S.C.R. principal appeal fails it would not be necessary to z959 make any effective orders on the rest of the appeals in N h. PP Chettiar this group. The said appeals also fail and are ac ia v~
dismissed ; but there would be no order as to costs. Subramaniam .A.ppeals dismissed. Chettiai' Gajendragadkar J, THE OKARA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD., AND ANOTHER· v. THE STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER
(B. P. SINHA, C.J., P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SUBBA RAO, K. C. DAS Gui:TA and J. C. SHAH, JJ.) 1- Constitution–Electricity undertaking-Grant of temporary sanction for supplying energy-Condition imposed for compulsory acquisition of undertaking on . payment of compensatio.n-W hether ultra vires-Stat11te authorising imposition of such condition- W hether infringes fundamental rights-Indian Electricity Act, r9w (IX of r9ro), s. 28(r)-Constitution of India, Arts. r9(r)(f) and Art. 3r.
Section 28(r) of the Indian Electricity Act, l9IO authorised the State Government to grant sanction to a non-licensee to engage in the business of supplying energy on "such conditions in this behalf" as it may fix.
By a notification dated May 26, 1948, issued under s. 28(1) the first respondent granted sanction to the first petitioner, to engage in the business of supplying energy to Mliktsar. Clause II of the notification provided that the Provincial Government shall have the option of acquiring the undertaking at anytime after October 21, 1950, after giving one year's notice and that it shall pay the price of lands, buildings, works, material and plant. that may be acquired at the fair market value. On January 3, 1958, the first respondent issued a notice exercising the option given under cl. II and intimated to the first petitioner that upon expiry of one year its undertaking shall vest and become the absolute property of the first respon- dent. On January 4, 1959, the first respondent took possession of the undertaking in pursuance of the notice. The petitioners contended that cl. II of the notification was ultra vires s. 28 and that if cl. II was justified by s. 28 then s. 28 was void as it offended Arts. 19 and 31 of the Constitution. , ·
Held, that cl. II of the notification was intra vires s. 28. A statutory provision which Q(!alt with the 9rant of sanction tq I959 N oveniber r3. r959 a person to engage in the bnsiness of supplying energy must, having regard to the special features of the business, necessarily The Okara Electric deal with the position which would arise on the termination of Supply Co., Ltd. the sanction; so it could be assumed that such statutory provision v.
would make adequate provision empowering the State Govern- The State of ment to provide for the compulsory acquisition of the assets of Punjab the supplier on payment of proper compensation. Though s. 28(1) did not specifically provide for compulsory acquisition on payment of compensation, the expression "such conditions in this behalf " in s. 28(1) in the context would include conditions dealing with the position . which would inevitably arise when the business came to an end. The sanction under s. 28 being necessarily temporary it was in the interest of the grantee himself that some provision was made for payment of compensation to him. A
condition for acquisition like cl. rr was, therefore, within the scope of s. 28(1). New Orleans Gas Light Co. v. Louisiana Light and Heat Producing and Manufacturing Co. rr5 U.S. 650; 29 L. Ed. 516, referred to.
Held, further, that s. 28 was valid and did not offend either Art. 19 or Art. 3r. The Act could not be challenged on the ground of violating Art. 31(2) as it was an existing law which was saved by clause (5) of the Art. 3r. Similarly, it was saved by s. 299(4) of the Government of India Act, 1935. from an attack under s. 299(2).
The restrictions imposed by s. 28 of the Act were reasonable restrictions imposed in the interests of the general public within the meaning of Art. 19(5). Such limitations were generally imposed on the business of supplying energy. ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Petition No. 19 of 1959.
Petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, for enforcement of fundamental rights. Veda Vyasa, S. K. Kapur and Ganpat Rai, for the petitioners. S. M. Sikri, Advocate-General for the State of Punjab,
N. S. Bindra and D. Gupta, for the respondents. 1959. November 13. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Gajendragadkar}. GAJENDRAGADKAR J.-The Okara Electric Supply Co. Ltd., which is a Joint Stock Company and
Shrimati V. V. Oberoi, one of the principal share- holders of the said company (hereinafter called peti- tioners I and 2 respectively) have filed the present petition against the State of Punjab and the Punjab
-< – S.C.R. SUPREME COUR'r REPORTS State Electricity Board (hereinafter called respon- :r959 dents 1 and 2 respectively) in which tiley have claimed 't d d' t' t f t' d The Okara Electric
a wri , or er or irec 10n in respec o a no ice issue 5 ppl c Ltd by respondent 1 on January 3, 1958. The petition u Y v. was presented on January 3, 1959 and it claimed an The Stats of
order or writ restraining the respondents from giving Punjab effect to the said notice. It appears that on January'4, 1959 . f th 'd . d · t' th Gajendragadkar ]. , m pursuance o e sa1 impugne
no we e respondents took possession of the petitioners' pro- perty in question, and so, by an order passed by the learned Chamber Judge the petitioners were allowed -to make an additional claim for a writ or order or
direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over to the petltioners the said property in question. This petition is made on the ground that the impugned notice and action taken by
the respondents in pursuance of it are illegal and unauthorised and they affect the petitioners' funda- mental rights under Arts. 19 and 31 of the Consti- tution. The first petitioner was granted sanction undel' s. 28
of the Indian Electricity Act, 1910 (9 of 1910) (herein- after called the Act) authorising it to engage in the business of supplying energy at Muktsar by Govern- ment Notification No. 1766-I & 0-48/28784 published
on May 26, 1948. By virtue of the said sanction the first petitioner has ever since been engaged in the business of supplying electric energy at the said place and for the purpose of its business it has set up
an electricity undertaking at considerable cost. On January 3, 1958, the Secretary to respondent 1, P. W. D., Irrigation and Electricity Branches, Ohandi- _ garh, issued notice against the first petitioner purport·
ing to exercise the option given to respondent 1 by cl. 11 of the said notification. By this notice the first ,petitioner was told that respondent 1 had exercised its option under the said clause, and that on the expiry of
the period of one year after the receipt of-the notice by the first petitioner its undertaking shall vest in and become the absolute property of respondent 1. The first petitioner has been having bulk supply
from P. W. D. El~ctricity brainch of respondent 1, and, [1960(2)] '959 according to the petition, respondent 1 could not and will not take over the plant and yet has ordered the The OkO'a E1'ctric fi t
t "t' h t · t ]j Supply Co., Ltd. rs pe. i 10ner t a it canno se ~ 1e p '.11:1t without v. pern11ss10n of respondent 1. The impos1t1on of this The State of condition is wholly illegal and it amounts to an
Punjab unreasonable restriction on the petitioners' right to carry on business and to hold and dispose of its Gajend,agadkar ]. property. The petition alleges that cl. 11 of the notification on
which the impugned notice is founded is ultra vires s. 28 of the Act, and that alternatively, if the inclu- sion of the said clause in the notification is justified by s. 28 of the Act, s. 28 itself is ultra vires since it offends against Arts. 19 and 31 of the Constitution. It is on
these allegations that originally the petition claimed an order against the enforcement of the notice and subsequently added the prayer for a writ of manda- mus directfog respondent 1 to restore to the petitioners
possession of the property which has been taken over by respondent 1 after the filing of the present petition. The claim thus made is denied by both the respond- ents. It is urged that the petitioners cannot challenge
the validity of cl. 11 which was accepted by them before the Constitution came into force. It is further urged that the said clanse is justified by the provisions of s. 28 of the Act and that both the said clause and
s. 28 are intra vires and valid. The respondents further alleged that after possession was taken of the property of the first petitioner in exercise of the option under cl. 11 the first petitioner had been repeatedly called
upon by the respondents to assist them in making a proper valuation of the assets of the first petitioner taken over by the respondents. In fact an amount of Rs. 60,000 has been paid to the first petitioner in part
payment by way of compensation and it has been accepted by it though under protest; but the work of completing the valuation of the total assets has been delayed and hampered by the non-cooperative
attitude of the first petitioner. Thus the first question which falls to be decided on this petition is whether cl. 11 of the notification i& \;-· s.c.k. justified by s. 28 of the Act.
