Mohd.Ahsan vs State of U.P.And Others

V.K. Shukla, J.—Petitioner nas approached this Court, questioning the validity of order dated 27.6.2008 passed by District Magistrale, Moradabad, removing the petitioner from the post of Pradhan in exercise of authority vested under Section 95(1)(g)(iii)of theU.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947.

Brief facts giving rise to instant writ petition are that petitioner was elected as Pradhan of village Ahmadnagar, Jaitwara, post and B?ock Kundarki, District Moradabad. Complaints were made in respectof functioning of the petitioneras Pradhan. Preliminary enquiry was made and thereafter show cause notice was issued by the District Magistrale based on the report dated 29.11.2007. Petitioner filed reply to the said show cause notice and claimed to have demanded documents. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 626 of 2008 was filed by petitioner, wherein an interim order was passed in favour of petitioner on 8.1.2008. However, on going formal enquiry against petitioner was directed to be concluded expeditiously, without being influenced by the obsenations made in the said order. On 11.1.2008 an order was passed suspending financial as well as adminislrative powers of petitioner. Against said order, Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4624 of 2008 was filed, wherein an interim order was passed by this Court on 25.1.2008, mentioning there in that effect and operation of order dated 11.1.2008 would remain stayed. However, formal enquiry was directed to be concluded expeditiously. Charge sheetwas issued to petitioner on 10.3.2008 to which reply was submitted by petitioner on 29.3.2008. On 3.4.2008, petitioner requesled for opportunily of hearing. Thereafter order impugned has been passed at this juncture presentwrit petition has been filed.

Sri Ashish Agrawal, learned counsel for petitioner conlended with vehemence that in the present case order impugned has been passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice, and the procedure which has been provided for under U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947 and the U.P. Panchayal Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UpPradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 have not been adhered to and al no poinl of time any date, time or place had been fixed for holding enquiry, thus, order impugned is unsuslainable, and as such writ petition deserves to be allowed.

Learned Slanding counsel as well as Sri K.K. Arora, Advocate, on the other hand, has contended wilh vehemence that in the present case decision which has been taken is slriclly in consonance with the law, and no interference be made with the impugned order in queslion.

With the consenl of the parties, presenl writ petition is being heard and decided, as the respondents have chosen not to file counler affidavit, rather have requesled for deciding the matter on the basis of the impugned order as well as pleadings available on record.

In order to appreciale the respeclive argumenls, the provisions of Section 95 (1) (g) of the U.P. Panchayal Raj Act and Rules 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of U.P. Panchayal Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UpPradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997 are being quoted below:

"U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947

"95. Inspection.

(a)..........

(b).........

(C)........

(d).........

(e)......

(f)........

(g) remove a Pradhan, UpPradhan or member of a Gram Pachayat or a Joint Committee or Bhumi Prabandhak Samiti, or a Panch, Sahayak Sarpanch or Sarpanch of a Nyaya Panchayat if he

(1) absents himself without sufficient cause for more than three consecutive meetings or sittings;

(ii) refuses to act or becomes incapable of acting for any reason what soeveror if he is accused of orcharged foran offence involving mora? turpitude;

(iii) has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by this Act or rules made there under or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest;

(iiia) has taken benefit of reservation under subsection (2)of Section 11 or subsection (3) of Section 12, as the case may be, on the basis of a false declaration subscribed by him stating that he is a member of Scheduled Caste, the Scheduled Tribes or the backward classes, as the case may be;

(iv) being a Sahayak Sarpanch or a Sarpanch of the Nyaya Panchayat takes active part in the politics, or

(v) suffers from any of the disqualifications mentioned in clauses (a) to (m) of Section 5A:

Provided that where, in an enquiry held by such person in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or UpPradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities such Pradhan or UpPradhan shall cease to exercise and perform the financial and administrative powers and functions which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the fina? enquiry, be exercised and performed by a Committee consisting of three members of Gram Panchayat appointed by the State Government.

