Allowed

R.J.R.M.Educational Society v. The State of Telangana

Telangana HC10 Jan 2023WP/32072/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition challenging a Government Order that permitted a degree college to shift locations. The Court set aside the order for violating statutory rules prohibiting inter-locality shifts without prior notification and survey, and for failing to provide reasons for exemption as mandated by law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned Government Order permitting the college shift is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondent authorities to pass appropriate orders following proper procedure.

R.J.R.M.Educational Society Vs The State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

] HIGH COURT^{FORTHE STATEOF TELANGANA AT HYDERABO'[.,UU} (SPecial Original Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE^{TENTH DAY OF JANUARY} TWO THOUSAND^{ANDTWENTY THREE}

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HONOURABLE^{SRIJUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN}

¶5

WRIT PETITIO N^{NO:32072 0F 2022}

¶6

Between:--1.-n.i.n.frrf. Educational Society, H.No5-6-50, Near Shanti Talkies' Vqipe.9' ' iii,ibrrij*, rr,r"r,ri"ar, Mrr,iuijoaoio oirtri"t. Rep by its President R.Ranjith

¶7

Reddv

¶8

2 R.J.R.M. Degree^Coll eoe. H.No.5-6-50,^{Near Shanti} Talkies MariPeda Iri'ahabubabad District.^RePbY its CorresPondent

¶9

Bangalow, MariPeda, R.Ranjith^ReddY. ...PETITIONERS

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

AND

¶12

1 The State of Telangana,^{Repby its Principal Secretary, Higher Education} Deot. Secretariat,^HYderabad.

¶13

2 ff5tffi's;;-s:tii6^{ci,r"iit tor Hisher Education,Masabrank' Hvderabad'} Reo bv its Secretary

¶14

3 in5 ilriliiv, 0nive?sitv,^{Warangal,warangalDistrict. Rep bv its Registrar} 4 ffii;;fi6r;"^{corr"gi,,ftroirirMandal, "MahabubabadDistrict Rep bv its} correspondent ...RESPoNDENTS

¶15

...RESPoNDENTS

¶16

Petition under^{Article226 of lhe constitution of lndia prayingthat in the} circumstancesstatedintheaffidavitfiledtherewith,theHighCourtmaybe pleased to issue an appropriate^{Writ' Order or Direction more particularlyonein} lhe nature of^{,'writ of Mandamus"declaring the actionof the 1st respondentin} issuingG.o.Rt'No.l34Dt.03.0B.2022andtherebyaccordingpermissiontoshift the 4th respondent^{College from Thorrur Mandal to Maripedatvlandal of} Mahabubabad^{Districtas being illegal,arbitrary,unconstitutiona I and contraryto} the^{provisionsof Act, 1982 and the Rulesmade thereunderand in violation of} the orders^{passed by this Honble Court and ConsequentlySet aside} G.O.Rt.No.1 34^{Dt. 03.08.2022.}

¶17

IAN O:1 OF²⁰²²

¶18

Petition under^{section151 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit^{filed in supportof the petition,the High court may be pleasedto} grant stay of all further^{proceedings pursuantto issuanceof G.o.Rt.No.134Dt.} o3.oS.2o22issuedbythelstrespondent,pendingdisposaloftheabovewrit petition.

ll2ll

lA NO: 2 OF 2022

Between:

Goutami Degree College,^{Thorrur Mandal, Mahabubabad District, Rep by its} correspondent

¶23

..petitioner/Respondent No.4

¶24

AND

¶25

1 R.J.R.M. Educational Societv,^{H.No.5-6-50,Near ShantiTalkies,} !lqgipqda Bangatow,Maripeda,MahabubabadDistrict.RepbyitsPresidentRRanjith Reddy

¶26

Z n.l.n.U. Degree^{College,H.No.5-6-50,Near ShantiTalkies lrlaripeda} Bangalow, MZripeda,^{tvLhabubabadDistrict. Rep by its Correspondent} R'Raniith Reddy

¶27

.....writ^{petitioners/Respondents}

¶28

3 The State of Telangana,^{Repby its Principal Secretary, Higher Education} DeDt. Secretariat. Hvderabad.

¶29

- itri: tetangana Stat6^{Council for Higher Education,MasabTank, Hyderabad'} Rep by its Secretary.