The notification consists r959 of 14 clauses and it sets out exhaustively the terms_ and conditions on which sanction had been granted The Okara Electnc to the first petitioner under s. 28 of the Act. For the Supply v~o., Ltd. purpose of the present petition it would be enough to
The State of · refer to cl. 11 only. This clause provides that the Punjab Provincial Government shall have the option· to acquire the undertaking at any time after October 21, Gajsndragadkar f. 1950, provided firstly that not less than one years'
notice in writing of the election to acquire shall be served upon the supplier by the Provincial Govern- ment ; provided secondly that the generating station 1 shall not form part of the undertaking for the purpose
of acquisition if the undertaking is acquired after grid supply from the East Punjab Public vVorks Depart- ment, Electricity Branch, has reached Muktsar; pro- • vided thirdly that the price to be paid to the supplier
for such lands, buildings, works, materials and plant as may be acquired by the Provincial Government under this clause will be the fair market value at the time of purchase (without any addition in respect of
compulsory purchase or of goodwill or of any profits which may be or might have been made from the updertaking) such value to be in case of difference or dispute determined by arbitration in the manner
prescribed in s. 52 of the Act ; provided fourthly tha.t the Provincial Government shall pay the price of the property acquired under this clause within a period of six months after the price has been determined."
Mr. Veda Vyas, for the petitioners, contends that the condition which gives respondent 1 the option to acquire the property of the petitioners is ultra vires. We are concerned withs. 28 as it stood prior to its
amendment by Act 32 of 1959. Section 28(1) reads thus: "No person, other· than a license-e, shaTI engage in the business of supplying energy except vdth the ·previous sanction of the State Government and in
accordance with such conditions as the State Government may fix in this behalf, and any agree- ment to the contrary shall be void," ' 244 z959 The Act which was passed in 1910, to amend the law
relating to the supply and use of electrical energy was The Okara Electric• t d d t 'd c d f si1pply Co., Ltd. m en e o pro~1 e. •Or an regu ate t rn ~upp y ? v. energy by grantmg licences and so the prov1s10ns m
The State of respect of licences are dealt with by ss. 3 to 27 in Punjab Part IL Part III in which s. 28 occurs deals with . — the supply of energv by non-licensees. It appears Ga7endragadkar 1 ·that the Legislature ii; tended to adopt the course of sanctioning the supply of energy by non-licensees
as a temporary measure and in areas wherever it was expedient to do so. A person pther than a licensee cannot engage in the business of supplying energy except with the previous sanction of the State Govern-'
merit and s. 28(1) authorises the State Government to impose conditions subject to which it proposes to grant sanction. This position is not disputed ; but the argument is that the conditions which can be ·
legitimately imposed in granting sanction must be such as would relate to or have bearing on the busi- ness of supplying energy. Such conditions "in this behalf", it is urged, cannot include any conditions
as to compulsory acquisition of the property of the person to whom sanction is intended to be given. The acquisition of such property does not relate ao.d has no bearing on the business of supplying energy
and is in no manner connected with it. It would be competent to the State Government to provide for the area of supply, the aerial lines, the nature of the supply, the limitation of prices to be charged for the
supply of energy and the purchase of energy in bulk. These and other similar conditions can be properly regarded as conditions" in behalf of" the business of supplying energy ; bnt the condition of compulsory
acquisition of the supplier's property cannot be treated as falling under s. 28(1). In support of this construction reliance is placed on the provisions o~ ss. 5 and 6 which specifically deal
with the question· about the acquisition of the under. ta.king. Section 3 of the Act provides for the granting of licences and s. 4 for the revocation and amendment of licences. Having provided for the grant, revoc-
. ation and amendment of the licences s. 5 deals inter s.o.ft. stl:PREME codR± REPORTS alia with the question of paying compensation to the r959 licensee whose licence has been revoked. Similary,
k k .c t' The 0 ara E eclnc s. ma es appropriate prov1s10ns 1or compensa 10n 5,,pply Co., Ltd. where the licence of a local authority has been revo- v. ked. Section 7 makes a provision for the purchase
The state of of an undertaking and lays down the procedure for P"njab determining the value of the properties. The peti- tioners urge that where the Legislature. thought it Ga;endragadkar J. necessary to acquire properties of the licensees either
on the revocation or the cancellation of the licences it has made express provisions in that behalf; a similar provision would have been made in respect of persons other than licensees to whom sanction is granted
under s. 28 if it was in the contemplation of the Legislature that the properties of such persons may be acquired. Thus presented, ·the argument no doubt appears to be plausible. Prima facie there is some
force in the contention that conditions " in this behalf" in the context should mean conditions which are relevant to or connected with the business of supplying energy, In deciding this question, how-
ever, it is essential to bear. in mind the special nature of the article, viz., energy for the supply of which sanction is granted, and to take into account the scheme of the Act in regard to the conditions which
are intended to be imposed on the business of its supply. In this connection it would not be unreasonable to ascertain how the supply of energy is regulated in England and America. It is clear that the Act is
based on the provisions of the English law and it would be useful to inquire whether conditions for the acquisi- tion of the supplier's property were treated as a part of the conditions on which the supplier was allowed to
carry on the business of supplying electricity. This aspect is considered by Halsb'ury under the heading " Acquisition of undertaking by Local Authority ". "In Local Authority", it is observed, "within whose
jurisdiction the area of supply or any part of it is situated may within six months after the expiration of 42 years or any shorter period specified in the special order from the coming to force of the said
r959 ·Order … by a notice in \Vriting require the under- takers to sell (and thereupon the undertakers must The Okara Electric JI th h · d k" h f · 5 ppl c Ltd se to em t e1r un erta mg or so muc
o it as u Yv. o., · within its jurisdiction) upon terms of paying the then The State of value of all lands, buildings, works, materials and Punjab plant of the undertakers suitable to and used by them
for the purpose of the undertaking within such jurisdic- Gajendragadkar ]. t" h t b d t · d b b't ' · ion sue va ue o e e ermme y ar I rat10n m case of difference (1)". It would thus appear that
where sanction was given to a person for carrying on the business of supplying electricity under a special order, a condition was introduced in the said order itself for the compulsory acquisition of the undertaking
on payment of adequate compensation to the person concerned. Subsequently, after the pa.ssing of the Electric Light- ing Act, 1909, powers to supply electricity were not granted by provisional orders but a large number of
such orders still remained in force; and, as Hals bury has observed, "many of these orders are in a standard form but a number contain special clauses of which the most common is a clause gh·ing special purchase
rights to local Authorities. These special orders were confirmed by Acts and contained special clauses for the protection of county bridges, for the breaking up of streets, for the connection of the generating stations
and systems of different undertakings and the use of such generating stations in common for the purpose of such undertakings" ('). It is thus clear that where a licence was given to a person to supply electricity it
generally included the right of the licensing authority to acquire t.he licensee's property on terms and condi- tions included in the licence by the provisional order. The American lawyers describe the right or privilege
to supply electricity as a franchise. This right falls under a class of rights · " in public streets which are granted for furtherance of public purposes but which involving as they do the right to use the streets in
(1) Halsbury's "Laws of England", 'rol. 1_2, 2nd Ed., page 597, Art. 1152. (2) Halsbury's "Laws of England", \'ol. 12, '2nd Ed., page 668, foot- note (t). ~ S.C.R. various ways, give rise to a series . of questions as
x959 between the grantee of the right on the one hand and the municipality or abutting owners on the other" (1). T~ o~ar~:E~c;i& Dillon in " Muncipal Corporations " further observes
upp y /"' · that "for convenience these rights are described as The state·of franchises to use the public streets and highways, and Punjab whether correctly or incorrectly denominated franchi-
.. — ses, they answer in essential respects to the definition Go;endragadkarJ. and elements of a franchise from the State".· " The. business of furnishing water and light '', ·observes the
author, "when carried on by a corporation or indivi- dual, of necessity involves the use of streets. and highways of the municipality ; and the right to lay pipes, mains and conduits, and to erect poles and stretch
wires therein and to maintain, operate and use them, is a franchise vested in the State, and it can only be exercised by a corporation or ·individual pursuant to the authority granted by the State "( 2 )~ ·
The. question of the purchase of works of ,com~ panies by municipality is also considered by ·Dillon·: "Where a municipal corporation has granted a fran- chise to a water or gas company to construct its plant,
to use the city streets for pipes and mains, . and to furnish water or light to the city and its inhabitants, it has been held that the legislature under special constitutional restrictions was without authority to
compel the city to purchase the property or plant of the company if it desired to acquire or construct works of its own ; but in the absence of constitutional limit- ations statutes may be enacted and contracts made
which in their effect prevent municipalities from establishing water works of their own until they have at least offered to purchase the works of corporations organised and· existing within their limits " (3).
