Adv. Ratan K. Singh seeks a junior lawyer to join his personal chamber in Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi.
About the Advocate
Mr Ratan K. Singh is a Senior Advocate and Arbitrator based in New Delhi and has 25 years of experience, with specialities in construction, engineering, infrastructure, mining, and general commercial and civil disputes. I have received numerous arbitral appointments as chair and wing arbitrator and have represented parties in complex, high-value domestic and international arbitrations under major arbitration rules.
Position available
Junior Lawyer
Location
Greater Kailash – 1, New Delhi
Preferred qualifications/ qualities:
1. PQE 3-5 years (flexible), having experience in construction disputes. 2. Have strong drafting and briefing skills.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
The Indian Penal Code (IPC)[1] contains several provisions that serve as general exceptions to criminal liability. These provisions exempt certain actions from being considered crimes under certain circumstances.
For example, Section 76[2] provides that acts done by a person who is bound by law to do them are not crimes, while Section 80 provides that an act done in good faith for the benefit of a person without their consent is not a crime if it would otherwise have been so. Section 81 provides that an act done by several persons to further a common intention is not a crime if done in good faith for the advancement of religion, science, literature, or fine arts. The general exceptions under IPC are meant to provide a reasonable balance between the protection of individual rights and the public interest.
Judicial and Executive acts: A General Exception under IPC
Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides a general exception for acts performed by a public servant in the discharge of his official duties, or by any person acting under the direction of a public servant if such act is done in good faith. This means that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated against such individuals unless prior sanction is obtained from the appropriate authority. This provision is intended to protect public servants from baseless lawsuits and ensure that they are able to perform their duties without fear of legal harassment.
Judicial acts as an exception
The judicial act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a provision in Section 197 of the code that exempts public servants and persons acting under the direction of a public servant from criminal liability for acts performed in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This provision applies to acts performed by judges, magistrates, and other public servants in the course of their official duties and provides immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in good faith in the performance of such duties. The purpose of this exception is to ensure that public servants are able to perform their duties without fear of being sued for criminal offences and to prevent frivolous or malicious lawsuits from being filed against them. However, prior sanction from the appropriate authority is required before criminal proceedings can be initiated against a public servant under this exception.
Case Laws that give us a vivid idea regarding the prevailing exceptions
There are several case laws that have interpreted and applied the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Some of the notable cases include:
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu[3]: In this case, the Supreme Court of India held that the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC applies only to acts performed in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial powers and does not extend to acts performed in an administrative capacity.
State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Dattatraya Apar[4]: In this case, the Supreme Court held that the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC applies only to acts performed by public servants in good faith and within the scope of their official duties and not to acts of omission or commission that are mala fide or beyond the scope of their official duties.
K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu[5]: This case dealt with the issue of whether the prior sanction was required before a public servant could be prosecuted for an act performed in the discharge of his official duties. The Supreme Court held that prior sanction was required before the prosecution could be initiated against a public servant under the judicial act exception in Section 197 of the IPC.
These cases provide guidance on the scope and application of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC and have helped to clarify the rights and obligations of public servants in the performance of their official duties.
Executive acts as a general exception and what makes it different from judicial acts
The executive act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is a provision in Section 197 of the code that exempts public servants and persons acting under the direction of a public servant from criminal liability for acts performed in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This provision applies to acts performed by executive officials, such as government employees and officers, in the course of their official duties and provides immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken in good faith in the performance of such duties. The purpose of this exception is to ensure that public servants are able to perform their duties without fear of being sued for criminal offences and to prevent frivolous or malicious lawsuits from being filed against them. However, prior sanction from the appropriate authority is required before criminal proceedings can be initiated against a public servant under this exception.
Analysis regarding the judicial and executive acts
The judicial act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) serves an important role in protecting public servants, including judges and magistrates, from frivolous or malicious lawsuits arising from actions taken in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This exception helps to ensure that public servants can carry out their duties without fear of legal harassment, which is essential for the effective functioning of the justice system.
However, the scope and application of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC have been the subject of debate and legal interpretation in several cases. Some critics argue that this exception provides too much protection for public servants, allowing them to escape accountability for actions that may have been taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.
Issues
The scope and application of the judicial act exception under Section 197[6] of the IPC have been the subject of legal interpretation in several cases, with some critics arguing that this exception provides too much protection for public servants and allows them to escape accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.
For example, the Supreme Court of India has held that the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC applies only to acts performed by a judge in the exercise of judicial or quasi-judicial functions, and does not cover acts performed in administrative or executive capacities. This interpretation helps to ensure that public servants are not immune from prosecution for acts taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.
