M/s DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS vs The State Of West Bengal And Others

2023 INSC 1057 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6106 OF 2017

M/s DARVELL INVESTMENT AND LEASING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS … Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS … Respondent(s)

JUDGMENT

RAJESH BINDAL, J.

1. The judgment1 of the Division Bench of High Court2 is under

challenge in the present appeal. Vide aforesaid judgment, the order3

passed by the Single Judge was upheld.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.12.08 14:51:25 IST Reason: 1 Judgment dated 30.03.2015 passed in MAT No. 2117 of 2014 2 High Court at Calcutta.

3 Order dated 25.11.2014 passed in W.P. No. 12426(W) of 2014. 1

2. The issue in the present appeal pertains to cancellation of

caste certificate issued to respondent No. 15.

SET OF FACTS

3. Late-Ramanand Baraik sold 2.11 acres of land vide

registered sale deeds dated 30.08.1983 to one Sanjay Gupta and two

others. It was mutated in the name of the purchasers. Between 1980 and

1983, late-Ramanand Baraik sold more than ten acres of land to

different persons. He was working as a driver with the Corporation4.

He was appointed as such on 01.01.1973 and was terminated from

service w.e.f. 30.11.1987. As per the record with his employer, he

belonged to general category. Ramanand passed away in the year

1991.

4. On an application filed by respondent No. 15 son of late

Ramanand Baraik, the concerned SDO5 on 23.04.1993 issued a Caste

Certificate of Scheduled Tribe in his favour showing him to be

belonging to ‘Chik Baraik’.

5. On 08.02.2000, respondent No. 15 purchased 0.07 acres of

land for the purpose of construction of a dwelling house for a total sale

consideration of ₹93,950/-. It is claimed that the aforesaid land was sold

4 The North Bengal State Transport Corporation, Cooch Behar 5 The Sub Divisional Officer 2 by respondent No. 15 on 01.03.2000. At that stage, he claimed himself

to be belonging to general category and no permission as such was

taken for sale of the land under Sections 14B and 14C of the 1955 Act6.

Seventeen years after registration of the sale deeds by late Ramanand

Baraik in favour of Sanjay Gupta and others on 30.08.1983 and about

ten years after his death, a complaint was filed by Bishwanath Roy and

another person claiming that the aforesaid land had been sold in

violation of Section 14B and 14 C of the 1955 Act. Notices were issued

to the complainant as well as Sanjay Gupta on 29.06.2000 on the subject

‘Alienation of S/T land’.

6. There are affidavits sworn by respondent No. 15 dated

06.07.2000 and 02.08.2000 stating that he belongs to general caste

which is ‘Tanti’. He further specifically stated that he does not belong

to Scheduled Tribes community and that there is no bar for selling his

land. Subsequent thereto, on 07.02.2001, respondents No. 15 and 16

sold land to one Zainul Abdin. It is stated in the aforesaid sale-deed that

0.26 acres of land was purchased by late Ramanand Baraik, which was

inherited by them being the only legal heir, after the death of

Ramanand Baraik in the year 1991. Out of that, they sold 0.07 acres of

land in favour of one Parmeshwar Rao Nalla and one Zainul Abdin. At

6 The West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 3 that stage, no permission was taken for sale of the land under Sections

14B and 14C the 1955 Act, even though it is claimed that respondent

No. 15 had been issued a certificate of his belonging to S.T. Category

on 23.04.1993.

6.1 The District Land and Land Reforms Officer, Darjeeling vide

memo dated 21.05.2001 informed the Block Land & Land Reforms

Officer, with reference to his memo No. 816 dated 29.08.2000, on the

subject ‘Alienation of S/T land’ that the complaint filed by Bishwanath

Roy was dismissed. It referred to the affidavit submitted by respondent

No. 15.

7. On 22.01.2004, respondents No. 15 to 18 filed an application

under Section 14E of the 1955 Act challenging the sale deeds dated

30.08.1983 executed in favour of Sanjay Gupta and others by his late

father. This was despite the fact that earlier similar complaint filed by

Bishwanath challenging the aforesaid sale deed had already been

dismissed.

