The Court, however, noted that the notification itself did not mention that the amendment was done by substitution. This was pointed out by Advocate Keshava Bhat A, who was appearing for the petitioner.
“But for his intervention, we would have been swayed away by the mistaken version of the KLJ Publications, Bengaluru, to the enormous detriment of citizens,” the Court said.
As a result, the appeal was decided in favour of the petitioner, who had secured a grant order before the amendment in question was made.
Source: Barandbench