"The Uttar Pradesh Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans, UpPradhans and Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997

Procedure relating to complaints.(1) Any person making complaint against a Pradhan or UpPradhan may send his complaint to the State Government or any other officer empowered in this behalf by the State Government.

(2) Every complaint referred to in subrule (1) shall be accompanied by the complainants own affidavit in support there of and also affidavit of all persons from whom he claims to have received Information of facts relating to accusation, verified before a notary, together with all documents in his possession or power pertaining to accusation.

(3) Every complaint and affidavit under this rule as well as any schedule or annexure there to shall be verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for the verification of pleadings and affidavits respectively.

(4) Not less than three copies of the complaint as well as each of its annexure shall be submitted by the complainant.

(5) A complaint which does not comply with any of the foregoing provisions of this Rule shall not be entertained.

(6) It shall not be necessary to follow the procedure laid down in the foregoing provisions of this rule if a complaint against a Pradhan or UpPradhan is made by a public servant. 9

Preliminary Enquiry.(1) The State Government may, on the receipt of complaint or report referred to in Rule 3 or otherwise order the Enquiry Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry with a view to finding out if there is prima facie case for a formal inquiry in the matter.

Enquiry Officer.Where the State Government is of the opinion, on the basis of report referred to in subrule (2) of Rule 4 or otherwise that and enquiry should be held against a Pradhan or UpPradhan or Member under the proviso to clause (g) of subsection (1) of Section 95 it shall forthwith constitute a committee envisaged by proviso to clause (g) of subsection (1) of Section 95 of the Act and by an order ask an Enquiry Officer, other than the Enquiry Officer nominated under subrule (2) of Rule 4, to ho?d enquiry.

Procedure of the inquiry.(1) The substance of imputations, and as copy of the complaint referred to in Rule 3, if any, shall be forwarded to the Inquiry Officer by the State Government.

(2) The Inquiry Officer shall draw up

(a) the substance of imputations into definite and distinct articles of charge; and

(b) a statement of imputations in support of each article of charge, which shall contain a statement of all relevant facts anda list of documents by which, and list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained.

(3) The Inquiry Officer shall deliver or cause to be delivered to the person against whom he is to ho?d the enquiry, a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of imputations and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require that person by a notice in writing, to submit within such time as may be specified a written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person, and to appear in person before him on such day and at such time as may be specified.

(4) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the Inquiry Officer shall enquire into such of that articles of charges as are not admitted and where all articles of charges have been admitted in the written statement of defence, the Inquiry Officer shall record his findings on each charge after taking such evidence as he may think fit.

(5) If the person who nas not admitted any of the articles of charges in his written statement of defence, appears before the Inquiry Officer, he shall ask him where he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charges, the Inquiry Officer shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of that perscfi, and return a finding of guilt in respect of those charges.

(6) If the person fails to appear within the specified time or refuses or omits to plead, the Inquiry Officer shall take the evidence, and if there is a complaint, require him to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charges and shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding fifteen days, after recording an order that the said person may, for the purpose of preparing his defence:

(a) inspect within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as the Inquiry Officer may allow, the documents specified in the list referred to in subrule (2);

(b) submit a list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf;

(c) give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the Inquiry Officer may allow, for discovery or production of any documents that are relevant to the inquiry and are in the possession of the State Government, but not mentioned in the list referred to in subrule (2).

(7) The person against whom enquiry is being held may take the assistance of any other person to present the case on his behalf, and the Inquiry Officer may appoint any person as a Presiding Officer to assist him in conducting the inquiry:

Provided that a lega? practitioner shall not be engaged or appointed under this subrule.

(8) If the person applies orally or in writing for the supply of copies of the statement of witnesses mentioned in the list referred to in subrule (2), the Inquiry Officer shall furnish him with such copies as early as possible, and in any case, not later than three days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses by whom any of the articles of charge is proposed to be proved.