8. The appellants No. 1 and 2 purchased the land in dispute

from Sanjay Gupta and others on 24.11.2004. Vide order dated

29.11.2004, the Revenue Officer empowered under Section 14E of the

1955 Act directed cancellation of three sale deeds dated 30.08.1983 in

favour of Sanjay Gupta and others. A perusal of the order shows that 4 notice was also issued to them, though prior to that the land had been

purchased by appellants No. 1 and 2 on 24.11.2004. The order was

passed despite the fact that vide earlier order dated 21.05.2001, similar

complaint had already been dismissed.

9. On 10.04.2005, the Director of appellants No. 1 and 2 wrote

a letter to the SDO seeking enquiry into the caste certificate issued in

favour of respondent No. 15. It was followed by another letter dated

12.05.2005.

10. Appellants No. 1 and 2 addressed a letter to the District

Magistrate & District Collector, Darjeeling on 28.11.2006 for cancelling

the caste certificate wrongly issued in favour of respondent No. 15 and

also for restoration of the title of the property in their favour. It was

followed by another letter dated 04.05.2007.

11. Having come to know that respondent No. 15 had executed

number of sale deeds claiming himself to be belonging to general

category and further that the caste certificate was obtained by him inter

alia by playing fraud, the appellants No. 1 and 2 through their attorney

filed an application for cancellation of the caste certificate issued in

favour of respondent No. 15 on 29.03.2012 before S.D.O., Siliguri. The

proceedings were initiated. The certificate issuing authority vide order

dated 06.07.2012 cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of 5 respondent No. 15. The order noticed that not only respondent No. 15

but even his father had sold land on number of occasions to different

persons as general category. It also referred to the affidavits sworn by

him that he does not belong to Scheduled Tribes category. When

respondent No. 15 appeared before the authority, he clearly claimed

that his caste certificate was lying with his advocate. However, later on

he submitted that he lost the same for which no FIR was lodged. No

material was produced on the basis of which such a certificate could be

issued. Even in the office record, nothing was found which could justify

issuance of caste certificate in favour of respondent No. 15.

12. On 26.07.2012, appellants No. 1 and 2 filed application for

mutation of the land in their favour as the caste certificate issued in

favour of respondent No. 15 already stood cancelled.

13. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order of cancellation of

caste certificate dated 06.07.2012, respondent No. 15 filed appeal

before the District Magistrate. The said appeal was dismissed by the

Additional District Magistrate (Appellate Authority) vide order dated

14.01.2013. The order refers to the report from S.D.O., Siliguri that

respondent No. 15 had failed to submit any supporting document to

prove his claim of belonging to ‘Chik Baraik’ community; he had sworn

two affidavits claiming himself to be belonging to general category; his

6 father late Ramanand Baraik, his brother and he himself had sold land

to various persons claiming to be belonging to general category

without seeking permission. Even his father late Ramanand Baraik was

also not a Scheduled Tribe, hence his son could not be. Copy of the

aforesaid order was forwarded by the Additional District Magistrate

vide memo dated 21.01.2013 to the District Welfare Officer. The District

Magistrate also directed the District Welfare Officer to lodge FIR

against respondent No. 15 on the ground of committing fraud.

14. Vide letter dated 06.03.2013, Commissioner, Jalpaiguri

Division wrote to the Commissioner of Police, Siliguri Police

Commissionerate to advise respondent No. 15 to file appeal against the

order dated 06.07.2012 cancelling his caste certificate. It was then

respondent No. 15 filed appeal against the orders dated 06.07.2012 and

14.01.2013 before the Committee7.

15. The appellants filed Writ Petition8 challenging the memo

dated 06.03.2013 addressed by the Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Division

to the Commissioner of Police, Siliguri. The aforesaid writ petition was

disposed of on 25.04.2013 noticing the stand of the State that

communication dated 06.03.2013, which was impugned in the writ

7 State Level Scrutiny Committee 8 Writ Petition No. 10002 of 2013 7 petition, had been withdrawn by the Commissioner, Jalpaiguri Division

on 18.04.2013. It was left open to the parties to avail their appropriate

remedy.

