IN 

THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4039 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.12000 of 2023)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.        ...Appellant(s)

                  Vs.

ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT. 
LTD. & ORS.    ...Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4040 OF 2023
(Arising out of SLP(Civil) No.12046 of 2023)

               
 O R D E R

Leave granted.

2. The   appellants  in   both   these   appeals   before   us  are

Government   of   NCT   of   Delhi   and  their   own   transport

department   and   the   Commissioner   of   that   department.   They

assail two interim orders, both dated 26th May 2023 passed by

the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi before us. These orders, in
Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
Anita Malhotra
Date: 2023.06.14

effect   permit   plying   of   two­wheelers   for   carrying   passengers

16:32:32 IST
Reason:

1
under a regime operated through aggregators. 

3. In the appeal arising out of SLP(C) No. 12000 of 2023, the

respondents are  Roppen Transportation Services Pvt. Ltd.,  and

one   of   their   officers,   who   were   the   writ   petitioners   before   the

High Court. The order impugned in this appeal reads:­

"1. Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application is accordingly disposed of.
3. Notice issued.
4. Learned   Additional   Standing   Counsel   accepts
notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file
counter affidavit.
5. Let   needful   be  done   within six  weeks   from   today
with an advance copy to the other side.
6. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks
thereafter.
7.  Renotify   on   22.08.2023   before   Registrar   for
completion of pleadings.
8. Learned   counsel   for   the   petitioners   submits   that
policy   is   under   active   consideration.     Accordingly,   we
hereby   stay   the   notice   and   make   it   clear   that   the   stay
shall operate till the final policy if notified.  However, once
the   final   policy   is   notified,   if   the   petitioners   are   still
aggrieved,   they   are   at   liberty   to   take   steps   before   the
appropriate forum."

4. In   the   other   appeal,   the   respondents­writ   petitioners  are

Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd., one of their Directors and another

corporate  entity  who  appear to be an associate of the former.

The order of the Division Bench in this appeal is:­

"1. Present petition has come on transfer.
2. Counter affidavit filed by the respondents is lying
objection as  it  has  been  filed  after the  time  granted  by
this Court.
3. Registry is directed to place the same on record.
4. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within four weeks.

2
 5.  Renotify   on   22.08.2023   before   Registrar   for
completion of pleadings.
6. Till further orders, no coercive steps shall be taken
against the petitioners."

5. On 19th February 2023, the  Government of NCT of Delhi

(henceforth, who shall be described as the appellant) had issued

a   Public   Notice,   prohibiting  use   of   two­wheelers   by   the

aggregators,   which   description   fits   the   respondents/writ

petitioners   in   both   these   proceedings.     The   Public   Notice

specified:

"GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI
TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT

5/9, UNDER HILL ROAD, DELHI­110054

PUBLIC NOTICE

  USE OF TWO­WHEELED VEHICLES FOR CARRYING
     PASSENGERS ON HIRE OR REWARD

It   has   been   brought   to   the   notice   that   two­wheelers   having

Non­Transport (Private) registration mark/number are  being used
to carry passengers on hire or reward which is purely commercial
operation  and  in violation of  Motor Vehicles  Act, 1988  and  rules
made thereunder.

The above said violation is a contravention of the registration
condition of the vehicle which is punishable under Section 192 of
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 having punishment for the first offence up
to   Rs.5000/­,   and   for   a   second   or   subsequent   offence   with
imprisonment   which   may   extend   to   one   year   with   fine   up   to
Rs.10,000/­ beside impounding of the vehicle.

In addition to the above punishment, the driving licence of the
driver   will   be   suspended   for   a   minimum   period   of   three   months
under the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court committee.

3
 Further,   it   is   also   noticed   that   some   digital   platforms   are
facilitating   such   operations   by   offering   booking   through   an   app
thereby engaging themselves as an aggregator in contravention of
the provision of Section 93, and shall be punishable with a fine up
to   one   lakh   rupees   under   Section   193   (2)   of   Motor   Vehicles   Act,
1988.

Accordingly,   it   is   directed   to   immediately   stop   such   kind   of

activities to avoid prosecution and penalty, etc.

Sd­
Special Commissioner, Transport"

6. The   respondents­writ   petitioners   approached   the   Delhi

High Court invoking its constitutional writ jurisdiction and it is

in these Writ Petitions filed by them, the aforesaid orders were

passed.  Subsequent  to issue of the Public Notice,  Show Cause

Notices   were  issued   to   the   aggregators   on   21st   and   24th

February 2023 alleging breach of the provisions of Section 93 of

the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (“the 1988 Act”) and contemplating

action   against   them.  For   the   purpose   of   adjudication   of   the

present appeals, we do not consider it necessary to reproduce

the Show Cause Notice in detail.  

7. Main  argument   on  behalf of the  appellant  has been  that

two­wheelers   are   being  facilitated  by   the   aggregators,   i.e.   the

writ petitioners without proper licence or permit  and plying of

such non­transport vehicles for hire or reward is in violation of

registration condition. 

4
8. The   requirement   for   an   aggregator   to   obtain   licence   is

contained   in   Section   93   of   the  1988   Act.   This   provision

stipulates:­ 

"93. Agent or canvasser or aggregator to obtain licence:­
(1) No person shall engage himself­
(i) as   an   agent   or   a   canvasser,   in   the   sale   of
tickets for travel by public service vehicles or in otherwise
soliciting customers for such vehicles, or
(ii) as   an   agent   in   the   business   of   collecting
forwarding   or   distributing   goods   carried   by   goods
carriages.
(iii) as an aggregator,
unless he has obtained a licence from such authority
and  subject to  such conditions  as  may be  prescribed by
the State Government.
Provided   that   while   issuing   the   licence   to   an
aggregator   the   State   Government   may   follow   such
guidelines as may be issued by the Central Government:
Provided further that every aggregator shall comply
with   the   provisions   of   the   Information   Technology   Act,
2000   (21   of   2000)   and   the   rules   and   regulations   made
there under."

9. The term "aggregator" has been defined in Section 2(1A) of

the 1988 Act to mean a digital intermediary or market place for

a   passenger   to   connect   with   the   driver   for   the   purpose   of

transportation.   Submission on behalf of the Delhi Government

5
is   that   they   are   in   the   process   of   formulation   of   a   policy   for

giving   licences   to   aggregators   both   in   respect   of   four­wheeler

and   two­wheeler   vehicles   and  until   such   policy   is  formulated,

operating   a   two­wheeler   vehicle   would   be   impermissible,

attracting the penal provisions contained in the 1988 Act.  

10. Mr.   Neeraj   Kishan   Kaul,   learned   senior   counsel   has

appeared for respondent­Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd.  and the

other co­respondents  whereas Mr. Sidharth Bhatnagar, learned

senior   counsel   and   Mr.   Anoop   Bose,   learned   counsel   have

argued   on   behalf  for  the   respondents­Roppen   Transportation

Services   Pvt.   Ltd.     The   main   grievance   spelt   out   by   the

respondents­writ   petitioners   is   that   in   spite   of   the   Central

Government policy pertaining to the operation of aggregators in

the transport sector having been formulated in the year 2020,

the Delhi government has not yet come out with their own policy

and in such circumstances, it was well within the jurisdiction of

the  Delhi High Court to stay the operation of the  notices  and

prevent   coercive   measures   against   the   operators   of   the   two­

wheeler vehicles under the aegis of  the respective  aggregators.

Further submission on behalf of the respondents has been that

a large number of two­wheeler owners are at present plying their

6
respective   vehicles  through   the   aggregation   mechanism  and   if

the banning Notice is revived at this stage, their livelihood would

be at stake.  It is also the case of the aggregators that in terms

of   Section   41(4)   of   the   1988   Act,   two­wheelers   have   been

permitted   to   be   used   as   transport   vehicles   and   no   prejudice

would be caused to the general public, whose interest the Delhi

Government is meant to represent and protect, if these vehicles

are permitted to be operated pending formulation of policy of the

Delhi   Government   becoming   operational   and   licences   are

granted in pursuance thereof. 

11. When these matters were taken up for hearing on 9th June

2023,   we   had   directed  copies  of   these   petitions   to   be   served

upon the learned Solicitor General so that this Court would have

the   benefit  of  the   views   of  the  Union  of India  on the  subject­

controversy,   as   both   the   Union   of   India   and   the   Delhi

Government have proceeded in these matters on the basis that

the subject­head comes within List III of the 7th Schedule to the

Constitution of India.

12.   On this point, the respondents­writ petitioners had raised

the plea that the question of regulating aggregators came within

the first list of the same schedule  against  Entry 31 and hence

7
the State is not empowered to lay down any guidelines or policy

decision.  But  we  are  not  addressing  this question in detail in

this judgment as in passing the interim order, it does not appear

that the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court had examined

this   aspect   of   the   controversy.   Such   consideration   is   not

reflected in the interim orders assailed in these appeals. We are

proceeding   in   this   matter   with   our   prima  facie  view  that   it  is

within   the   legislative   competence   of   the   State   to   prescribe

conditions for obtaining licence as an aggregator as stipulated in

Section 93 of the 1988 Act. 

13. Mr. Sanjay Jain, learned Additional Solicitor General  has

appeared   on   behalf   of   the   Union of  India and  his  submission

before us  is  that  facilitating  operation of two­wheelers  through

the   aggregators   also   require   licences   under   Section   93   of   the

1988 Act.   His attention was drawn to Section 66 of the 1988

Act on the  question  as  to  whether  an owner  of  a  two­wheeler

having private registration mark/number could  be permitted to

use the vehicles for hire or reward through the aggregators. Mr.

Jain   wants   to   take   further   instructions  on   this   point.     Since

these Writ Petitions are pending before the High Court, we do

not want to make any comment on this point, as this provision

8
also does not appear to have been considered by this High Court

at the interim stage. The impugned order does not reflect that

this point was urged before the High Court at the interim stage,

when the interim orders were passed.

14. Two judgments of this Court were referred to on behalf of

the   respondents­writ   petitioners   being   the   case   of  Uber   India

Systems Pvt. Ltd. and another vs. Union of India and Others

in   SLP(Civil)No.5705/2022   passed   by  a   three   judge   Bench   of

this Court presided over by His Lordship  the  Hon'ble the Chief

Justice of India on 13th February 2023 and the case of Roppen

Transportation   Services   Pvt.   Ltd.   vs.   Union   of   India   &

Others  (SLP(Civil)No.3006/2023)   decided   on   7th   February,

2023.  Both these matters came to this Court from the Bombay

High   Court   and   the   question   of   operation   of   the   aggregators

without a licence under Section 93 of the 1988 Act was under

consideration.  We enquired from the learned counsel appearing

for the parties as to whether the subject of controversy in these

judgments   were   confined   to   operation   of   two­wheelers   or   not

and it was submitted that the subject­dispute out of which the

aforesaid petitions arose  related to operation of the aggregators

as a whole and not confined to two­wheelers.  

9
15. So far as Delhi is concerned, we enquired from the learned

senior counsel representing the respondents­writ petitioners as

to   whether   four­wheelers   were   being   permitted   to   operate

without licence under Section 93 of the 1988 Act or not and the

answer was in the affirmative from the side of the respondents.

In neither  of the two  decisions of this Court  which have been

relied   before   us,   it   has   been   held  or   observed  that   the

aggregators  could  continue   to   operate   without   licence   under

Section 93 of the 1988 Act.  In the case of Uber India Systems

Private   Limited  (supra),  it   was   held   and   observed   by   this

Court:­

"11. We are of the view that it would not be appropriate to
continue with the present proceedings, which arise from an
interlocutory order of the High Court.  As correctly observed
by   the   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court,   in   view   of   the
statutory   regime   which   has   come   into   force   with   the
amendment of Section 93 by the Amending Act of 2019, no
person can continue as an aggregator in the absence of a
licence.  We accordingly permit the petitioners to apply for a
licence within a period of three weeks, that is, on or before
6  March   2023.    Within  the   aforesaid  period,  it   would   be
open   to   the   petitioners   to   submit   a   representation   to   the
State Government in regard to the conditions which were
imposed   while   granting   a   provisional   licence   to   the
petitioners.  The State Government shall, within a period of

10
 two   weeks   from   the   date   of   the   submission   of   the
representation,   take   a   considered   view   on   the   grievance
which   has   been   set   forth   in   the   representation   of   the
petitioners.     We   clarify   that   we   have   not   expressed   any
observations   on   the   merits   of   such   a   grievance.
Thereafter, the State Government may take an appropriate
decision   so   that   pending   the   finalization   of   the   rules,   an
appropriate decision is taken in regard to the applications
for the grant of licence in terms of the provisions of Section
93(1)   of   the   Act.     If   the   petitioners   have   any   subsisting
grievance, it would be open to them to move the High Court
of   Judicature   at   Bombay   either   in   the   pending   Public
Interest   Litigation   or   independently   so   that   the   merits   of
their grievance(s) can be considered by the High Court."

16. In the case of  Roppen Transportation Services Pvt.Ltd.

(supra) it was held by this Court:

"9. Government of Maharashtra has not formulated any
rules   in   relation   to   aggregators   for   the   purpose   of
enforcing the provisions of Chapter V, more particularly,
Section 93(1).   The first proviso to Section 93 stipulates
that  while   issuing  a  licence   to  an  aggregator,  the  State
Government may follow such guidelines as may be issued
by the Central Government.   The Guidelines which have
been   issued   by   the   Central   Government   have   a
persuasive  value.   They  are   not   mandatory.    When  the
State   Government   formulates   rules   in   pursuance   of   its
power   under   Section   96,   it   may   also   bear   in   mind   the
Guidelines   which   have   been   framed   by   the   Union
Government in 2020.  Both in terms of the first proviso to
Section 93(1) and the plain terms of the Guidelines, it is

11
 evident that while these Guidelines have to be borne in
mind, the ultimate decision is to be arrived at by the State
Government while considering whether to grant a licence
and in regard to the formulation of rules in pursuance of
the general rule making power under Section 96."

17. In   the   case   of  Uber   India   Systems   Private   Limited

(supra),  an   interim   order   granted   by  this  Court,  which  was

operating since 21st April 2022 was directed to be extended till

20th   April   2023   in   order   to   enable  the   operators  to   apply   for

licence.

18. So   far   as   the   present   proceedings   are   concerned,   the

distinguishing   feature   is   that  the  public   notice   prohibits

operation of two­wheelers under the aggregation mechanism for

transport of passengers and no prohibition has been imposed on

four­wheeler vehicles.

19. As   would   be   evident   from   the   public   notice   dated   19 th

February 2023, one of the factors that weighed with the State

Government   was   that   the   two­wheelers   having   non­transport

registration were being used for hire and reward, which bears

the characteristic of a public service vehicle in terms of Section

2(35) of the 1988 Act. This again is our prima­facie view. In the

two decisions of this Court cited before us, this factor does not

12
appear to have had come up for consideration before this Court.

20. In relation to these two appeals, the prohibition order came

on 19th February, 2023 and the interim order of the High Court

was passed on 26th May 2023.  Thus, the operators were under

prohibition   till   25th   May   2023.     The   factual   situation   of   the

present  two   appeals  do   not   fit   with   the   two   Special   Leave

Petitions from the orders of the Bombay High Court to justify

permitting   the   aggregators   to   continue   with   two­wheeler

operations   without   licence   under   Section   93   of   the   1988   Act.

Moreover, the  prohibition in these two proceedings are in fact

confined to two­wheelers only with private registration. We have

dealt with this aspect in the preceding paragraph.

21. On behalf of the Delhi Government Mr. Manish Vashisht,

learned   Senior   Counsel  assisted   by   Mr.   Samir   Vashisht   has

submitted that the policy of the Delhi Government in respect of

the two­wheelers of the Delhi Government in respect of the two­

wheelers would be in place and the licencing regime will become

operational from 31st July 2023.

22. Under these circumstances, in our opinion, interim orders

ought not to have been passed staying whole scale operation of

a   statutory   regime   till   the   finalisation   of   the   policy.   We   have

13
already expressed our prima­facie view as regards power of the

Delhi   Government   to   issue   the   banning   order.   Solely   on

consideration of balance of convenience, such interim stay on a

public   notice   ought   not   to   have   been   granted.   We   have   also

taken   note   of   the   submission   of   probable   suffering   of   large

number   of   two­wheeler   owners   who   might   have   to   undergo

suffering because of the public notice of 19 th February 2023. But

they   are   not   the   writ   petitioners   before   the   High   Court.   We

cannot suspend, for that reason alone operation of what appears

to   us   prima­facie   statutory   provisions.   Further,   the   Delhi

Government has assured this Court of formulating the policy for

two­wheeler aggregators by 31st July 2023. 

23. We accordingly direct permanent stay on operation of the

impugned  orders passed by the Delhi High Court, which were

interim in nature.   The parties are given liberty to apply before

the High Court for early hearing of the Writ Petitions.  We have

no doubt that on formulation of the Policy, each application for

licence/permit in respect of two­wheelers to be operated through

the regime of aggregators, shall be dealt with expeditiously in a

time­bound manner.  

14
24. Having   held   so,   we   do   not   think   any   purpose   would   be

served  in keeping  these  appeals alive.  We dispose of both the

appeals   with   our   observation   that   any   comment   or   opinion

expressed in this order shall not bind the Delhi High Court in

final disposal of the writ petitions. 

25. No order as to costs.

……..........................J.
       (ANIRUDDHA BOSE)

                                     
 ……...........................J.
       (RAJESH BINDAL) 

NEW DELHI;
June 12, 2023.

15
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12000/2023

(Arising out of interim order dated 26-05-2023 in WPC No. 7243/2023

passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and

IA No. 113221/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 113223/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

WITH SLP(C) No. 12046/2023

(IA No.113661/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.113662/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 12-06-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
(VACATION BENCH)

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manish Vashisht,Sr.Adv.

Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR
Mr. Samir Vashisht,Adv./ASC Civil GNCTD
Mr. Rikky Guptaa,Adv.
Mr. Aman Singh Bhadoria,Adv.
Mr. Vanshay Kaul,Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh,Adv.
Mr. Vedansh Vashisht,Adv.
Mr. Aviral Tripathi,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Hardeep Sachdeva, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Parag Maini, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Chadha, Adv.
Ms. Nishtha Kumar, AOR
Mr. Abhyudai Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kshitiz Rao, Adv.

16
 Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv.
Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv.
Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Adv.
Ms. Madhavi Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv.
Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

Mr. Sanjay Jain,ASG

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Siddantha Dharamadhikari,Adv.
Mr. Padmesh Mishra,Adv.
Mr. Arkaj Kumar,Adv.

Mr. Sumit Jidani,Adv.

Mr. Anoop Bose,Adv.
Ms. Nishta Kumar,AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.
The Civil Appeals are disposed of in terms of the
signed order.
Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(ANITA MALHOTRA) (VIDYA NEGI)

AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
(Signed order is placed on the file.)

17
ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12000/2023

(Arising out of interim order dated 26-05-2023 in WPC No. 7243/2023

passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi)

GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

ROPPEN TRANSPORTATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and

IA No. 113221/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT
IA No. 113223/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

WITH SLP(C) No. 12046/2023

(IA No.113661/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED
JUDGMENT and IA No.113662/2023-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 12-06-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIRUDDHA BOSE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
(VACATION BENCH)

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Manish Vashisht,Sr.Adv.

Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta, AOR
Mr. Samir Vashisht,Adv./ASC Civil GNCTD
Mr. Rikky Guptaa,Adv.
Mr. Aman Singh Bhadoria,Adv.
Mr. Vanshay Kaul,Adv.
Mr. Ravindra Pal Singh,Adv.
Mr. Vedansh Vashisht,Adv.
Mr. Aviral Tripathi,Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Hardeep Sachdeva, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Awasthi, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Shankar, Adv.
Mr. Parag Maini, Adv.
Mr. Raghav Chadha, Adv.
Ms. Nishtha Kumar, AOR
Mr. Abhyudai Singh, Adv.
Mr. Kshitiz Rao, Adv.

18
 Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv.
Mr. Manu Krishnan, Adv.
Mr. Pranjit Bhattacharya, Adv.
Ms. Madhavi Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Toshiv Goyal, Adv.
Ms. Ira Mahajan, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

Mr. Sanjay Jain,ASG

Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR
Mr. Siddantha Dharamadhikari,Adv.
Mr. Padmesh Mishra,Adv.
Mr. Arkaj Kumar,Adv.

Mr. Sumit Jidani,Adv.

Mr. Anoop Bose,Adv.
Ms. Nishta Kumar,AOR

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

Leave granted.

The Civil Appeals are disposed of in terms of the

signed order.

Pending applications also stand disposed of.

(ANITA MALHOTRA) (VIDYA NEGI)

AR-CUM-PS ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

19