(9) The Inquiry Officer shall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or production of documents, forward the same or copies there of to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept, with a requisition for the production of the documents by such date as may be specified in such requisition :

Provided that the Inquiry Officer may; for the reasons to be recorded in writing, refuse to requisition such of the documents as are, in his opinion, not relevant to the case.

(10) On receipt of the requisition referred to in subrule (9), every authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents shall produce the same before the Inquiry Officer:

Provided that if the authority having the custody or possession of the requisitioned documents is satisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing that the production of all or any such documents would be against the public interest or security of the State, it shall inform the Inquiry Officer accordingly and such Inquiry Officer shall, on being so informed, communicate the Information to the person against whom the inquiry is being held and with draw the requisition made by him for the production or discovery of documents.

(11) On the date fixed for enquiry, the ora? and documentary evidence by which the articles of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced and the witnesses shall beexamined, byt he Inquiry Officer by or on behalf of the complainant, if there is one and may be crossexamined by or on behalf of the person against whom the inquiry is being held. The witnesses may be examined by the Inquiry Officer or the complainant, as the case may be, on any point on which they have been crossexamined, but not on any new matter, without the leave of the Inquiry Officer.

(12) The Inquiry Officer may allow production of evidence not includedin the list given to the person against whom the inquiry is being held, or may itself call for new evidence or recall and reexamine any witness and in such case the said person shall beentitled to haveif herdemandsit, a copy of the list of further evidence proposed to be produced and an adjournmentof the Inquiry Officer for three clear days before the production of such evidence, exclusive of the day of adjournment and the day to which the inquiry is adjourned. The Inquiry Officer shall give the said person an opportunity of inspecting such documents before they are taken on the record, the Inquiry Officer may also allow the said person to produce new evidence, if he is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary in the interest of justice.

Note.N�w evidence shall not be permitted or called for or any witness shall not be recalled to fill up any gap in the evidence. Such evidence may be called from only when there is an inherent lacuna or defect in the evidence which has been produced originally.

(13) When the evidence for proving the articles of charge against the person against whom inquiry is being held is closed, the said person shall be required to state his defence orally or in writing as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the said person shall be required to sign the record. In eithercase, a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the complainant, if any.

(14) The evidence on behalf of the person against whom the inquiry is being held shall then be produced. The said person may examine himself in his own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the said person shall then be examined and shall be liable to crossexamination, reexamination and examination by the Inquiry Officer according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for proving the articles of charge.

(15) The Inquiry Officer may, after the person against whom inquiry is being held closes his case, and shall, if the said person has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling him to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him.

(16) The Inquiry Officer after completion of the production of evidence, hear the complainant, if any and the person against whom enquiry is being held, orpermit them, or him, as the case may be, to file written brief so their respective cases.

(17) If the person to whom a copy of the articles of charge has been delivered does not submit the written statement of defence on or before the date specified for the purpose or does not appear in person before the Inquiry Officer or otherwise fails or refuses to comply with the provisions of this rule, the Inquiry Officer may ho?d the enquiry ex parte.

(18) When ever Inquiry Officer after having heard and recorded the whole or any part of the evidence in an enquiry, ceases to exercise jurisdiction there in and is succeeded by another Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer so succeeding may act on the evidence so recorded by his predecessor or part or recorded by himself:

Provided that if the succeeding Inquiry Officer is of the opinion that further examination of any of the witnesses whose evidence has already been recorded is necessary in the interest of justice he may recall, examine, crossexamine and reexamine any such witness as herein before provided.

Report of the Inquiry Officer.After the conclusion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer shall prepare a report which shall contain

(a) the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations;

(b) the defence of the person against whom the enquiry has been held;

(c) the assessmentof the evidence in respeetof each article of charge;

(d) the findings on each article of charge and reasons therefor.