¶30

S m6 flfatiya Univeisity,^{Warangal, Warangal District. Rep by its Registrar.}

¶31

...ResPonden'ts/ResPondents

¶32

Petition under section^{'1 51 CPC prayingthat in the circumstancesstated} in the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the High court may be pleased to} vacate the lnterim stay^{order passedby this Hon'ble courton 10.08.2022in} W.P.No.32072 of 2022 and^{dismiss the above writ petition.}

¶33

Counsel for the Petitioners:^{SRl. P. PANDU RANGA REDDY}

¶34

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.1 & 2: GP FOR HIGHER EDUCATION}

¶35

counsel for the Respondent^{No.3: SRIADHI VENKATESWARARAO} SC FOR KU

¶36

Counsel forthe Respondent^{No.4: SRI K.S. SUNEEL}

¶37

The Court made the^{following:ORDER}

¶38

¶39

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN WRIT PETITION No.32072 OF 2022

¶40

ORDER:

¶41

Heard Sri P.Pandu Ranga Reddy, leamed counsel for the petitioners, leamed Govemment Pleader for Higher Education appearing for Respondent Nos.l and 2, Sri Adhi Venkateswara Rao, leamed Standing Counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Sri K.S. Suneel, leamed counsel appearing for respondent No.4. Perused the record.

¶42

This writ petition is filed to declare the action of 1" respondent in issuing G.O.Rt.No.134, dated 03.08.2022 and thereby according permission to shift 4th respondent College from Thomrr Mandal to Maripeda Mandal of Mahabubabad District as illegal and consequently set aside the said G.O.

¶43

FACTS OFTHECASE

¶44

i. One R. Ranjith Reddy is the President of 1't petitioner Educational Society and the Correspondent of 2nd petitioner Institution.

¶45

ii. The l't^petitioner Society is registered under the A.P. Societies

¶46

Registration^{Act, 2001 and nowfunctioning} with an^object of

¶47

t \

¶48

¶49

promoting education by establishing educational institutions and as such znd petitioner Institution is established for imparting undergraduate courses at Maripeda Mandal of Mahabubad District.

¶50

iii. The petitioner states that there are 3 degree colleges in Maripeda Mandal viz: l) 2"d Petitioner Degree College 2. Govemment Degree College and 3.Tribal Degree College which exclusively caters to Tribal students.

¶51

iv. The petitioner Institution has a sanctioned strength of 330 seats and the Govemment Degree College with a sanctioned strength of 300, totalling to 630 seats, but the admitted strength is only 373 seats, resulting in 50% of sanctioned seats are lying vacant.

¶52

v. The petitioner Institution and the other institutions are struggling to fill up all the sanctioned seats.

¶53

vi. 4th respondent had submitted its application to respondents No. 1 and 2 seeking to shift their College from Thomr Mandal to Maripeda Mandal. Then the petitioners have submitted their representation with official respondent Nos.1 and 2 wlth a request

¶54

I t7 7

¶55

¶56

not to consider^{the application of 4th respondent as the sameis in} violation of the Education^{Act, 1982 ( for shod, 'the Act') and the} rules there under, but the^{same is not considered,}

¶57

vii. The petitioners^{filed a writ petition vide WP. No' 29630of 2022} and this Court vide^{interim order dated18.07.2022 directedl't} respondent to consider^{the representationdated 2l '06'2022} submitted by the^{petitionersandalso the representationsubmitted by} the 4th respondent for^{shiftingthe 4m respondent's College from} Thomrr mandal to^{MaripedaMandalin termsof Rule14(3)and} Rule l4(4) of The^{TelanganaEducationalInstitutions} (Establishment, Recognition,^{Administration and Controlof} Institutions of Higher^{Education) Rules1987 ( for short, 'the Rules')} issued vide G.O.Ms.No.29^{dated 05-02-1987 and also the principle} taid down by the Division^{Bench of the thenHighCourt of Andhra} Pradesh at Hyderabad^{in Sadasiva Sri EducationalSociety'}

¶58

Siricilla Karimnagar^{District Vs. GayathriDegreeCollege'} Yellareddypet Mandal,^{Karimnagar Districtand Others"'}

¶59

t I

¶60

¶61

viii. During pendency of the said writ petition, l,t respondent has issued G.O.Rt.No.134 dated 03_0g_20 22 permitting4th respondent to shift the College from Thorur Mandal to Maripeda Mandal. As such, the petitioners have withdrawn the earlier writ petition as infructuous and filed the present Writ petition challenging the said G.O. Rt.No. 134 dated O3_OB_2022.