16. Appellants No. 1 and 2 sold 1.76 acres of land in favour of

appellants No. 3 and 4 on 17.09.2013. The land stood mutated in the

names of the appellants.

17. Having come to know that the respondent No. 15 had

approached the Committee raising grievance against cancellation of

his caste certificate in his favour, appellants No.1 and 2 submitted a

letter on 05.11.2013 giving detailed facts and also praying for an

opportunity of hearing.

18. Vide order dated 23.12.2013, the Committee opined that the

caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 15 was cancelled

inappropriately. Hence, the order was revoked and the matter was

remitted back for consideration afresh.

19. The aforesaid order was challenged by the appellants

before the High Court by filing Writ Petition9. The writ petition was

allowed vide order dated 28.01.2014. The order passed by the

Committee was set aside. The Committee was directed to decide on

9 Writ Petition No. 133(W) of 2014 8 the point of jurisdiction first and then hear all the parties concerned

before passing fresh order.

20. Vide order dated 28.3.2014, the Committee opined that it is

always empowered to deal with appeal with reference to verification

of the caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 15. The

aforesaid order was challenged by the appellants by filing a Writ

Petition which was dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2014. The order

passed by the Single Bench was challenged by the appellants by filing

Intra-Court Appeal. The High Court vide impugned judgment

dismissed the appeal opining that the Committee has jurisdiction to

enquire into the complaints of cancellation of illegal Caste Certificate.

ARGUMENTS

21. Dr. A. M. Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the

appellants while narrating the facts, as noticed above, submitted that

the impugned judgment of the High Court is illegal, whereby it was

held that the Committee had power to hear an appeal regarding

cancellation of caste certificate. The amendment in Section 8A of the

1994 Act10, carried out vide notification dated 15.09.2017, cannot be

said to be retrospective as the Legislature has not expressed that

10 West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) Act, 1994 9 intention. Even the objects as mentioned in the Bills for carrying out the

amendment do not suggest the same. He further submitted that the

conduct of respondents No. 15 to 18 also needs to be examined by this

Court to see their bona fide. Number of sale deeds had been executed

by late Ramanand Baraik during his life time and thereafter by his sons-

respondents No. 15 and 16 without seeking permission from the

competent authority, in case the claim was that they belong to

Scheduled Tribes community. The sale deeds were executed from the

year 1983 onwards. It is only the sale deeds in question for which the

issues are sought to be raised.

22. He further submitted that even as per the certificate issued

by the Corporation, father of respondent No. 15 when entered into

Government service as a driver of the Corporation, claiming himself to

be belonging to general category. He never claimed that he was

Scheduled Tribe. Once the father was not Scheduled Tribe, his legal

heirs cannot possibly be. Even respondent No. 15 had sworn two

affidavits dated 06.07.2000 and 02.08.2000 specifically stating that he

belongs to General Category of ‘Tanti’ and does not belong to any

Scheduled Tribe community. He even got the sale deed registered on

01.03.2000 without taking any permission. Further, one Bishwanath Roy

made a complaint regarding the sale deeds in question, which was

10 dismissed on 29.08.2000. However, on enquiry and finding that

respondent No. 15 had already sworn affidavits that he belongs to

general category, the same was closed. Subsequent thereto,

respondent No. 15 sought to re-open the issue. He could not even

produce his original caste certificate when the proceedings were

conducted by certificate issuing authority. No record was found even

in the office. Once the family had been executing number of sale deeds

claiming themselves to be of general category, the issue sought to be

raised with reference to the sale deeds in question shows some oblique

motive.

23. He further submitted that seeing the chequered history of

the case, which is hanging fire for the last 19 years, the issue needs to

be closed as respondent No. 15 does not deserve any relief. The matter

should not be sent back to either of the authorities as respondent No.

15 is only bent upon to harass the appellants who have not been able

to raise construction though the property was purchased more than 19

years ago. On other portions of land sold by respondent No. 15,

construction has already been raised. It was further submitted that the

idea of enactment of the protective legislation of seeking permission

for sale of land belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes is

only to save their property so that they are not forced to sell the same.

11 But in the case in hand as the facts suggest, predecessor-in-interest of

respondents No. 15 and 16 was owning huge property which he sold

from time to time.

24. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents No. 15

to 18 submitted that there is no error in the order passed by the High

Court. Considering the amendment carried out vide Act No. XXXV of

201711 in the 1994 Act, the Committee has power to examine the issue,

even in the case of cancellation of caste certificate. The amendment

carried out is retrospective as it is clarificatory in nature. Even if the

caste certificate in the case in hand was cancelled prior to the

notification of the amendment in Section 8A of the 1994 Act, the issue

can still be examined by the Committee. Now it has power to deal with

the same. Even otherwise, respondents No. 15 to 18 could not be left

remediless. If they could not challenge the cancellation of caste

certificate before the Committee or any other authority, they could

certainly avail their remedy by filing a writ petition. He further

submitted that presently respondents No. 15 to 18 are carrying on

minimal work and are hardly able to make their both ends meet.

11

The West Bengal Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Identification) (Amendment) Act, 2017 12

25. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

relevant referred record.

26. The primary issue in the case in hand is with reference to

caste certificate issued to the respondent No. 15. A certificate was

issued in his favour on 23.04.1993 declaring him as belonging to ‘Chik

Baraik’, a Scheduled Tribe. It is inter-related with the sale transactions

of the land. In case, respondent No. 15 belongs to Scheduled Tribe

community, permission is required for selling the land. In case, he is

not, no permission is required. In the case in hand, the sale deed which

is subject matter of dispute was executed by late Ramanand Baraik,

father of respondent No. 15 in favour of Sanjay Gupta and two others on

30.08.1983.

27. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel for the

parties, we deem it appropriate to extract the details of various sale

deeds executed by late Ramanand Baraik, father of respondent No. 15.

These are detailed out in paragraph No. 8 of the memo dated

03.04.2013 issued by District Magistrate. The same are extracted

below:

13

Sl. Regd. Name of the Name of Mouza Plot No. Area No. Deed No. Vendor the (Acre) Purchaser 1. I-167 Ramnandan Roshan Lal Daknikata 209 to 0.66 Dt. Baraik Agarwal 220 28.03.80 (R.S) 2. I-168 Ramnandan Tara Devi Daknikata 209 to 1.00 Dt. Baraik Agarwal 220 28.03.80 3. I-169 Ramnandan Banwari Lal Daknikata 209 to 0.33 Dt. Baraik Agarwal 220 28.03.80 4. I-170 Ramnandan Binay Daknikata 209 to 0.66 Dt. Baraik Kumar 220 28.03.80 Sharma 5. I-171 Ramnandan Susila Devi Daknikata 209 to 0.66 Dt. Baraik Agarwal 220 28.03.80 6. I-481 Ramnandan Sanjay Daknikata 465, 466 0.70 Dt. Baraik Gupta 30.08.83 7. I-482 Ramnandan Anjay Daknikata 465, 466 0.70 Dt. Baraik Gupta 30.08.83 8. I-483 Ramnandan Ashish Daknikata 465, 466 0.71 Dt. Baraik Gupta 30.08.83

28. At the time of hearing, it remained undisputed that the only

sale deed dated 30.08.1983 executed by late Ramanand Baraik in

favour of Sanjay Gupta and two others is subject matter of dispute as

on the same ground other sale transactions entered into by late

Ramanand Baraik are not in question in any other case.

29. The fact remains that the sale deeds in question were

executed by late Ramanand Baraik. He was engaged as a driver by the

Corporation on 01.01.1973. His services were terminated w.e.f.

30.11.1987. As per the record with his employer, he belonged to

general category. A certificate to that extent issued by the Corporation

14 has been annexed showing that late Ramanand Baraik was from

general category as per the record of the Corporation. Meaning

thereby, till his termination from service on 30.11.1987, he never

claimed even with his employer that he belonged to any reserved

category, especially Scheduled Tribe, as is sought to be claimed by

respondent No. 15.

