199 of 1944 by appellants 1, 3 to 5, whereas A. We have now a copy of the letter dated December 15/28, 1944 by which the nine new posts of Liaison Officer (later designated as Public Relations Officer) were created and the letter dated March 20, 1950, by which the cadre of Assistant Station Directors was declared. The vacancy of the third judge had not been filled till then, and as the appellants felt that they had been wrongfully deprived of their right to hold their shop, as a result of an erroneous interpretation of the order of the High Court, passed on June 10, as aforesaid, and as there was no prospect of the case being disposed of quickly, the appellants moved this Court and obtained special leave to appeal.

An admission is not conclusive proof of the matter admitted, though it may in certain circumstances operate as an estoppel. We are unable to accept this argument. 2005 should be applied retrospectively, which argument was repelled by the High Court. 499 of 1944 was filed by the respondent. We think that the impugned order of September 7, 1955, must 167 1316 be read as a whole, and so read, it shows that Government had earlier made a mistake in thinking that the posts of Public Relations Officers belonged to the same grade or cadre as the posts of Assistant Station Directors, and the mistake was rectified when the Union Public Service Commission pointed it out.

That portion of the discussion contained in the High Court judgment, which has some bearing on the issue at hand, runs as under: (26) By common impugned judgment/order, the learned Single Judge of the High Court partly allowed both the cases. Therefore, for better understanding, we would like to begin our discussion with the meaning given to 'housing project' along with the issue of retrospectivity of clause (d), as raised by the Revenue, which was dealt with by the High Court and repelled.

It was held that no prima facie case has been made out on the facts set out in the charge sheet to prosecute any of the accused persons for commission of any offence punishable under the Arms Act and hence charge sheet/final report filed by the State prosecuting agency for commission of various offences punishable under the Arms Act against all the accused persons to that extent deserves to be quashed at the threshold. The High Court quashed the charge sheet/final report filed against all the accused persons insofar as it related to offences punishable under the Arms Act are concerned.

Interestingly, in the batch of appeals decided by the High Court in that very judgment, the issue with which we are concerned was also taken up. It has been submitted before us that even in the impugned order of September 7, 1955, the respondent does not say that a mistake was made; the respondent merely states that the appellant was' irregularly transferred as Assistant Station Director and was irregularly allowed to carry a, quasi-permanent status to the new post.

It was accordingly quashed to that extent. 115 of 1948 was filed by appellant 2 and No. It is contended that this admission should be accepted as an admission of fact and held binding on the respondent, particulary when the respondent has not produced the particular order by which a separate cadre, if any, of Public Relations Officers might have been created, in order to disprove the correctness of the admission. 215 Against this decision three appeals were preferred before the High Court of Madras.

The High Court closed for the long vacation on September 2, and was to reopen on 1251 November 3, 1957. These letters we have already referred to, and they leave little room for doubt in the matter: they show clearly enough that the posts of Public Relations 'Officers do not belong to the same grade or cadre as the posts of Assistant Station Directors. It is unfortunate that this case was summarily dismissed in the High Court and the respondent was not called upon to make an affidavit and file the necessary documents at that stage.

It is not suggested that a question of estoppel arises in this case (a point which we shall again advert to); at best, it may be said that the respondent having once admitted that the post of Public Relations Officer belonged to the same grade, the admission casts upon the respondent the burden of proving that what was deliberately asserted on December 14, 1953, is not a fact. As pointed out above, the judgment pronounced by the Bombay High Court in Brahma Associates case has already been upheld by this Court on the interpretation given to the expression 'housing project' occurring in sub- section (10) of Section 80IB of the Act.

The Revenue had argued that clause (d) inserted with effect from 01. - the respondent said so in the memorandum of June 9, 1953, though later, on December 14, 1953, a different statement was made. On behalf of the appellant it has been next argued that the order dated December 14, 1953, contains a clear admission to the effect that the post of Public Relations Officer belongs to the same grade as Assistant Station Director, and the order shows that it was made after unofficial consultation with the Ministry 1315 of Information an Broadcasting.