or architectural and / or cultural value (heritage
buildings heritage precincts) including rock
formation in HMDA area only. Further, the
Regulation 13 was found to be inconsistent with
the Telangana Urban Areas (Development) Act,
1975 and was deleted vide G.O. Ms No 183, MA
dated 7.12.2015.
There is no other legislation to deal with
heritage buildings precincts including rock
formation in other rural and urban areas of
Telangana State outside the HMDA area and for
their conservation including rock formation and
to protect heritage and culture of Telangana
State which is a blend of Telugu and Persian
culture. It has therefore been considered
necessary and decided to undertake a separate
legislation for conservation and preservation of
heritage buildings and heritage precincts
including rock formation and other heritage in
the State of Telangana.
Hence a bill is proposed which seeks to
give effect to the above.
22. It is true that the Statement of Objects and
Reasons clearly claims that “there is no other legislation to
deal with heritage buildings, precincts including rock
formation in other rural and urban areas of Telangana
State outside the HMDA area”. The use of the words,
“outside the HMDA area” does create an impression that
there is a law dealing with “heritage buildings, precincts
including rock formation” within the HMDA area.
However, considering the fact that the Statement of
Objects and Reasons also notices that Regulation 13 of
the Zoning Regulations, 1981 was repealed by G.O. Ms.
18
No. 183, dated 07.12.2015, the statement, quoted
hereinabove, is merely an example of bad drafting.
23. Moreover, Section 1 (2) of the Act, 2017
unequivocally states that “the Act shall extent to the
whole of the State of Telangana”. Therefore, the scope of
Section 1 (2) of the Act, 2017 cannot be cribbed, cabined,
and confined by the bad drafting of the Statement of
Objects and Reasons. Thus, the Act, 2017 does apply to
the entire State of Telangana. To this extent, there is no
confusion caused by the Act.
24. However, the issue which continues to exist is
whether the mentioning of Regulation 13 of the Zoning
Regulations, 1981 in Regulation 9(A)(ii) of the Zoning
Regulations, 2010 is “legislation by incorporation” or
“legislation by reference”. This issue is no longer res
integra as this issue has already been decided by this
Court in W.P. (PIL) Nos. 79 and 86 of 2019. In the said
writ petitions, this Court has concluded that the
mentioning of Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,
1981 in the Regulation 9(A) of the Zoning Regulations,
2010 is by way of “incorporation”, and not by way of
“reference”.
25. Once it is held that the mentioning of
Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 is by
19
“incorporation”, the subsequent repeal of Regulation 13
of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 by G.O. Ms. No. 183,
dated 07.12.2015 would not obliterate, or extinguish the
presence of Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,
1981 within the Zoning Regulations of 2010. In fact, it is
a settled principle of law that even if the parental Act
dies, the incorporated part continues to survive.
Moreover, a subsequent modification or repeal does not
affect the incorporated portion. Hence, the protection
given under Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,
1981 would continue to survive within the protected
arena of Zoning Regulations, 2010 and 2013.
26. Since Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations,
1981 continues to be alive, the only issue; that would
arise would be whether the protection granted under
Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 can
continue to exist while Act, 2017 holds the field. Even
this issue is no longer res integra. For, in W.P. (PIL) Nos.
79 and 86 of 2019 this Court has already opined that
while Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981 is a
“local law”, the Act, 2017 is a “special law”. Therefore,
while Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981
would continue to operate within Hyderabad
Metropolitan Area, the Act, 2017 would cover the other
20
areas of the State. Thus, while the Committee created
under Regulation 13 of the Zoning Regulations, 1981
would continue to function qua the Hyderabad
Metropolitan Area, the Authority created under Act, 2017
would deal with the rest of the State. Hence, the
territorial jurisdiction of the Committee and the Authority
are well defined. Thus, there is no confusion as pleaded
by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, as
there is no contradiction between Regulation 13 of the
Zoning Regulations, 1981, and the Act, 2017, both the
provisions of law can peacefully co-exist. Therefore, there
is no confusion that has been caused by the enactment
of Act, 2017. Hence, the contentions raised by the
learned counsel for the petitioner are clearly untenable.
Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that Act, 2017 is
constitutionally valid.
27. Of course, the learned Counsel for the
petitioner has argued that the Act, 2017 does not contain
any list. But the stand being taken by the learned
Counsel is self-contradictory. For, simultaneously, the
learned Counsel contends that the Schedules attached to
the Act, 2017 are unreasonable as monuments of Qutb
Shahi, and Asaf Shahi period have not been included in
the Schedules. In fact, the Schedules are the “lists” which
21
the learned Counsel claims are non-existent. Hence, the
learned Counsel is unjustified in claiming that the Act,
2017 is contrary to the Convention, 1972.
28. Moreover, it is for the government to modify
the Schedules attached to the Act, 2017. Since the Act,
2017 empowers the government to modify the Schedules
on the basis of the recommendation of the Authority, it is
not for this court to direct the government to include the
Qutb Shahi and the Asaf Shahi monuments within the
purview of the Act, 2017.
29. Furthermore, this Court has already held in
Writ Petition (PIL) No. 79 of 2019 and Writ Petition (PIL)
No. 86 of 2019 that the protection once given to the
heritage buildings under Regulation 13 of the
Regulations, 1981 would continue under the protective
shield of Regulation 9(A) (ii) of the Zoning Regulations,
2010, and under Regulation 1.11.1 of Zoning Regulations
2013. This Court has also held that the Regulation 13 of
the Zoning Regulations, 1981 can co-exist with the Act,
2017. Hence, there is no need for this Court to direct the
government to include the protected heritage buildings of
the Qutb Shahi and the Asaf Shahi period within the Act,
2017.
22
30. But besides challenging the constitutional
validity of the Act, the petitioner has also challenged the
impugned Cabinet decision dated 18.06.2019, inter alia
on the ground that the said decision is in violation of
statutory provisions, hence arbitrary.
31. In W.P. (PIL) Nos. 79 and 86 of 2019, this
Court has already held that the Cabinet decision dated
18.06.2019 is, indeed, arbitrary and has set aside the
same. Therefore, this part of the relief, being prayed for
by the petitioner, is allowed in the terms of the decision
pronounced by this Court in W.P. (PIL) Nos. 79 and 86 of
2019.
32. For the reasons stated above, the present writ
petition is partly allowed. No order as to costs.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand
closed.
(RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, CJ)
_
(DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER, J)
16-09-2019
Tsr
23
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE RAGHVENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN
AND
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE DR. SHAMEEM AKTHER
WRIT PETITION (PIL) No. 81 OF 2019
(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Raghvendra Singh Chauhan)
Date: 16th September, 2019
Tsr