30. The sale deeds were sought to be challenged by

respondents No. 15 and 16 by moving an application dated 22.01.2004

before Revenue Officer, Daknikata through Block Land & Land Reforms

Officer, Matigara. It was claimed that they belonged to Scheduled

Tribe community and the sale transaction was in violation of Sections

14B and 14C of the 1955 Act. Notice was issued to the vendees-Sanjay

Gupta and others. Revenue Officer, vide order dated 29.11.2004,

declared the sale deeds as null and void. The order was impugned by

the appellants No. 1 and 2 before the learned Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Siliguri under Section 14H of the 1955 Act because in the

meanwhile vide sale deeds dated 24.11.2004, Sanjay Gupta sold the

land to appellants No. 1 and 2. Vide order dated 16.03.2005, the Civil

Judge dismissed the application. The order was further challenged in

revision before District Judge, Darjeeling who also dismissed the same

vide order dated 23.02.2006.

15

31. Attorney of appellants No. 1 and 2 filed an application dated

29.03.2012 before SDO, Siliguri for cancellation of Caste Certificate

issued in favour of respondent No. 15. He was granted number of

opportunities to submit his original Tribal Certificate and personally

appear along with documentary evidence. Initially, his stand was that

the caste certificate is lying with his Advocate, hence, he may be

granted some time to produce the same. Thereafter, the stand taken

was that his original caste certificate has been lost. However,

undisputedly no complaint or FIR was lodged. The fact remained that

he was not able to produce any material or the original caste certificate

in his favour. The aforesaid application for cancellation of the caste

certificate was disposed of inter alia with the observation that no

supporting documents were found in the record, on the basis of which

caste certificate was issued in favour of respondent No. 15; father of

respondent No. 15, namely, Ramanand Baraik was serving as a Driver

in the Corporation as general category employee; respondent No. 15

had sworn two affidavits dated 06.07.2000 before Notary Public,

Siliguri and 02.08.2000 before Executive Magistrate, Siliguri stating

that he belonged to general caste community and not Scheduled Tribe.

The signatures on the receipt register supply copy of the Caste

16 Certificate issued to respondent No. 15 and on the affidavits were found

to be identical.

32. Respondent No. 15 sold the property vide sale deed No.

I/1039/2000 dated 01.03.2000 as a person belonging to general

category and subsequently, respondents No. 15 and 16 sold another

inherited property vide sale deed No. I/575/2001 dated 07.02.2001. No

permission was sought while executing the aforesaid sale deeds. Late

Ramanand Baraik, father of respondent No. 15 had sold more than ten

acres of land between 1980 and 1983 claiming himself to be of general

category. A complaint was filed regarding sale of the land in question,

however, the same was closed by District Land and Land Revenue

Officer vide order memo dated 21.05.2001 holding that respondent No.

15 and his family members are non-Tribal.

33. In view of the aforesaid facts, SDO, Siliguri cancelled the

caste certificate issued in favour of respondent No. 15 on 06.07.2012.

The aforesaid order was challenged by respondent No. 15 by filing

appeal before the District Magistrate (Appellate Authority). The order

of cancellation of caste certificate was confirmed by the Appellate

Authority vide order dated 14.01.2013. Thereafter, respondent No. 15

moved an application before the Committee. Vide order dated

23.12.2013, the Committee set aside the order dated 06.07.2012 passed

17 by the SDO cancelling the Caste Certificate issued in favour of

respondent No. 15. The Committee directed the Director, Cultural

Research Institute to conduct an enquiry and to verify the caste status

of respondent No. 15. On receipt of the report dated 18.04.2013, the

Committee was of the view that respondent No. 15 belongs to ‘Chik

Baraik’ of Scheduled Tribe community. Even the Committee observed

that the original caste certificate issued to respondent No. 15 was not

produced before SDO. Finally, the Committee opined that cancellation

of caste certificate was inappropriate, hence, the order was set aside

and the matter was remitted back to the SDO concerned for passing

fresh order in the light of the observations made by the Committee.

34. Aggrieved against the aforesaid order, the appellants filed

Writ Petition in the High Court raising the issue of jurisdiction of the

Committee to entertain the application filed by respondent No. 15.

Various other grounds were also raised including that the Committee

consisted of many members, however, the Chairman himself had

issued the order. The Single Bench of the High Court finding merit in

the submissions made by appellants No. 1 and 2 set aside the order of

the Committee and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration

leaving it open to them to raise the issue regarding jurisdiction of the

Committee.