Another issue with the judicial act exception under Section 197[7] of the IPC is that it requires prior sanction from the appropriate authority before criminal proceedings can be initiated against a public servant. In some cases, this requirement has been criticized for being too burdensome, as it can result in delays in prosecuting public servants for criminal offences.
Suggestions regarding the judicial and executive act exceptions of IPC
One suggestion to address these concerns could be to clarify the definition of “good faith” under Section 197 of the IPC so that it better captures the essence of what constitutes an act performed in good faith. This could help to ensure that public servants are not immune from prosecution for acts of bad faith or malicious intent.
Another suggestion could be to provide a mechanism for the review of decisions regarding prior sanction for prosecution under Section 197 of the IPC so that individuals who believe that they have been wrongly denied the right to prosecute a public servant can have their case heard and reviewed.
Overall, it is important to strike a balance between protecting public servants from baseless lawsuits and ensuring accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties. A careful review and re-evaluation of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC, along with the suggestions outlined above, could help to achieve this balance.
Importance and need in the present scenario
The judicial and executive act exceptions under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) serve an important function in protecting public servants from baseless or malicious lawsuits arising from actions taken in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. These exceptions ensure that public servants can perform their duties without fear of legal harassment, which is essential for the effective functioning of the justice system and the administration of government.
However, the scope and application of these exceptions have been the subject of debate and legal interpretation in several cases, with some critics arguing that they provide too much protection for public servants and allow them to escape accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.
To address these concerns, suggestions have been made to clarify the definition of “good faith” under Section 197 of the IPC and to provide for a mechanism for review of decisions regarding prior sanction for prosecution. A careful review and re-evaluation of the judicial and executive act exceptions under Section 197 of the IPC could help to strike a balance between protecting public servants from baseless lawsuits and ensuring accountability for actions taken in bad faith or outside the scope of their official duties.
Conclusion
In summary, the judicial and executive act exceptions under the IPC play a crucial role in the functioning of the justice system and the administration of government, but it is essential to ensure that they are applied in a manner that balances the protection of public servants and the need for accountability. The judicial act exception under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is an important provision that provides immunity from criminal prosecution for public servants, including judges and magistrates, for acts performed in good faith in the discharge of their official duties. This exception is intended to protect public servants from frivolous or malicious lawsuits, which could have a chilling effect on the administration of justice.
To address these concerns, some have suggested that the definition of “good faith” under Section 197 of the IPC be clarified so that it better captures the essence of what constitutes an act performed in good faith. Additionally, a mechanism for review of decisions regarding prior sanction for the prosecution could be established, to ensure that individuals who believe that they have been wrongly denied the right to prosecute a public servant have their case heard and reviewed.
In conclusion, while the judicial act exception under the IPC serves an important function in protecting public servants from baseless or malicious lawsuits, it is important to ensure that it is applied in a manner that balances the protection of public servants and the need for accountability. A careful review and re-evaluation of the judicial act exception under Section 197 of the IPC, along with appropriate reforms and clarifications, could help to achieve this balance.
Endnotes:
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Act no. 45 of 1860
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 76, Act no. 45 of 1860
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994 SCC (6) 632
State of Maharashtra v. Narayan Dattatraya Apar, (1981) 83 BOMLR 553
K.R. Lakshmanan v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1996 SCC (2) 226
Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sec. 197, Act no. 45 of 1860
Ibid
This article is written by Prashant Prasad, a second-year law student from University Law College.
Xiaomi was founded in 2010 by serial entrepreneur Lei Jun, who believes that high-quality technology doesn’t need to cost a fortune. We create remarkable hardware, software, and internet services for and with the help of our Mi fans. Every company has a mission. Ours is to bring ‘Innovation for Everyone.’ Having a global presence, and being a tech behemoth, Xiaomi moved up 72 spots ranking #266, in the ‘Fortune Global 500’ list for the 4th consecutive year.
Intern Job Responsibilities
Conduct legal research in areas as diverse as company law, payment-related laws, competition law, intellectual property laws, IT and privacy law, legal metrology, arbitration and conciliation law etc..
Intern Job Duties
Work with the legal team to draft and review various agreements including novation agreements, brand license agreements, software license agreements, co-branding agreements, non-disclosure agreements, terms of service documents, marketing agreements, master services agreements, franchise agreements, IP licensing agreements, lease agreements, other commercial and technology-related agreements.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
AMLEGALS is a multi disciplinary & strategy driven full Service Law Firm. Their areas of practice include, GST/VAT- advisory & litigation, Arbitration-Domestic & International, M&A and IPO – Due Diligence among others. They operate in 14 cities in India and abroad with various Associates and/or Affiliates. They are present in Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Dubai, Gurgaon, Kolkata and Mumbai through our own offices and affiliate associates throughout India, and almost 50 Advocates, Consultants & Paralegal to cater the legal requirements.