Explanation.If in the opinion of the Inquiry Officer the proceedings of the enquiry establish any articie of charge different from the original articles of charge, he may record his findings on such article of charge :

Provided that the findings on such article of charge shall not be recorded unless the person against whom enquiry has been held has either admitted the facts on which such article of charge is based or has had a reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such article of charge.

The Inquiry Officer shall concluda the enquiry within six months from the date of receipt of complaint and forward to State Government the records of the enquiry, which shall include

(a) the report prepared by him under Rule 7;

(b) the written statement of defence, if any, or the person against whom enquiry has been held;

(c) the ora? and documentary evidence produced during the course of the enquiry;

(d) written briefs, if any, filed during the course of the enquiry; and

(e) the order, if any, made by the State Government and the Inquiry Officer in regard to the enquiry."

Under Chapter VII of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, State Government has been vested with the authority to remove a Pradhan, UpPradhan or Members of Gram Panchayat on account of the activities carried out by Pradhan, UpPradhan or Members of Gram Panchayat mentioned in subclauses (i) to (iv) of Clause (g) of subsection (1) of Section 95 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act. It has also been provided therein to seize financial as well as administrative powers and functions of the aforementioned persons, viz. Pradhan, UpPradhan or Members of Gram Panchayat when an enquiry held against such persons by such person in such manner as may be prescribed, a Pradhan or UpPradhan is found to have committed financial and other irregularities and then he has to face formal enquiry. In exercise of powers vested under Section 110 read with clause (g) of subsection (1) of Section 95 of the U.P. Panchayat Raj Act, 1947, Rules have been framed dealing with removal of Pradhan, UpPradhan and Members. Rule 3 deals with procedure relating to complaints. Rule 4 clearly provides that the State Government on the receipt of complaint or report referred to in Rule 3 or otherwise may order the Enquiry Officer to conduct a preliminary enquiry with a view to finding out if there is prima facie case for a formal inquiry in the matter. Enquiry Officer is there after obliged to conduct preliminary enquiry as expeditiously as possible and submit report to the State Government. Rule 5 clearty provides that where the State Government is of the opinion on the basis of report referred to in subrule (2) of Rule 4 or otherwise that an enquiry should be held against a Pradhan or UpPradhan or Member under the proviso to clause (g) of subsection (1) of Section 95 it shall forthwith constitute a committee envisaged by proviso to clause (g) of subsection (1) of Section 95 of the Act and by an order ask an Enquiry Officer other than the Enquiry Officer nominated under subrule (2) of Rule 4, to ho?d enquiry. Rule 6 gives procedure, which is to be followed in the enquiry. The substance of imputations, and a copy of the complaint referred to in Rule 3, if any, has to be forwarded to the Inquiry Officer by the State Government, and the Inquiry Officer thereafter shall draw up the substance of imputations into definite and distinct articles of charge; and further statement of imputations in support of each article of charge, which shall contain a statement of all relevant facts and a list of documents by which, and listofwitnessesby whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be sustained. Enquiry Officer is obliged to deliver the person against whom he is to ho?d the enquiry, a copy of the articles of charge, the statement of imputations and a list of documents and witnesses by which each article of charge is proposed to be sustained and shall require that person by a notice in writing, to submit within such time as may be specified, written statement of his defence and to state whether he desires to be heard in person, and to appear in person before him on such day and at such time as may be specified. After receipt of the written statement of defence, the Inquiry Officer has to enquire into such of that articles of charges as are not admitted and where all articles of charges have been admitted in the written statement of defence, the Inquiry Officer shall record his findings on each charge after taking such evidence as he may think fit. If the person who has not admitted any of the articles of charges in his written statement of defence, appears before the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer is obliged to ask him where he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charges, the Inquiry Officer shall take evidence, and if there is a complaint, require him to produce the evidence by which he proposes to prove the articles of charges. The provision of assistance has also been provided Copies of the statement of witnesses are also liable to be supplied. Inquiry Officer is duty bound to fix the date, time and place of enquiry and is further duty bound to provide opportunity to crossexamination from the witnesses produced. Evidence is also permitted. After evidence is closed, then defence is permitted to be made orally or in writing, if the evidence is given orally, it has to be recorded. Thereafter, evidence on behalf of the person against whom the inquiry is being held shall then be produced. The Inquiry Officer after completion of the production of evidence, hear the complainant, if any and the person against whom enquiry is being held, or permit them, or him, as the case may be, to file written briefs of their respective cases. After the enquiry is concluded, the Inquiry Officer shall prepare a report containing the articles of charge and the statement of the imputations; the defence of the person against whom the enquiry has been held; theassessmentoftheevidencein respectofeach article of charge; the findings on each article of charge and reasons there for. Inquiry Officer has to submit report as prepared under Rule 7, which shall include written statement of defence, if any, or the person against whom enquiry has been held; ora? and documentary evidence produced during the course of the enquiry; written briefs, ifany, filed during the course of the enquiry; and the order, if any, made by the State Government and the Inquiry Officer in regard to the enquiry.