The learned author also says that "If a municipality stipulates in a contract with a water or other public service company that it shall have the right to .pur- chase the works of the company at a time and in a
(1) Dillon's "Municipal Corporations", 5th Ed., Vol. III, p. 1905, s. 1210. (2) Dillon's "Municipal Corporations", 5th Ed., Vol. III, p. 2136• 37. s. 1304. (3) Ibid. p. 218~, s. r312.
z959 manner specified, and if such stipulation is inserted in and becomes a part of a grant of the right to use The Okara Electric th t t d bl" f h l" c supply Co .. Ltd. e s ree s an pu _1c p ac~s o t e _mummpa ity 1or
v. the purpose of laymg mams and pipes, the corpor- Th• state of ation is estopped to deny the authority of the munici- Punjab pality to make and enforce the stipulation" (1). G . d
dk 1 In New Orleans Gas Light Go. v. Louisiana Light a1en raga ar . nd H p d d G ( } · h a eat ro ucing an ManuJ acturing o. 2 , it as ~een held by the Supreme Court of the United States
of America that "the manufacture and distribution of gas by means of pipes, mains and. conduits plac.ed under legislative authority in the public ways of a municipality, is not an ordinary business in which
everyone may enga.ge as of common right upon terms of equality; but is a franchise, relating to matters of which the public may assume control and, when not forbidden by the organic law of the State, may be
granted by the Legislature as a means of accomplish- ing public objects to whomsoever, and upon what terms, it pleases". In that case the question which arose for decision of the court related to the validity
of the constitutional prohibition upon State Jaws impairing the obligation of contracts but with that aspect of the matter we are not concerned in the present appeal. It thus appears that American
lawyers describe the business of supplying energy as well as 1 the bus~ness of supplying w'.Lter an~ gas. as a franchise, and it also appears th<tt m grantmg licence or sanction to a person to engage in such business, a
condition is usually imposed for the compulsory acquisi- tion of the business when the licence or sanction comes to an end. Let us look at this question from a practical point of view. If a person is granted sanction to engage in
the business of supplying energy it is not denied that s. 28(1) would justify the imposition of a time limit on the grant of sanction. If sanction is granted for a ·specified number of years, and it· comes to an end what
would happen to the constructions made by the .supplier for the purpose of supplying energy ? He (1) Ibid. p. 2187, s. 1312. (z) rr; U.S. 650; 29 L. E~. 516. S.C.R. cannot dismantle them because thereby he would cause
r959 damage to public property such as streets, and so he The Ok:;;: Electric cannot take them away. In such a case the Legisla- supply co., Ltd. ture may well provide for the acquisition of such
v. constructions in order to safeguard the interest of the The State of person to whom temporary sanction is granted. Such Punjab a provision also serves another public purpose. Itcajendragadkar J.
guarantees the availability of suitable constructions and works which may be used for the continuance of the supply of electricity by another agency. In other words, the statutory provision which deals with the
grant of sanction to a person to engage in the business of supplying energy must, having regard to the special features of the business, necessarily deal with the position which would arise on the termination of the
sanction; and· so it would not be unreasonable to assume that the statutory provisions which deals with this question would think of making adequate provi- sion empowering the State Government to provide for
the compulsory acquisition of the assets of the supplier on payment of proper compensation. It is in the light of this special feature of the business of supplying energy that we must construes. 28(1) of the Act.
Besides, the provisions of ss. 5, 6 and 7 also afford assistance in the matter. They clearly show that in the case of a licence specific provisions have been made for the acquisition of the undertaking in cases of revocation
or cancellation of licences. The reason for thus provid- ing for compulsory acquisition of licensee's undertaking is equally relevant in the case of the sanction with which s. 28(1) deals. It is true that s. 28 does not
specifically and expressly provide for compensation as the other sections do ; but that must be because recourse to the provisions of Pt. III was intended not to be the rule but only as a temporary measure
wherever it was deemed necessary to do so; and so the Legislature left it to the State Government to provide for compulsory acquisition in the light of the guidance given by the provisions contained in ss. 5, 6
and 7. Let us then look at s. 28(1) in the light of these con- siderations. It authorises the State Government to aa SUPHEME COURT REPORTS [1960(2)] '959 give sanction to a person to engage in the business of
Th• Oka.a Electric supplyi~1g ~~ergy on co.n~itio1rn in . that beh~lf: The supply co. Ltd. express10n such cond1t10ns m this behalf m the "· ' context should take in conditions dealing with the
The state of position which would inevitably arise when the busi- Punjab ness comes to an end. There is no doubt that the grant of sanction contemplated by s. 28 cannot be GajmdYagadkar ].
l b d b permanent. t was a ways oun to e temporary, issued on an ad hoc basis according to the requirement of each case, and when grant.ing sanction for a speci- fied number of years it is in the interest of the grantee
himself that some provision should be made for payment of compensation to him in respect of the investment made by him in carrying out the business of supplying energy when otherwise it would be difficult
for him to collect his assets in that behalf. That is why we think that the relevant words should not be given a narrow and limited construction for which the petitioners contend. In our opinion, the context requires
that the said words should receive a wider and liberal construction. A condition for the acquisition of the property of the petitioners, like cl. 11 would, therefore, fall within the scope of s. 28(1).
The challenge to the validity of this condition on the ground that it is ultra vires s. 28(1) must accordingly fail. Ifs. 28 permits the imposition of such a condition does it violate Art. 19 or Art. 31 of the Constitution?
That is the next question which must be considered. It is not seriously disputed that Art. 31(2) on which reliance is placed by the petitioners cannot be of much help to them for Art. 31(5) provides inter alia
that nothing in cl. (2) shall affect the provisions of any exi~ting law other than the law to which the provi- sions of cl. (6) applies. It is conceded that cl. (6) does not apply to the Act, so that it follows that Art. 31(2)
cannot be invoked to challenge the validity of the Act. Mr. Veda Vyas attempted to contend that the vires of the Act could be challenged if not under Art. 31(2) at least under s. 299(2) of the Government of India Act,
1935; but he realised that he was up against a similar difficulty created by the provisions of s. 299(4) which says that nothing in s. 299 shall affect the provisions S.C.H. of any law in force at the date of the passing of
r9"s9 the Act; and he conceded that in 1910 when the Act was. passed the Legislature was competent to pass it T~e o~ar~ El~~~'" and it then suffered from no infirmity. That is why
upp Y v. though an attempt was made to press -into service The state of Art. 31(2) it was ultimately given up. We need not, Punjab therefore, discuss this point any further. In regard to the attack on 8. 28 on the ground that Gajendragadkar J. it offends Art. 19(f) or (g) the answer is obvious. The
limitations imposed by s. 28 quite clearly are reason- able restrictions and have been imposed in the interests of the general public within the meaning of Art 19(5) of the Constitution. As we have already seen such
limitations are g~ner.ally imposed on the business of supplying energy and their reasonableness cannot be and has in fact not been seriously challenged. There- fore, we have no hesitation in holding that the vires of
s. 28 cannot be successfully challenged. Incidentally we may observe that on the day when the Constitution came into force what vested in the petitioners was the property subject to the liability
imposec;l on it by cl. 11 of the notification ; and so, when the Constitution came into force the only rights which the petitioners had in their property in question were rights of a limited character which were subject
to the exercise by the State of its election to acquire the said property. In this connection the respondents rely on the decision of this Court in Director of Endow- · ments, Government of Hyderabad v. Akram Ali(1) and
seek to urge that the exercise of the option given to respondent 1 by cl. 11 of the notification cannot be successfully challenged as ultra vires under Art. 19 of the Constitution ; we do not, however, think it neces-
sary to decide this point because it was fairly conceded before us that if s. 28 is valid and is construed to include a condition like cl. 11 of the notification no other point would survive.
There is one more minor point to which reference may be made. In the petition the validity of the notice given by respondent 1 to the petitioners pro- hibiting them from dealing with the property was
(I) A.I.R. 1956 s.c. 60. challenged; but that is no longer a matter in dispute between the parties since respondent 1 has in substance The Okara Elecfric · hd h "d Th" f t h ld Supply Co., Ltd. wit
rawn t e sa1 not1~e. IS ac , owever, wou v. be relevant on the quest10n of costs. The State of The result is the petition fails but in the oircum- Punjab stances Of this case there would be no order as to
G . d– k costs. a;en rag ad ar j. Petition dismissed. '""-)