¶62

CONTEN TIONS OF THE PETITIO NERS:

¶63

2nd petitioner Institution established during 2004_05 at Maripeda Mandal, for irnparting training in B.A., B.Com., B.Sc., courses. Out of the total sanctioned strength of 330 seats, the petitioner could fill up only 186 seats during Academic year 20lg_19, 109 seats during 2019-20,221 seats during2020_21 and254 seats during 2O2I_22. Total sanctioned strength of private and govemment degree colleges (330+300) is 660 seats, out ofwhich onry 373 seats were filled during Academic year 2021-22, resulting 50yo of sanctioned seats lying vacant, due to which the Govemment College was forced to close B.Sc (Maths) course .

ii. There are 3 Junior colleges with a total sanctioned strength of 376 seats, but the passed out strength is only 241. However, there are 630 sanctioned seats in Degree Colleges. Although two other Junior colleges i.e. Tribal and Social Welfare Colteges are existing, the process of admission in the said colleges is entirely different and those students are unlikely to^join the degree colleges located in Maripeda where residential facility is not provided.

¶68

iii. It is quite natural that most of the intermediate^passed out students choose professional courses like Engineering, Medicine, Law, Pharmacy etc, but only such students who are not able to^get seats in professional courses or who cannot afford, will^join the traditional Degrees.

¶69

iv. Initially 4th respondent Institution was permitted to run^from Mahabubabad Mandal and thereafter shifted to^{Thomrr Mandal,} notwithstanding the same, the respondents are again considering^the application of 4th respondent to shift from Thomr to^Maripeda Mandal without considering the request of^{the petitioners not to} consider representation of^4th respondent.

¶70

¶71

¶72

v. 1" respondent issued G.O.Rt.No. 134 permitting 4th respondent to shift from Thorur to Mariped4 which is under challenge in the present writ petition. The said G.o. is in violation of the provisions of the Act, the Rules issued under G.O.Ms.No. 29 and also violation of the aforesaid orders passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble court in Sadasiva Sri Educational Society (supra).

¶73

vi. No provision in the Act or the Rules permits the authorities for granting permission to shift college from one locality to another.

¶74

vii. The field relating to establishment and shifting of degree college is

¶75

govemed by the provisions of the Act, and the Rures made thereunder. In this regard, the Govemment had issued Rules vide G.O.Ms. No. 29 dated 05-02-1987 providing the grant ofpermission.

¶76

viii. official Respondents have violated the provisions of Section 20 of

¶77

the Act, which deals with the permission for establishing Educational Institutions, Section 2l provides for recognition of said institutions by an order in writing which were permitted to be established under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, the Act stipulates that unless the competent authority conducts a survey and satisfies and identifies the educational needs of the locality, no permission courd be grzinted nor

¶78

¶79

any application can be entertained. For the present academic year 2022-23,2nd respondent neither conducted any survey to identity the educational needs of Maripeda Mandal nor issued any notification inviting applications for permission or shifting. In the absence of notification issued by^2nd respondent, I't respondent ought not to have entertained the application of 4th respondent.

¶80

ix. The Rules framed vide G.O.Ms.No. 29 stipulated the procedure to be followed either for establishing or shifting the Degree Colleges.

¶81

x. Colleges in Maripeda Mandal are in fact struggling to fil1 up the adequate strength of seats which is brought to the notice of the respondent authorities by way of representation by the petitioners and requested not to permit 4th respondent from Thomrr to Maripeda Mandal, I't respondent permitted 4th respondent violating the Act and the Rules made under.