This Court in the case of Smt. Sandhya Gupta v. District Magistrate, Auraiya, 1999 RD 246 has given guidelines to District Magistrates so that in future, they are cautious enough to deal with affairs of Pradhan, UpPradhan and Members in accordance with law, leaving no scope for unnecessary litigation as follows :

"(1) It may clearly understood that Pradhan, UpPradhan or Member of the Gram Panchayat is virtually a constitutional elected functionary and he cannot be removed or stripped off his statutory powers and obligations in a casual manner without there being solid foundation for initiating action against him.

(2) The power of the removal of the above functionaries is conferred on a the State Government in view of the provisions of Section 95(1 )(g) of the Act which power ultimately has been delegated to all the District Magistrate in the State.

(3) A Pradhan, UpPradhan or a member of the Gram Panchayat etc. may be removed from the office on a number of grounds. Generally in most of the cases, the ground mentioned in subclause (iii) of Clause (g) of Section 95 of the Act, which relates to that person who has abused his position as such or has persistently failed to perform the duties imposed by the Act or Rules made there under or his continuance as such is not desirable in public interest, is invoked. This omnibus clause embraces within its ambit the financial and administrative irregularities committed by Pradhan, UpPradhan and others.

(4) The action for removal may be initiated on receiving the complaints and after observing the provisions made in the U.P. Panchayat Raj (Removal of Pradhans UpPradhansand Members) Enquiry Rules, 1997.

(5) The complaint can be entertained only when the procedure prescribed in Rule 3 of the Rules of 1997 is specified though the procedure laid down in Rule 3 to entertain the complaints is not necessary to be followed, if the complaint is made by a public servant. Any complaint which does not specily the procedure prescribed under Rule 3 has to be thrown out as not entertainable.

(6) After the complaint if validly entertained a preliminary enquiry under Rule 4 is to be conducted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer with all expedition.

(7) After the receipt of the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer the District Magistrate may pass an appropriate order as contemplated by First Proviso to clause (g) which was inserted by U.P. Act No. 9 of 1994, which provides that if a Pradhan or UpPradhan is prima facie found to have committed financial and other irregularities, such Pradhan or UpPradhan shall cease to exercise and perform financial and administrative power and functions, which shall, until he is exonerated of the charges in the fina? enpuiry, be exercised and peribrmed by a committee consisting of three members of the Gram Panchayat.

(8) The provisions of the aforesaid proviso relating to stripping of the administrative and financial power of the Pradhan, UpPradhan can be invoked only after a show cause notice is served on the Pradhan or UpPradhan, as the case may be and he is afforded a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed as is contemplated in second proviso to clause (g). Any order passed by the District Magistrate without calling for the explanation and without giving reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed would be vitiated and would invite judicial intervention.

