Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - (1.) The instant writ petitions were dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 27.06.2007, however, the said judgment was assailed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and set aside vide order dated 18.12.2008 with the following directions:- "We, therefore, are of the opinion that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly and the matter is remitted to the High Court for consideration of the Writ Petition filed by the appellant afresh. The pART.ies shall be at liberty to file additional affidavits/evidence before the High Court, if they so desire. The appeals are allowed. The respondents shall bear the costs of the appellant. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.50,000/-."
(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner(s) would argue that the issue involved in the lis already stands adjudicated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and these cases have been remanded only with a view to afford the State an opportunity to place on record additional documents so as to enable it to prove its claim with regard to "quid pro quo". Whereas, the learned Advocate General would argue that in terms of the mandate of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, these writ petitions have been remanded to this Court for consideration afresh.
(3.) The pART.ies at ad idem that insofar as the earlier judgment passed by this Court on 27.06.2007 is concerned, the contentions as borne out from the pleadings have been correctly recorded. Therefore, taking assistance from the said judgment, the rival contentions of the pART.ies can be stated thus:-;