18

35. Thereafter, vide order dated 02.01.2014, the Committee

decided that it had jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by

respondent No. 15. The order was communicated to the parties vide

letter dated 28.03.2014.

36. The aforesaid order dated 02.01.2014, as communicated to

the parties vide memo dated 28.3.2014, was challenged by the

appellants before the High Court. Single Bench of the High Court, vide

order dated 25.11.2014 found merit in the arguments raised on behalf

of respondent No. 15 and opined that the Committee had the

jurisdiction to entertain the issue regarding his social status.

37. The aforesaid order passed by the Single Bench was

challenged by the appellants by filing appeal. The Division Bench, vide

impugned order dated 30.03.2015 had upheld the order passed by the

Single Judge holding that the Committee had jurisdiction to enquire

into the complaints of illegal cancellation of Caste Certificate.

38. As far as the argument regarding jurisdiction of the

Committee is concerned, in our opinion, the issue is not required to be

gone into in detail at this stage, as the High Court opined that the

Committee had jurisdiction to entertain even the issue regarding

cancellation of the Caste Certificate in terms of Section 8A of the 1994

Act. Though it has not specifically been mentioned in the Section, 19 however, vide amendment carried out in the 1994 Act w.e.f.

15.09.2017, clause (c) in Section 8A was substituted to include even the

cases regarding cancellation of caste certificate. The only issue

required to be considered may be as to whether this amendment

should be considered to be retrospective or retroactive. However, the

fact remains that it being a procedural law and the matter being still

pending before the Committee to be decided on merits after it had

opined that the Committee had jurisdiction to deal with even the cases

of caste certificate, it could very well be examined by the Committee

at this stage. In the view of that matter, it should have been sent back

to the Committee only.

39. However, we do not deem it appropriate to follow that route

considering the conduct of the private respondents. The fact which

remained undisputed even at the time of hearing is that late father of

respondent No. 15 who was in service of the Corporation, never

claimed himself to be a person belonging to Scheduled Tribe

community. During his life time, he had sold about ten acres of land

between 1980 and 1983 including the sale deed in question executed

in favour of Sanjay Gupta and two others. None of those sale

transactions have been challenged by him during his life time or by

respondents No. 15 and 16, after his death claiming that the father

20 belonged to Scheduled Tribe community. In fact, there was no

certificate issued to that extent in his favour. It was the father who had

executed the sale deeds. It also came on record that respondent No. 15

had executed the sale deeds I-1039 dated 01.03.2000 and I-575 dated

07.02.2001. Those were also executed without seeking any permission

from any authority. There is no challenge to that. Earlier to that, a

complaint was filed for cancellation of the sale deed in question which

was closed by the District Magistrate, vide order dated 29.08.2000

holding that respondent No. 15 did not belong to Scheduled Tribe

community, as was even the status mentioned in two affidavits dated

06.07.2000 and 02.08.2000 sworn by him before Notary Public and

Executive Magistrate, respectively.

40. There is nothing produced on record to show that late

Ramanand Baraik, father of respondent No. 15 was ever issued any

certificate showing him belonging to Scheduled Tribe community. The

sale deeds in question were registered on 30.08.1983. It shows that on

the basis of a certificate, which was issued subsequently in favour of

respondent No. 15, he sought to challenge one of the various sale

deeds executed by his late father Ramanand Baraik during his life time.

Even at the time of death of late Ramanand Baraik, father of respondent

No. 15, in the year 1991, respondent No. 15 was more than 18 years of

21 age. The sale deeds in question in isolation were sought to be

challenged only in the year 2004, even though the certificate of

Scheduled Tribe community was issued in favour of respondent No. 15

in the year 1993.

41. Considering the aforesaid facts, in our opinion, the present

appeal deserves to be allowed. Ordered accordingly. The judgment

dated 30.03.2015 passed by the High Court is set aside. It will be an

exercise in futility to remit the matter back to any authority for

examination as we do not find any merit in the claim of respondent

No. 15.

…..……………..J (VIKRAM NATH)

…………………..J (RAJESH BINDAL)

New Delhi December 08, 2023.

22