¶82

xi. I't respondent has issued the impugned G.O. in exercise of its powers under Section 100 of the Act, which empowers it to grant exemption from application of the provisions of the Act, however subj ect to conditions and by a notification, but I't respondent has not issued any \ \

¶83

t-,

¶84

¶85

notification nor given reasons for exempting 46 respondent from the provisions of the Act.

¶86

xii. The Division Bench of this High Court in Sadasiva Sri Educational society (supra) followed by other decisions ofthis court considered that l't respondent authority under Section 100 0f the Act permitting shifting of Degree college from one locality and another locality, held that there is a specific bar in G.O.Ms.No. 29, shifting of colleges shall not be permitted, more particularly in the absence of notification and the needs of the locality.

¶87

xiii. with the said submissions, the petitioners sought to allow this writ petition.

¶88

CONTENTIONS OF THE RES ND NT No.4:

¶89

i) The 4th respondent college was established in 2005 by M/s. Sri Vani Educational and Social Service Society, Thomr Mandal, Mahabubabad District, and 3'd respondent granted af.filiation for the courses like B.A, B.Com and B.Sc. etc., with a sanctioned strength of 270 students, and the same is being extended from time

I \ \

7',

to time, with an intention to provide quality education to students of backward areas.

¶94

iD Since the date of inception, there was no admissions and the maximum number of seats were left vacant every year and in order to intake maximum number of students in 2011, the college is shifted to Thomrr Mandal, and in spite of shifting college to Thomrr Mandal, there is no admission of students and further in 2016, college has shifted its building to another locality in Thorrur Mandal, however the efforts were in vain as there is no intake of students in the college.

¶95

iiD M/s. Sri Vani Educational and Social Service Society brought to the notice ofthe official respondents vide letters dated03-01-2022 and 03-02-2022 that there were no admissions in 4th respondent college for the Academic Years 2019-2020,2020-2021 ar.d 20212022. Representations were submitted by MLA and MLC to l't

¶96

and 2nd respondents for shifting of college to Maripeda Mandal. Respondent No.4 made a representation dated 23-02-2022 to 2"d respondent for shifting the college from leased building bearing H.No. 16-88/4 of Thomrr Mandal to leased building bearing H.No.

\ \

, I

-+.--.

6-8-60/2 of Maripeda Municipality. After enquiry, I't respondent had issued G.O. Rt. No. 134 dated 0g_02_2022 according permission for shifting of college by relaxing Rule 14 (3) of the Rules and in pursuance of G.O.Rt.No . 134, 2d respondent has issued proceedings on 0S-Og-2022 in favour of 4th respondent to follow guidelines stipulated therein.

¶102

ir) 4th respondent submitted a letter ot 06-0g-2022 to 3d respondent seeking affiliation for the Academic year 2022-2023 on obtaining no objection certificates from the Tahsildar , Municipal Commissioner and Health and R& B departments.

¶103

v) There are 7 junior colleges within 35 kms radius and successfully running from past several years. Therefore, establishment of their college will not effect the admissions of 2"d petitioner colrege. Educational societies are not supposed to be profit_oriented and that 4s respondent has been paying monthly rent of Rs.50,000/_ and has paid Rs.60 Lakhs towards consideration to run the College.

¶104

vi) with the said submissions,4th respondent sought to dismiss the writ petition.

¶105

\ \

¶106

¶107

ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT:-

¶108

In view of the above rival contentions, it is apt to exhact the

¶109

following Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 05-02-1987t-

¶110

Rule 4: Conditions for grant of permission-

¶111

(l) Permission for the establishment of any of the educational institutions mentioned in sub-rule (2) olRule I or for opening ofadditional courses in any existing educational institution shall be^granted only if the conditions^laid down in Section 20 of the Act are satisfied and after obtaining the^prior approval of the commissioner under sub-section⁽²⁾ of Section^I I of^the Andhra Pradesh Commissionerate of Higher Education Act, 1986;

¶112

(2) No permission shall be $anted if the educational needs ofthe locality are adequately served already and in the opinion of the competent authority, the opening of a new institution is likely to create unhealthy and^undesirable competition with another institution ofthe same class/category,ⁱⁿ the^area.