RESPONSIBILITIES
Assisting in all new as well as existing cases of the firm
Assisting in all litigation as well as non-litigation work in every manner including case preparations, drafting, filing, hearing preparation, Court appearances, meeting the clients’ requirement, etc.
Drafting and assisting in White Papers and Content Creation for the Firm on a daily basis.
Maintaining a report of ongoing cases and updating clients on case progress.
The candidate should be well versed with the nuances of drafting and research and should have prior experience in litigation, advisory and contract drafting / vetting.
The candidate should be capable of working independently as well as within a team while yielding good results.
The candidate should be confident, dynamic, and should possess good oratory and analytical skills.
The candidate should have the ability to set priorities and work efficiently in a timeline-oriented environment.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
The current review petition in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors. Versus Chandervir Singh Negi has been filed on the grounds that defendants/the State were ordered to begin the acquisition procedures for the land in question within three months of the judgment’s entry and to conclude those proceedings within one year of that date in order to acquire the land. It was argued that the court’s orders are invalid and should be amended, and that the plaintiff, ChanderVir Singh Negi’s action should be dismissed since the plaintiff had previously given the state of Himachal Pradesh the land utilised for the building of the road on June 28, 2016.
FACTS:
Feeling resentful and unsatisfied with the contested judgement and order dated 09.08.2019 issued by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh in Shimla in Regular Second Appeal No. 270 of 2007 by which the High Court allowed the said appeal and set aside the judgement and decree issued by the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit and subsequently decreeing the suit directing the appellant to file an appeal.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT:
The original plaintiff filed the lawsuit before the experienced Trial Court in order to obtain a declaration, a mandatory injunction, and a directive instructing the appellants in this case—original defendants—to begin and finish the acquisition proceedings with regard to the plaintiff’s land and any harm to his fruit-bearing trees. Without following the rules of the Land Acquisition Act, the plaintiff claims that the appellants in this case—original defendant nos. 1, 2, and 3—built the “TikkariÂLarot Bodra Kwar road” on his or her property without paying him or her any compensation. The fruit-bearing plants also sustained harm.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT:
The initial defendants disputed the lawsuit, arguing, among other things, that the claim was waived because the plaintiff waived his right to compensation because the road was built with his consent in 1987 while he was working as a Mate in the Department and in accordance with his request. They also claimed that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.
ISSUES:
1. Whether the plaintiff is eligible for the declaration relief that has been requested for?
2. Whether the plaintiff is eligible for the compensation claimed?
3. Whether or not the case cannot be maintained?
4. If the lawsuit has run out of time?
5. Whether his actions and behaviour estop the plaintiff from bringing the case?
6. Does the lawsuit need to be correctly appraised for court costs and jurisdictional purposes?7. Whether the plaintiff lacks a legal claim?
8. Relief?
JUDGMENT:
The First Appellate Court upheld the challenged decision and order issued by the High Court as well as the conclusions noted by the knowledgeable Trial Court. According to the plaintiff’s witnesses’ depositions, the retaining wall and the parcel of land in dispute were both built in 1987 on the plaintiff’s property. The plaintiff’s witnesses confirmed that fruit trees were damaged or destroyed in 1987, and the suit’s claimed cause of action was the building of the road in that year. In exercising its authority under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court should not have interfered with the factual findings in light of the aforementioned facts and circumstances.
The High Court’s contested decision and order should be annulled and overturned because they lack merit. In regards to the restriction and/or the litigation being barred by limitation, the High Court has not established any significant legal issues. The reality remains that the plaintiff’s land is where the retaining/protection wall was built in 2003, the road was built in 1987, and any trees were damaged or destroyed in the same year. Because the lawsuit was filed in 2003, it was time-barred under Articles 58 and 72 of the Limitation Act.
Bombay High Court while hearing the writ petition on 24thFebruary, 2023 in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (Petitioner) Versus Union of India & Ors (Respondents) allows the writ petition subject to compliance of conditions.
FACTS:
In the present case, the Petitioner is seeking permission for the execution of the proposed project of a suction tank for providing water supply (basic necessity) to the citizens of Gorai Village who are facing a shortage of water supply in their vicinity. The project is being developed on the land owned by the State Government and the said project is partly affected by the mangrove buffer zone area.
Respondents no. 1-5 have granted sanction and NOC subject to no destruction to the mangroves due to construction and subject to the permission of this Hon’ble Court for construction in the mangrove buffer zone. The Respondents have also reserved their rights concerning revocation and suspension of sanctions granted in case of non-compliance with conditions. Another clause concerning a fresh application/proposal is to be filed by the petitioners in case of alteration/ deviation of the proposed project.
The Respondents stated that all the sufficient safeguards in respect of environmental protection in the due course of construction and until completion of the project be taken into consideration.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTIONS:
The petitioner contended before this hon’ble court to permit them to execute the proposed project.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:
The respondents (except Respondent no. 6) agreed on the permit subject to compliance with the conditions mentioned in the sanction. However, Respondent no. 6 contended that the proposal should not differ from the actual work and stay be granted.
JUDGEMENT:
The Hon’ble Court after hearing all the facts in the present case allowed the writ petition for the public interest on the following grounds :
1. The petitioners are to apply for fresh permission in case of alteration/deviation in the proposed project.
2. Undertaking by a responsible officer of the Petitioner concerning compliance of all the conditions in sanction granted be filed within 1 week from the date of this order i.e 24th February, 2023, and copy to be served to the Respondents.
3. IA no. 4655 of 2022 stands disposed of.
4. Rejected the stay applied by Respondent no. 6 at this stage of the matter.
The Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, on the 10th of February 2023, in the case of Narendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, upheld the conviction of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the “IPC”) given to the present appellant. The date of the judgment given by the Trial Court was the 11th of October 2012, and the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment with the submission of a fine.
FACTS:
The appellant was a son born out of the confines of marriage. After the demise of his father, his mother remarried, and eventually passed away. Subsequently, his stepfather solemnized his marriage with another woman, who is the complainant represented by the respondent in the present appeal. The appellant wanted to sell his father’s land in a village, and would therefore frequently ask his step-father to execute the sale, only to be advised against it. One fateful night, after dinner, when the appellant went to sleep with his stepfather, the complainant woke up to the sound of the appellant assaulting his stepfather with an axe, eventually killing him. Due to the gathering of people caused by her screams, the appellant ran away, and a complaint against him was filed the next day. The appellant abjured guilt and signified his willingness to go to trial. He was eventually charged with murder by the Trial Court.
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:
The appellant contended that the Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence in the case. It was further argued that the prosecution in the Trial Court failed to establish various key events that led to the appellant’s conviction. The complainant admitted during her cross-examination in the Trial Court that there were no sources of light to properly ascertain the face of the appellant and his alleged acts. It was further argued that no human blood had been found on the axe when it was seized from the appellant, and in conclusion, the appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS:
Placing reliance on the competence of the Trial Court, the respondent contended that due care and attention had been given to the evidence on record, and was only then appreciated by the Court. They mainly argued that the statements given by the complainant and other spot witnesses were in perfect sync with each other, and therefore the case had been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT:
The Court took into consideration the group of witnesses examined by the prosecution. It carefully took into consideration the post-mortem report submitted by the concerned medical officer, and based on those facts, concluded that the death was homicidal in nature. The appellant did not challenge the medical report, and the statements of the witnesses, which painted the entire scenario, based on which the Court, also taking cognizance of the number and nature of wounds caused, concluded that it was an act of murder with the intention to do as well. The Court, after taking into consideration the examinations and the cross-examinations of the witnesses, and the objections raised against them, concluded that the version given by the complainant cannot be said to be unbelievable. The Court opined that the deceased was last seen alive with the appellant himself, and the appellant has not been able to give valid reasons for the injuries that the deceased sustained, which further supported the claim of the petitioner.
As held in the case of Gosu Jairami Reddy and Anr. v. State of A.P., when direct evidence for an alleged crime is available, there is no need to search for the motive. Based on this principle, the High Court concluded that the Trial Court made no error in law while convicting the appellant for murder under Section 302 of the IPC. The Court, therefore, upheld the decision of the Trial Court, however, since the period of life imprisonment in default of payment of the fine wasn’t mentioned, the Court modified the punishment from life imprisonment and a fine of twenty thousand rupees to just the term of life imprisonment. The judgment of the Trial Court was therefore affirmed with the aforesaid modification.
This is a call for a paid internship opportunity for the month of March-April 2023.
Duties and Responsibilities
The work includes drafting, research & filing concerning commercial laws (IBC, Companies Act, etc.), tax laws (GST, Income Tax, etc.), civil laws (CPC, Contract, Arbitration, consumer, property disputes, RERA, etc.) & white collar crimes before the High Court, district courts, tribunals, etc. in Delhi-NCR.
No. of Positions
The opportunity is open for 2 candidates at the moment.
Requirements
The candidate should be at least in the 4th/5th year of a 5-year law course or the final year of a 3-year law course.
The candidate should have a preliminary knowledge of basic commercial and/or civil laws/concepts & a zeal to learn/apply their mind.
They try to make the internship a valuable experience for the candidate with extensive discussions, learnings & delegation.
The candidate will have to attend office & courts with the liberty to work online after prior discussion.
Location
The office is at Lajpat Nagar, Delhi.
Application Procedure
Interested candidates may apply by sending their CVs along with published articles/research papers/writing samples on any subject (mandatory) to mail@deepakjoshi.in on or before 26.02.2023 i.e. Sunday. Only those emails will be considered which include “Internship – March & April 2023” in the subject line. Shortlisted candidates will be interviewed on or before 28.02.2023.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
AK & Partners is a collaboration of new-generation advocates who believe that transaction advisory and dispute resolution go beyond applying laws of jurisdiction to factual situations. The firm believes that businesses in present times deserve techno-commercial, legal advisory aligning with international best practices. Legal advice should not only be legally correct but commercially and financially feasible with a focus on risk management.
They are now accepting applications for internships for the month of March 2023.
Tenure
A minimum period of 30 days
No. of Positions
Two
Mode of Internship
Selected candidates would be required to join and attend the office in New Delhi from Monday to Friday 10 AM to 8 PM and on Saturdays 10 AM-6 PM.
Applications Process
Interested candidates are requested to send their updated CVs with one writing sample to recruitment@akandpartners.in and mention ‘Application for internship- March’ in the subject line.
Note: They are accepting students from the third year and onwards.
Disclaimer: All information posted by us on Lexpeeps is true to our knowledge. But still, it is suggested that you check and confirm things on your level.
For regular updates on more opportunities, we can catch up at-
In the matter of M/S WELL PROTECT MANPOWER SERVICES PVT. LTD. versus DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR the High Court of Delhi on Wednesday 22nd of February, reiterated the fact “it is now well settled that the power to blacklist the contractor is inherent in the party allotting the contract”.
FACTS:
The petitioners were successful bidders regarding an e-tender floated by the respondent which dealt with engaging security guards and security personals for a period of one year. Agreement was signed between the parties and according to its terms a 2015 work order was to be followed in the present matter too but issue arose when a show cause notice was issued against the petitioners alleging a failure of submission of necessary training certificates thus violating the Private Security Agencies (Regulation) Act, 2005. With such allegations of the forefront, the petitioner had requested back the deposit money from the respondents along with a request to not take any action related to blacklisting or restraining them from further bidding. But the respondents had issued an order thereby blacklisting the petitioners who in turn filed the present writ petition challenging the same.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION:
The petitioner primarily highlighted the non-necessity of providing such training certificates with respect to the aforementioned work order and that the principles of Natural Justice was violated by the respondents while debarring the petitioners from further biddings. More so, the petitioner expressed dissatisfaction regarding the arbitrary and disproportionate decision to bar them for a period three years.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION:
The respondents while refuting all the claims of the petitioners stated that the requisite of training certificates were mandatory and perfectly in compliance with law prescribed and the work order provided. It was highlighted that the decision of blacklisting was taken on the basis of repeated failures on part of the petitioner who was unable to justify their position even after receiving repeated opportunities. Thus a breach of such contractual obligations was enough to justify their stand of debarring the petitioner.
JUDGEMENT:
The honorable court referring to multiple decisions like M/s Erusian Equipment & Chemicals Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal and Another (1975) 1 SCC 70 and Joseph Vilangandan v. Executive Engineer (PWD) [(1978) 3 SCC 36] reiterated the stand taken by the Supreme Court that power to blacklist any party remains with the person providing such contract and that such decision of blacklisting shall remain beyond the purview of appellate judicial authorities, except in circumstances when the principles of natural justice are violated. The honoroble  court highlighted the inability or noncompliance on part of the petitioner regarding non submission of certificates which was a requisite according to law prescribed but also pointed out the arbitrariness on part of the respondents regarding the debarment of the petitioners for a period of three years. Such debarment could only have arisen in cases of grievous offences as prescribed by the Ministry of Finance. Therefore referring to certain other judgments by the same court, the Delhi High Court quashed the impugned order and disposed of the petitioner making room for fresh inquiry regarding the same matter.Â