(9) Once financial and administrative powers of the Pradhan or UpPradhan are ceased, taking into consideration the preliminary enquiry report submitted by the District Panchayat Raj Officer and after consideration of the reply to show cause notice, if any, submitted by him they shall not be restored until the Pradhan or UpPradhan is exonerated of the charge in the final enquiry. lt is seen that after passing of the order stripping of the Pradhan or UpPradhan of their financial and administrative powers of functions, the District Magistrates restore these powers even though the fina? enquiry has not been concluded. It is made clear that once aforesaid powers have been ceased, they cannot be restored unless the formal enquiry is concluded and the a Pradhan or UpPradhan is exonerated of the charges. The District Magistrale cannot resort to any midway course.

(10) After the receipt of the preliminary enquiry report a fina? enquiry is to be ordered by the District Magistrate by appointing an enquiry officer, as contemplated in Rule 5.

(11) The enquiry officer shall conduct the enquiry strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 6, which are to be followed rigorously and meticulously.

(12) After conclusion of the enquiry and preparation of the report, the enquiry officer shall submit the report to the District Magistrate, as required in Rules 7 and 8.

(13) After the receipt of the report of fina? enquiry, the Distric? Magistrate shall not remove the Pradhan or UpPradhan on one or more of the grounds mentioned in clause (g) (i) to (v) unless he has given a show cause notice of the proposed action alongwith a report of enquiry to the Pradhan or UpPradhan and nad afforded him an opportunity of showing cause. The reasonable period to show cause against the proposed action shall not be less than 20 days from the date of receipt, of, or service on the Pradhan or UpPradhan.,

(14) Ifan opportunity of personal hearing issoughtby the Pradhan or UpPradhan, it shall not denied by the District Magistrate and he shall pass final orders one way or the other after affording a personal hearing to the Pradhan or UpPradhan. The District Magistrate shall bear in mind that any order passed under Section 95(1 )(g) of the Act in contravention of the above guidelines which are based on salutary principles of natural justice flowing from the statutory provisions shall stand vitiated."

In the present case impugned order in question has been perused. The impugned order reflects that chargesheet was issued to petitioner on 10.3.2008, to which reply was submitted on 29.3.2008. Impugned order further reflects that after receipt of reply in order to verify the averments mentioned in reply again enquiry was got conducted by the Senior Project Officer, Neda, and there after on 11.4.2008 enquiry report was submitted, on the basis of which petitioner has been found guilty and based on the same order in question has been passed. In the present case, chargesheet was given by the District Magistrate; reply was submitted by petitioner on 29.3.2008, and thereafter prayer was made that before taking any decision opportunity of personal hearing be afforded. After receipt of reply in question, it appears that as per provisions contained under the Rules at no point of time any date, time or place has been fixed, and the Senior Project Officer, Neda submitted report on 11.4.2008, and there after order impugned has " been passed.

Once a fullfledged procedure has been provided for under the Rules for holding enquiry, providing procedural safeguards in consonance with principle of natural justice and in case formal enquiry was being held by the Senior Project Officer, Neda, then in that event, he ought to have fixed date, time and place for holding enquiry and proceeded ahead to ho?d inquiry as per Rules envisaged. In the present case, it is clearly reflected that the order impugned has been passed on the basis of the report submitted by Senior Project Officer, Neda without undertaking the requisite exercise. The most surprising feature is that reply submitted by petitioner has not at all been dealt with by the District Magistrale, and the order impugned does not reflect as to what evidence was led consideration of which prompted the District Magistrale to lake such action. The fact of the matter is that enquiry was not at all held; reply submitted petitioner has not been adjudicated and the opportunity of hearing has been totally denied.

Consequently, writ petition is allowed. The order impugned dated 27.6.2008 passed by the District Magistrate is here by quashed and set aside, and the District Magistrate is directed to see and ensure that proceedings undertaken against petitioner are concluded strictly as per provisions contained under Rules 6, 7 and 8 of 1997 Rules, expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order on day to day basis.

No order as to cost.