B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. These writ appeals and writ petitions involve common questions of law that arise for our consideration and therefore, they are being disposed of by a common judgment.
2. The petitioners in all these writ petitions were granted IL-24 licences under the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970, (for short 'Rules 1970').
3. The licensing authority in exercise of the power conferred under Section 31 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act, 1968 (A.P. Act 17 of 1968) (for short 'Act 17 of 1968') had suspended the licences of some of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions on the ground that during the course of inspection, the licensees were found selling various items of Indian made foreign liquor at a price higher than the recommended maximum retail price (for short 'RMRP'). The allegation is that the Indian made foreign liquor was being sold at a price higher than the RMRP, which constitutes violation of the provisions of the Act 17 of 1968 and the Rules 1970, made thereunder. That not only the licences were suspended pending enquiry but crimes were also registered against the licensees under Section 41 of the Act 17 of 1968.
4. The writ petitioners contended before the learned single Judge as well as before us that there is no provision either in the Act 17 of 1968 or in the Rules 1970 made thereunder requiring IL-24 licensees to sell the Indian made foreign liquor at a particular price or at the RMRP indicated on the bottles. According to them, the action has been initiated by the licensing authority against the writ petitioners on the basis of circular instructions issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, dated 12-06-2001 and 10-01-2003.
5. The Commissioner issued instructions to all the authorities concerned to ensure strict compliance of RMRP rates and oversee that the liquor is not sold at a rate higher than the RMRP. The Officers were accordingly instructed to register the cases for violation of RMRP under Section 41 of the Act 17 of 1968 and take action for suspension/cancellation of IL-24 licences by duly exercising the power conferred under Section 31 of the Act 17 of 1968 and also to launch prosecution in the Court of law. These instructions issued by the Commissioner are challenged in this batch of writ petitions.
6. The main issue involved is whether the instructions issued by the Commissioner are void and whether the action taken by the licensing authority on the basis of circular instructions is void?
7. The object and purpose of the Act 17 of 1968 as amended by the A.P. Act 1995 (17 of 1995) (for short Act 17 of 1995) as reflected in the long title, was to consolidate and amend the law relating to the production, manufacture possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicating liquor and drugs, the levy of duties of excise and countervailing duties on alcoholic liquors for human consumption etc., and to provide for matters connected therewith in the State of Andhra Pradesh.
8. Section 3 of the Act 17 of 1968 provides for appointment of an Officer as the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise for the State. The Commissioner so appointed is the Chief Controlling Authority in all matters connected with the administration of the Act and he shall function subject to the general and special orders of the Government.
9. The Commissioner is made the Chief Controlling Authority in all the matters. The Commissioner in his capacity as the Chief Controlling Authority issued the circulars referred to hereinabove with a view to ensure that the retail licensees would adhere to RMRP and sell liquor to consumers at RMRP only. The circular instructions dated 12-06-2001 referred to Rule 11-A of A.P. (Regulation of Wholesale Trade and Distribution of Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor, Wine and Beer) Rules, 1993, which require the manufacturers to print the RMRP on the labels of each variety of liquor. The Commissioner reminded himself that RMRP was introduced as a measure of consumers' awareness of the cost of various brands of liquor that is offered for retail sale. 'It was also intended that the IML retail (IL-24) licensees would adhere to RMRP and would have to make the liquor available to consumers at RMRP only'.
10. The Commissioner noticed that in spite of repeated instructions issued from time to time requiring the Officers to ensure that the licensees should sell liquor at the price not exceeding the RMRP, complaints were being received repeatedly from various quarters that the licensees were not selling the liquor at RMRP rates and at some places, liquor was being sold at abnormally high prices compared to RMRP. Keeping in view all the facts and circumstances, the Commissioner has decided to issue orders directing all the IL-24 retail licensees to sell liquor at a price not exceeding the RMRP. The authorities were accordingly directed to take necessary action for suspension/cancellation of IL-24 licences in exercise of the power under Section 31 of the Act 17 of 1968 read with conditions of IL-24 Licence and provisions of the Counter Part Agreement, in all such cases where the individual licensees were found selling liquor in violation of RMRP.
11. The Commissioner having noted that the instructions have not been taken seriously by the licensees and the authorities were compounding the cases booked for violation of RMRP in a routine manner, issued further instructions to all the Officers to register the cases of violation of RMRP under Section 41 of the Act 17 of 1968, and take action for suspension/cancellation of IL-24 Licences under Section 31 of the Act 17 of 1968 and also to launch prosecution in the Court of law. In order to avoid the misuse of the instructions by any of the Excise Officials, it was decided that the cases of violation of RMRP have to be booked by following the procedure as prescribed for booking the trap-cases by the Anti Corruption Bureau Officials besides collecting the evidence from two independent consumers of the area. Even the copies of the model panchanama, search memo and points to be noted while recording panchanama were enclosed for guidance and compliance by the Officials.
12. The short question that falls for consideration is whether the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner are ultra vires the provisions of the A.P. Excise Act, 1968 (Act 17 of 1968) and any of the Rules framed thereunder?
13. Learned counsel for the writ petitioners contended that the Commissioner in exercise of his power under Section 3(1) of the Act 17 of 1968 virtually brought a legal regime parallel to the one contained under the Act and the Rules made thereunder and the same is not permissible in law. There is no provision either in the Act or the Rules framed making it obligatory to sell the liquor strictly at RMRP. Therefore, the Commissioner could not have prescribed under the impugned instructions directing the sale of liquor at RMRP only.
14. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State submitted that the impugned instructions issued by the Commissioner in no manner runs parallel to any provision of law. The circular instructions issued by the Commissioner merely reminded the Officers of their duty to implement the existing provisions of law, terms and conditions of licence and counter part agreement executed by the licensees. It was submitted that there is no provision either in the Act 17 of 1968 or under the Rules under which the licensees are entitled to sell liquor at the rates of their own choice. The licensees are bound by the instructions issued by the Commissioner from time to time with regard to sale of Indian made foreign liquor under the licences granted to them.
15. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced, it is necessary to notice the relevant statutory provisions, which have a bearing on the questions involved.
16. Sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of the Act 17 of 1968, is in these terms:
'3. Appointment of Commissioner:-
1) The Government may, by notification, appoint an officer as the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise for the State, who subject to the general or special orders of the Government in this behalf, shall be the chief controlling authority in all matters connected with the administration of this Act.'Sub-Section (2) thereto provides that the Commissioner shall be competent to exercise all the powers of the Collector under the Act and shall have the control of the administration of the Prohibition and Excise Department.
17. Section 4 of the Act provides that all the Collectors are required to exercise their power and perform their functions assigned by or under the Act subject to the general control of the Commissioner.
18. That a bare reading of Sections 3 and 4 together, makes it abundantly clear that the Commissioner exercises general control and superintendence over the entire Department and in that capacity, he is entitled to issue circulars/instructions structuring the discretion of the authorities under the Act and provide guidance with a view to ensure the proper administration of the Act. The Commissioner in law is entitled to remind the Officers working under his control of their duties and functions under the Act.
19. Section 13 of the Act prohibits manufacture, possession and sale of any liquor and other excisable articles except under a licence.
20. Section 14 of the Act prohibits that no person shall have in his possession any intoxicant in excess of the specified quantity, except under the authority and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence for the manufacture, sale, buying or supplying etc.
21. Section 28 of the Act provides that every permit issued or licence granted under the Act shall be issued or granted on payment of such fees, for such period, subject to such restrictions and conditions, and shall be in such form and shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed.
22. Section 29 of the Act enables the authority granting licence under the Act requiring the licensee to give security for the observance of the terms of his licence; and to execute a counterpart agreement in conformity with the tenor of his licence.
23. Section 31 of the Act confers power upon the authority empowered to grant any licence, to cancel or suspend it on the grounds mentioned thereunder.
24. That breach of any of the terms and conditions of the licence is one of the grounds for cancellation/suspension of the licence.
25. Section 41 of the Act, which is general in its nature, prescribes penalty for offences not otherwise provided for. It provides that any act in contravention of any of the provisions of the Act, or any Rule, notification or order made, issued or passed thereunder and not otherwise provided for in this Act shall be punishable with imprisonment which may extend to six months and with a fine which may extend up to rupees five thousand.
26. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 72 read with Sections 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and 28 of the Act, the Government of Andhra Pradesh made the rules called the Andhra Pradesh Indian Liquor & Foreign Liquor Rules, 1970. These rules shall apply for the import, export, transport and sale of Indian Liquors and foreign liquors but not for their manufacture, production, compounding, blending, rectifying and bottling etc.
27. Rule 23 of the Rules 1970 provides for grant of the licence for sale of Foreign liquor and Indian liquor in various categories. It is under those rules; the writ petitioners applied for and obtained the licence in Form IL-24 called retail licence for the sale of all kinds of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor and beer, not to be consumed on the licensed premises.
28. The terms and conditions to be incorporated in the licence are prescribed and shall be deemed to be part of regulatory regime. The Form is to be read as part of statutory rules framed by the rule making authority. Condition No.5 incorporated in the terms and conditions of the licence (Form IL-24) inter alia provides that all Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor and Beer sold under the licence shall be duty paid and obtained from the IML Depot of the Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited and allotted by the Licensing Authority.
29. We shall notice the significance of the condition little later.
30. Rule 3[(kk)] of the Rules 1970 defines the recommended maximum retail price (RMRP) as the price to be indicated by Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited for incorporation in each variety of label by the manufacturers of Indian Liquor or Brewers for the purpose of consumer awareness.
31. It is also just and necessary to briefly notice the relevant provisions of the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Wholesale Trade and Distribution of Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor, Wine and Beer) Act, 1993 (for short 'Act 1993'). The object and purposes of Act 15 of 1993 was to provide for taking over of the Wholesale Trade and Distribution of Indian liquor, Foreign liquor, Wine and Beer and to regulate the Retail Trade thereof as a prelude to totally prohibit the consumption of intoxicating liquors.
32. The Act 1993 has been brought into existence pursuant to the policy decision taken to vest the exclusive privilege of supplying in wholesale the Indian liquor, Foreign Liquor, Wine and Beer in whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh in the Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited, a Corporation wholly owned and controlled by the Government.
33. Section 4 of the Act 1993 provides for taking over of wholesale trade in Indian liquor and vest the same in the A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited; the exclusive privilege of importing, exporting and carrying on the wholesale trade and distribution of Indian liquor, Foreign liquor etc., for the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh. No other person shall be entitled to any privilege of importing, exporting and supplying the same in wholesale or distributing the same for the whole or any part of the State.
34. In exercise of the power conferred under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of Act 15 of 1993, Rules for the Regulation of Wholesale Trade and Distribution of Indian liquor etc., were framed known as the Andhra Pradesh (Regulation of Wholesale Trade and Distribution of Indian Liquor, Foreign liquor, Wine and Beer) Rules, 1993 (for short 'Rules 1993').
35. Rule 11 of the Rules 1993 enables the Corporation to get the supplies of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor from such manufacturer within or outside the State, in such quantities and at such prices, as it may consider necessary and appropriate.
36. Rule 14 of the Rules 1993 provides the sale of liquor by the Corporation through its permitted wholesale depots only to the holders of retail licences issued under the Rules 1970 and the A.P. Excise (Lease of right to sell Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor in retail) Rules, 1993.
37. Rule 11-A of the Rules, 1993, which is material for our present purposes reads as follows:
'11-A. Fixation of Recommended Maximum Retail Price:- The Corporation shall arrive at the Recommended Maximum Retail Price in respect of each variety of liquor by loading its Sale Price by such percentage as fixed by the Government, and indicate the same to the manufacturers for printing on the labels.'
38. The Andhra Pradesh Distillery Rules, 1970, also speak about the RMRP, which means the price to be indicated by the Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited for incorporation in each variety of label by the manufacturers of Indian Liquor for the purpose of consumer awareness. The Distillery Rules are framed by the rule making authority in exercise of the power conferred under the provisions of Act 17 of 1968.
39. The Andhra Pradesh Excise (Indian and Foreign Liquor Retail Sale Conditions of Licences) Rules, 1993, mandate that the licensee shall purchase Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor from the allotted depot of Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited Depot only on such terms as may be prescribed by the Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited.
40. The conspectus of provisions of the Acts and the Rules referred to hereinabove makes it clear that the manufacture, possession and sale of liquor is prohibited except under a licence granted by the competent authority; the licensing authority is conferred with the jurisdiction to cancel or suspend the licence in the event of breach of any of the terms and conditions of the licence. The Wholesale Trade and Distribution of Indian Liquor, Foreign Liquor is taken over by the Government and the same vests in the Government and exclusive privilege thereof is vested in the Andhra Pradesh Beverages Corporation Limited. Every IL-24 licensee is required to receive, supply and purchase liquor only from the A.P. State Beverages Corporation; the Corporation in law is required to arrive at RMRP in respect of each variety of liquor and accordingly load its sale price and indicate the same to the manufacturer for printing on the labels.
41. The RMRP, according to the Rules 1970 and the A.P. Distillery Rules, 1970, means the price to be indicated by the Corporation for incorporation in each variety of labels by the manufacturer for the purpose of consumer awareness. That means the consumer is required to be told at what price each variety of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor is available for sale. The expression 'for the purpose of consumer awareness' is required to be understood in its proper context. The price to be indicated is for the information of the consumer about each variety of liquor and its availability for sale at such price as indicated on the label.
42. The counterpart agreement entered by IL-24 licensees, which is again statutory in its nature, reveal the undertaking given by the licensee to abide by 'all general conditions applicable to the sale of intoxicants and also the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise'. Therefore, the contention that IL-24 licensees are bound by the terms and conditions of the licence granted under the Rules 1970, the Rules 1993, and the Act 17 of 1968 only and not by the other enactments referred to hereinabove is totally untenable and unsustainable. The licensees are obviously bound by all general conditions applicable to the sale of intoxicants not only contained under the provisions of the Act 17 of 1968 but are also by all the statutes and the rules wherever such general conditions applicable to sale of liquor are provided for and as well as the instructions issued by the Commissioner.
43. It is true that there is no specific provision under any of the Acts and the Rules referred to hereinabove specifically providing for the sale of Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor, at a particular rate. Precisely for that reason, the Commissioner having regard to the provisions of the Acts and the Rules referred to hereinabove including the counterpart agreement entered by the IL-24 Licensees, issued instructions directing the IL-24 licensees to sell the Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor at RMRP indicated by the A.P. Beverage Corporation and incorporated in each variety of label for the purpose of consumer awareness. Having noticed that the licensees were not following those instructions and were selling the liquor at much higher rate than the RMRP, further instructions were issued by the Commissioner providing guidelines to his subordinate Officers to enforce the instructions issued by him and to ensure that the liquor is sold at RMRP.
44. In our considered opinion, the instructions so issued by the Commissioner in no manner supplant any provisions of the Act or the Rules referred to hereinabove. The instructions do not in any manner run parallel to the provisions of any of the said Acts and the Rules. The circular instructions merely supplement the provisions of the Act and the Rules. The circular instructions obviously have been issued for the guidance of the subordinate authorities reminding them of their duty to enforce the statutory provisions and ensure that the liquor is not sold by the IL-24 licensees at the rates of their choice.
45. The administrative instructions/circulars are invariably issued by the controlling authorities to ensure uniform application of the laws and the rules made thereunder. In view of the ever expanding governmental activities, it is essential and inevitable to issue administrative instructions supplementing the statutes and the statutory rules. The Government is entitled to fill in the gaps with the statutory rules, but such administrative instructions and manuals have no statutory force, but they are made to be observed by the public servants to discharge their functions under the control of the Government or the Chief Controlling authority, as the case may be. The administrative instructions/circulars so issued, regulate the manner in which the personnel entrusted with the administration of the Acts and their enforcement are required to discharge their functions. Such circular instructions are always considered to be general in nature and it is for the authority concerned to consider as to what extent the application of such general instructions/guidelines shall be applicable in a given case. The Government or the Chief Controlling Authority, as the case may be, is at perfect liberty to issue instructions to its subordinate Officers, provided the instructions do not contravene any constitutional provision or any statute. In the absence of any statutory discretion, the authority may adopt and follow such instructions and apply the same in a given situation and take appropriate decision.
46. We are unable to find any substance in the argument that the impugned circular instructions may amount to modifying or amending the statutory rules. In a case, valid rule having some lacuna or gap can always be supplemented by the executive instructions and such instructions supplement and not supplant any statutory provision or rule.
47. There is no rule or condition in the licences granted to the petitioners under which they are entitled to sell Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor at the price of their own choice. On the other hand, the scheme of the Act and the Rules referred to hereinabove and their cumulative effect suggest that RMRP indicated in each variety of label is meant for the purpose of consumer awareness duly informing the consumer about availability of liquor for sale at the price indicated on the label. The Commissioner himself did not fix any price and direct the licensees to sell various categories of liquor at the price fixed by him. Obviously, he cannot do so. The price had already been fixed by duly taking appropriate parameters into consideration and the price so fixed is indicated on each label by the manufacturer himself at the instance of the A.P. Beverages Corporation Limited which had takenover the wholesale supply of liquor in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The circular instructions merely remind the officers of their duties to enforce the provisions of various Acts and the Rules and to ensure that each category of the liquor is sold at RMRP. Those instructions in no manner run counter to any of the provisions of the Act or the Rules referred to hereinabove. At any rate, we have not been shown that the impugned circular instructions run counter to any particular provision of the Act or the Rules. It is not a case where the impugned circular instructions supersede or amend any statutory provision.
48. Wade in his Administrative Law observed:
'The Departmental circulars are a common form of administrative document by which instructions are disseminated, e.g. from a department ......... to its local offices or to local authorities over which it exercises control.........in themselves they have no legal effect whatever, having no statutory authority. But they may be used as a vehicle for conveying instructions to which some statute gives legal force.........they may also contain legal advice of which the courts will take notice.'
49. The departmental circulars/administrative rules/instructions have repeatedly been held to be rules of administration practice merely, not rules of law and not delegated legislation and they have no statutory force.
50. Lord Bridge in R. v. Immigration Appeal Tribunal ex p. Bakhtaur Singh1 has said that they are 'quite unlike ordinary delegated legislation', that they 'do not purport to enact a precise code having statutory force', and that they are 'discursive in style and, on their face, frequently offer no more than broad guidance as to how discretion is to be exercised'.
51. In our considered opinion, the impugned circular instructions in no manner run counter to any statutory provision. The instructions merely suggest and structure the discretion of the subordinate Officers of the Commissioner as to how they are required to exercise their power under Sections 31 and 41 of the Act 17 of 1968 and the Rules framed thereunder in order to ensure sale of liquor at RMRP. It is for the authorities to take guidance from the instructions and exercise power conferred on them by the statute. The instructions in no manner takes away the discretion vested in the licensing authorities. The whole of the case of the writ petitioners rests on the imagination that IL-24 licensees are entitled to sell Indian Liquor and Foreign Liquor at the rates of their own choice. The very purpose and object of indicating RMRP on each of the label is to make consumer aware in advance that specified categories of liquor is made available for sale at such specified rate.
52. Be it as it may, the licensees in their counterpart agreement having undertaken that they shall abide by all the general conditions applicable to sale of the intoxicants as well as the instructions issued by the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise in the matter of sale of intoxicants, cannot be permitted to turn around and contend that they are not bound by the instructions issued by the Commissioner from time to time. They are bound by the instructions issued by the Commissioner, as long as such instructions do not suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity. The impugned circular instructions in no manner infringe any of the statutory rights of the writ petitioners, much less any guaranteed fundamental rights.
53. The submission based on the Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977, (for short 'Weights and Measures Rules, 1977') is equally untenable and unsustainable.
Rule 6 of the Weights and Measures Rules, 1977, provides that every package shall bear thereon or on a label securely fixed thereto, a definite plain and conspicuous declaration apart from other requirements.
54. Rule 6(C), however, made an exemption and says no declaration as to the sale price has to be made on any bottle containing alcoholic beverages or spirituous liquor.
55. That for the purpose of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976, such a declaration may not be necessary but the Rules 1970 and Rules 1993 mandate incorporation of RMRP on the label fixed on each category of liquor to be affixed on the bottle. The Legislative competence of the State Legislature in enacting Act 17 of 1968 and Act 1993 under which the rules prescribed indication of RMRP are made, is not put in issue.
56. Be it as it may, with effect from 01-12-2003 even Rule 6 (C)(iii) is amended and even under the Weights and Measures Rules, 1977, now there is mandatory requirement to indicate the retail price on every bottle contained alcoholic liquor and spirituous liquor. There is no need to dilate further on this issue.
57. It is unnecessary to notice the facts in detail in each of the case.
58. Myriad are the facts. It is totally unnecessary for us to delve into facts in detail. It would suffice for our purpose to touch upon the bare facts in some of the cases in order to dispose of this batch of writ petitions.
59. The impugned separate orders dated 31-08-2003 passed by the Prohibition and Excise Superintendent, Machilipatnam, Krishna District, whereunder the licences of the writ petitioners have been kept under suspension until further orders do not reveal that they were issued under the dictation of the Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise; on the other hand detailed reasons and the provisions of the law and the rules alleged to have been contravened by the licensees are clearly stated in the impugned orders in which, of course, there is a reference to circular. Therefore, it is unnecessary to go into the question as to whether licensing authorities acted under the dictation of the Commissioner. It was perfectly open to the writ petitioners to file their explanation to the notices and satisfy the licensing authority that they have not contravened any terms and conditions of the licences or the rules, as the case may be, instead the writ petitioners have approached this Court invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
60. W.A. Nos. 772 & 871 of 2004 arise out of the interlocutory orders passed by the learned single Judge whereunder the directions have been issued restraining the licensing authority from giving effect to the instructions issued by the Commissioner, no orders as such have been passed against the licensees either suspending or canceling the licences.
61. Likewise in W.P. Nos.22430, 17351, 21538, 20279, 20899, 21001, 21122, 21358, 21640, 21550, 21379 and 21498 of 2003, no orders have been passed by the licensing authority against the licensees. The instructions alone are challenged.
62. In W.P. Nos.21639, 21776, 21781, 21828, 21916 and 21511 of 2003 no adverse orders were passed by the licensing authority against the licensees. The instructions and show cause notices are challenged even without filing any reply to the show cause notice.
63. W.P. No.21796 of 2003 is directed against the order of suspension pending enquiry.
64. W.P. No.19947 of 2003 is directed against the instructions of the Commissioner and also registration of a crime under Section 41 of the Act 17 of 1968.
65. In none of the cases, there is any order passed by the licensing authority refusing to compound the offences as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners.
66. For all the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in any of the writ petitions and they are accordingly dismissed with costs.
67. However, each of the petitioner/licensee is entitled to submit their explanation within two weeks from today wherever show cause notices have been issued and as well as in cases where the licences have been kept under suspension pending enquiry. The explanation to be offered by the writ petitioners shall be duly taken into consideration by the licensing authority for passing appropriate final orders.
68. No relief is granted in other writ petitions in view of our decision to uphold the circular instructions issued by the Commissioner.
69. Accordingly, W.A. Nos.1889, 2064, 2082, 2110 and 2275 of 2003 preferred by the State are allowed;
70. W.A. Nos.772 and 871 of 2004, which are preferred against the interlocutory orders in W.P.M.P.No.27310 & W.V.M.P. No.145 of 2004 and W.P.M.P. No.26864 & W.V.M.P. No.4152 of 2003 respectively, are allowed and W.P. Nos.21884 and 21505 of 2003 are dismissed;
71. W.P. Nos. 21498, 17351, 21538, 19947, 20279, 20899, 21001, 21122, 21358, 21379, 21511, 21550, 21639, 21640, 21776, 21781, 21796, 21828, 21916 and 22430 of 2003 are dismissed. The State shall be entitled to its costs in all cases.