¶113

Rule l4: Ccneral I nst ructitlns-

¶114

(3) No institution for which permission to establish has been gmnted to meet the educational needs of a particular locality, shall be^permitted to^be shifted to another locality. However shifting of the institution from^one building to another within the same locality shall be^permitted when^the intention is to provide better accommodation or shifting into own buildings^is proposed, with the prior permission of the Government. Any unauthorised shifting of the institution shall render lapse of the^permission/ recognition/affiliation granted to the institution automatically, without^any further notice or orders.

¶115

It is also apt to extract Section 100 of the Act which is as follows:-

¶116

Exemption: - The Government may, by notification and for reasons to be specified therein, exempt any educational institution from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this Act or the rules made thereunder, subject to such conditions as they may deem fit to impose and may likewise vary or capcel such exemption.

Rule a( 1 ) of the Rules mandates that permission for establishment ofany new educational instifution shall be granted only if the conditions laid down in section 20 of the Act are satisfied and after obtaining prior approval of the commissioner. Rule 4(2) of the Rules mandate that no permission shall be granted if the educational needs of the locality are adequately served already and in the opinion of the competent authority, opening of the new institution is likely to create unhealthy and undesirable competition with another institution of the same class/category. Rule l4(3) of the Rules mandates that no institution for which permission to establish has been granted to meet educational needs of a pafticurar rocality, shall be permitted to be shifted to another locality. Therefore the said Rules clearly mandates shifting of colleges from one locality to another locality is not permissible.

¶122

o It is also relevant to note that in Gayathri Degree College Vs. Government of Andhra pradesh, rep. by its Secretary to Government, Higher Education Departmentr, it was held as follows:_

'²⁰¹³ (3) ALT 7s9

\ \

'A reading of Section 100 ol the Act discloses that the sine qua non for exercising the power of exemption is that respondent No.l has to assign reasons lor granting exemption and the same should be notified. Under Section 2(3) ofthe Act, notification means a notification published in A.P.Gazette and the word 'notified' shall be continued accordingly. A perusal of the impugned G.O., shows that the same is bereft of any reasons whatsoever. lt is only in the counter affidavit of respondent No. I that it has sought to justify its G.O by assigning reasons. As held by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Bombay v Gordhandas Bhanji (l) AIR (39) 1952 SC 16 and Mohinder Singh Gill and another v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others (2) AIR 1978 SC 851, a statutory functionary cannot justify its decision by assigning reasons by way of affidavits which are not contained in the order. Therefore, none of the reasons which are mentioned in the counter affidavit can be taken into consideration while justifying the decision of respondent No.l. Even otherwise, as noted above, its plea that need exists, runs contrary to the stand taken by respondent No.2 and therefore, the same cannot be countenanced in law."

¶128

The said decision of leamed Single Judge was confirmed by Division

¶129

Bench in Sadasiva Sri Educational Society (supra) .

¶130

Thus, the Rules for establishment of a new educational institution must equaily appty for shifting of an institution. Even vacate, it must be done within the meaning of the said Rule.

¶131

Section 20 of Act deals with the permission for establishment of educational institutions. The said provision stipulates that the competent Authority shall conduct a survey to identiff the educational needs of the locality. Upon conducting the survey and identi$ing the

t t

educational needs of the locality, it shall notig/ through local newspaper calling for applications for starting new colleges.

¶136

I l. Section 2l of the Act deals with grant of recognition of said institutions imparling education.

¶137

In the light of the aforesaid Rules, provisions of the Act and also principles laid down by Division Bench of this court, coming to the facts ol'the case, 4th respondent had submitted an application with r.t respondent seeking shifting of college from leased building situated at H.No. l6-88/4, Thorrur Mandal, Mahabubabad District to another leased building H.No.6-8-60/2, Maripeda Mandal, Mahabubabad District (one Mandal to another Mandal) Therefore, the petitioners herein have submitted a representation dated 21.06.2022, resisting the aforesaid shifting on the specific reasons mentioned therein. l't respondent did not consider the said representation dated, 2r.06.2022 submitted by the petitioners. Therefore, they have filed a writ petition vide w.p.No.29630 of 2022 and vide order dated 1g.07.2022, this Court directed l.t respondent to consider the representation dated 21.06.2022 submitted by the petitioners and also representation submitted by 4th respondent for

shifting of its college from Thom:r Mandal to Maripeda Mandal of Mahabubnagar District in terms of Rule 14(3) and 1a(4) of the Rules issued vide G.O.Ms.No.29 dated 05.02.1987 and also principle laid down by Division Bench of the then High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Sadasiva Sri Educational Sociefy (supra).

¶142

In compliance of the said order, I't respondent vide G.O.Ms.No.13 4, dated 03.08.2022 accorded permission to 4th respondent College for shifting. In the aforesaid G.O., there is no consideration of compliance with the aforesaid procedure laid down under the Rules and Sections 20 and 2l of the Act. There is no consideration of principle laid down by this Court in Sadasiva Sri Educational Sociefy (Supra) and also order dated 18.07.2022 in W.P.No.29630 of 2022.

¶143

In the said G.O.Ms.No.134, dated 03.08.2022, it is mentioned that other management private degree colleges are not supposed to stop or make allegations in the name of unhealthy competition. The educational societies are not supposed to be profitoriented. In fact, the competition between the managements will give better benefits to the students in providing better education, facil.ties and

t \

other amenities. Students will opt for the college, which imparts quality education with better facilities and decide to reject the apprehensions raised by RJRM Educationar society and accord permission for shifting of Gauthami Degree College from one leased building to another leased building (from one Mandal to another Mandal).

¶148

With the aforesaid observations, l.t respondent had accorded permission to 4th respondent to shift its colrege from one place to other vide G.O.Ms.No.i34, dated 03.O1.ZO2Z. Thus, there is no mention about survey said to have been conducted to identi$/ the educational needs of locality and notification issued by it. There is no consideration of procedure laid down under Rule 4(l) 4(2) and 1a(3) of the aforesaid Rules. There are no reasons mentioned by l't respondent in terms of Section 100 of the Act. Thus, the action of ls respondent in permitting 4rh respondent college for shifting. Thus, G.o.Rt.No.r34, dated o3.og.zo22 issued by l't respondent permitting 4th respondent for shifting its college from one building to other building from one Mandar to another Mandal is in utter violation of procedure laid down under the Act, Rules, principles laid down by Division Bench in sadasiva sri Educational

Sociefy (supra) and also interim order dated lg.O7.2O2Z ln W.P.No.29630 of 2022.

¶153

In view of the above facts and circumstances and law laid down in aforesaid decisions, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned G.O. Rt. No. 134 dated 03-08-2022 issued by l"t respondent is set aside. The matter is remitted back to I 't respondent and 1., respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by 4,h respondent, the objections raised by the petitioner, procedure laid down under the Act, Rules framed thereunder and principle laid down in Sadasiva Sri Educational Society (supra) and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this order.

¶154

Consequently, miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed.

¶155

,.,'3/i,,t#S+HiA //TRUE COPY/ I G

¶156

¶157

SECT]ON OFFICER

¶158

1 The Principal.Secretary, Higher Education Department, State of Telangana, Secretariat, Hyderabad.

¶159

2 The Secretary, Telangana State Council for Higher Education, Masab Tank, Hyderabad. 'L The Registrar, Kakatiya University, Warangal, Waranqal District. 4 lhe Correspondent, Goutami Degree College, Thorrui Mandal, Mahabubabad District. 5 One CC to Sri P. Pandu Ranga Reddy, Advocate tOpUCl 6. Two ccs to GP for Hioher EEucation, High courtior the state of rerangana at Hyderabad. IOUTI^" 7. One CC to Srl Adhi Venkateswara Rao, SC FOR KU tOpUCl 8. One CC to Sri K.S. Suneel, Advocate tOpUCI 9. Two CD Copies CHR

HIGH COURT

DATED:1010112023

ORDER

W.P.No.32072 of 2022

TA}E
((.
)
;;i
.1,
1q ilu 2r1l
t:
q
,
!)i-nrl,rl.'..:
:::::?

¶165

ALLOWING THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS