Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sandeep Kumar Garg vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Thr on 17 October, 2022
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17th OF OCTOBER, 2022
WRIT PETITION No.20356 of 2018
BETWEEN:-
SANDEEP KUMAR GARG, S/O SHRI
MADANLAL GARG, AGED - 38
YEARS, OCCUPATION-
ADVOCATE, R/O OLD POST
OFFICE, A.B. ROAD, BADARWAS,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH).
........PETITIONER
(BY SHRI ARUN DUDAWAT - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
THROUGH ITS PRINCIPAL
SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
LAW AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS,
MANTRALAYA VALLABH
BHAWAN, BHOPAL (MADHYA
PRADESH).
2. THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY /
DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE,
SHIVPURI, DISTRICT SHIVPURI
(MADHYA PRADESH).
2
3. HARIKRISHAN MISHRA, S/O SHRI
BABULAL MISHRA, R/O NEAR
POST OFFICE, KOLARAS
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH).
4. MANISH DARBARI, S/O LATE SHRI
RAJENDRA PRASAD DARBARI,
R/O APPROACH ROAD, KOLARAS,
DISTRICT SHIVPURI (MADHYA
PRADESH).
........RESPONDENTS
(SHRI DEVENDRA CHAUBEY - GOVERNMENT
ADVOCATE FOR THE STATE)
(SHRI S.K. TIWARI - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3-
ABSENT)
(SHRI A.V. BHARDWAJ - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT
NO.4)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:-
(i) Issuing a writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ or order or direction thereby quashing the impugned selection process and order dated 21.08.2018 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the respondent No.1 with further direction to appoint petitioner as Notary for Badarwas District Shivpuri.3
(ii) Passing any other order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iii) Costs of petition may also be awarded to the petitioner's society."
2. The facts necessary for disposal of the present petition in short are that the petitioner is an Advocate and claims himself to be the resident of Badarwas, District Shivpuri. On 15/12/2016 the respondent no.2 issued an advertisement for appointment of Notaries seeking applications from the local lawyers. From the advertisement, it is clear that two posts of Notary were vacant in Badarwas, District Shivpuri. The petitioner also submitted his application for appointment on the post of Notary. It is claimed that the respondents no.3 and 4 are not the resident of Badarwas, District Shivpuri and they are the resident of Kolaras, but they also submitted their applications for appointment as Notary in Badarwas, District Shivpuri. The respondent no.3 did not submit any document for establishing that he is the resident of Badarwas, District Shivpuri and similarly the respondent 4 in his application form disclosed his address as "Approach Road Kolaras, District Shivpuri". Rule 7 of the Notaries Rules, 1956 (in short "Rules, 1956") prescribes that the competent authority / respondent no.2 on receiving the applications shall hold an enquiry as he thinks fit and submit his recommendations to respondent no.1.
3. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that as per Rule 7 (3) of the Rules, 1956, the competent authority shall also consider as to whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes 4 to practice as a Notary or not. It is claimed that in the present case, the respondent no.2 without conducting an enquiry as contemplated under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 forwarded the names of the aspirants vide his letter dated 27/2/2017. It is submitted that the respondent no.1 without conducting any interview directed the respondent no.2 to require the respondents no.3 and 4 to deposit a fee of Rs.2,000/- and non-judicial stamp of Rs.2,000/-. Rule 8 of the Rules, 1956 provides that 60 days' time shall be granted to the candidate for submitting his objections. However, respondents without complying the mandatory provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules, 1956 exceeded their jurisdiction thereby directing respondents no.3 and 4 to submit the fees and non-judicial stamp as provided under Rule 9 of the Rules, 1956 for issuance of certificate of practice. Thus, it is claimed that the respondents had already decided to appoint respondents no.3 and 4 as Notary without following the procedure as contemplated under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1956. However, the petitioner after coming to know about the decision of respondent no.1 submitted a representation thereby raising his grievance against the selection and appointment of respondents no.3 and 4 as Notary, however, no heed was paid and accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.18490/2018, which was disposed of by order dated 14/8/2018 thereby directing the respondent no.1 to decide the representation. Thereafter, respondent no.1 has issued the order dated 21/8/2018 thereby appointing respondents no.3 and 4 as Notary for a period of five years. Thus, it is claimed that the entire exercise which has been done by respondents no.1 and 2 is contrary to the provisions of Rules 7, 8 and 9 of the Rules, 1956. The respondents no.3 and 4 are not 5 the resident of Badarwas and by ignoring the said important aspect, they have been appointed as Notary for Badarwas, District Shivpuri by ignoring the legitimate claim of the petitioner.
4. Per contra, the petition is vehemently opposed by the counsel for the respondent no.3. He submitted that the local residence of the area is not a minimum qualification, although it is a factor which is to be kept in mind by the competent authority. However, the counsel for the respondent no.3 could not justify the act of respondent no.2 in forwarding the applications of all the aspirants to respondent no.1 without any recommendation.
5. The respondent no.2 has filed a copy of notice dated 27/1/2017, by which a public notice was affixed on the display board thereby inviting objections to the applications filed by different aspirants for different Tahsils. Thereafter, the character verification was done through Superintendent of Police, District Shivpuri. By letter dated 27/2/2017 the respondent no.2 forwarded the applications of the aspirants. In the said letter it was mentioned that one criminal case was registered against one Abdul Azij Ansari, who had applied for the post of Notary in Pohari Tahsil, but the said case has come to an end on the basis of compromise. A recommendation was made to reject the application filed by Mahesh Khare, who had applied from Tahsil Karera on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him. Similarly, a recommendation was made to reject the application of Ku. Anita Lodhi because she had not completed minimum years of practice. Accordingly, except the applications of Ku. Anita Lodhi and Mahesh Khare, the names of all other aspirants were forwarded. Thus, it is clear that the respondent no.2 did not consider the 6 fact as to whether the aspirant is the resident of local area or not. From the letter dated 27/2/2017, it is clear that the respondent no.4 -Manish Darbari has disclosed his address as "Approach Road Kolaras, District Shivpuri", whereas respondent no.3 had disclosed his address as "Village Bamorkala, Tahsil Badarwas". However, respondent no.4 has admitted that he is the resident of Kolaras.
6. Although respondent no.3 was served and is being represented by his counsel Shri S.K. Tiwari, but it appears that he has decided not to file any return. Even none has appeared for respondent no.3.
7. Be that as it may.
8. The respondent no.1/State has filed its reply and stated that the respondent no.2 is the competent authority to comply the procedure laid down under the Rules, 1956. Rule 7 (A) of the Rules, 1956 was inserted in the Rules, 1956 by notification dated 24/2/2009 w.e.f.1/3/2009 and as per the said proviso, the State Government is empowered to dispense with the condition of holding of interview and admittedly the respondent no.1 had sanctioned 15 new posts of Notary on 29/11/2016. Therefore, on the date of issuance of advertisement the State Government had authority to dispense with the condition of holding of interviews. The recommendation sent by respondent no.2 were duly considered and the names were proposed through departmental procedure to Ministry of Department for its approval and after obtaining approval on note-sheet, the appointment orders were issued on 21/8/2018. There is no provision of filing objections under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1956. Rule 8 of the Rules, 1956 provides for alternative remedy and filing of Review before the Government within 60 days from the date of the order. However, the 7 petitioner has not exercised the said right and the order of appointment has not been challenged by filing a review application. Furthermore, the petitioner had filed an objection prior to the stage of Rule 8 of the Rules, 1956. Rule 8 of the Rules, 1956 does not contemplate filing of review application prior to issuance of any final order. The petitioner felt aggrieved by order dated 25/6/2018, which was not final in nature, but it was a letter directing respondent no.2 to complete certain formalities in which it was mentioned that the proposal is pending before the Government. Since the letter dated 25/6/2018 was interlocutory in nature, therefore, the petitioner had no right to file any review petition under Rule 8 of the Rules, 1956. The petitioner should have raised an objection at the stage of Rule 6 (2) (b) of the Rules, 1956, but that was not done and no objection was raised by the petitioner before the competent authority after a public notice was affixed on the notice board. The persons, who have been appointed as Notaries, are senior in practice and since the persons with more experience have been appointed as Notary in Tahsil Badarwas and no person who is junior to the petitioner has been appointed as a Notary in Badarwas, therefore, the petitioner does not have any right to challenge the appointment of respondents no.3 and 4 as Notary. The provisions of Rules, 1956 were given full effect and there is no procedural lapse in the selection process. Furthermore, the Government is not accountable to Courts for the choice made, but the Government is only accountable to Courts in respect of lawfulness and legality of its decision. The Government has a discretion to make choices and the petitioner has no right to question the right of Government to make choices. It is further submitted that the jurisdiction of the Courts to 8 judicial review is confined to decision making process and not to decision itself and the Court cannot sit as an Appellate Authority.
9. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.
10. On 15/12/2016 one notice was issued by the respondent no.2 inviting applications from the aspirants for filling up 15 newly created posts of Notary. In the said notice, it was specifically mentioned that the applications are invited from the local Advocates. Thereafter, on 27/1/2017 the respondent no.2 affixed a notice on the notice board thereby disclosing the names of the persons who had made their applications for appointment on the post of Notary and invited objections within a period of three days. It is undisputed that the petitioner did not raise any objection to the applications filed by respondents no.3 and 4. However, it is clear from the recommendation dated 27/2/2017 that the respondent no.2 rejected the application of one Mahesh Khare and Ku. Anita Lodhi on the ground that Mahesh Khare is facing a criminal trial, whereas Ku. Anita Lodhi does not have the minimum years of practice and forwarded the remaining applications without making any individual recommendation.
11. Rule 7 of the Rules, 1956 reads as under:-
7. Recommendation of the competent authority.-
8[(1) The competent authority shall, after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of making his representations against the objections, if any, received within the time fixed under sub-rule (2) of rule 6, make a report to the appropriate Government recommending that the applicant may be allowed to appear before the Interview Board.] (2) The competent authority shall also make his recommendation in the report under sub-rule (1) 9 regarding the persons by whom the whole or any part of the costs of the application including the cost of hearing, if any, shall be borne.
(3) In making his recommedation under sub-
rule (1), the competent authority shall have due regard to the following matters, namely,--
(a) whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes to practise as a notary;
(b) whether, having regard to the commercial importance of the area in which the applicant proposes to practise and the number of existing notaries practising in the area, it is necessary to appoint any additional notaries for the area;
(c) whether, having regard to his knowledge and experience of commercial law and the nature of the objections, if any, raised in respect of his appointment as a notary, and in the case of a legal practitioner also to the extent of his practice, the applicant is fit to be appointed as a notary;
(d) where the applicant belongs to a firm of legal practitioners, whether, having regard to the number of existing notaries in that firm, it is proper and necessary to appoint any additional notary from that firm; and
(e) where applications from other applicants in respect of the area are pending, whether the applicant is more suitable than such other applicants:
'[Provided that in respect of categories (b) and (c), if the memorial in Form II is found to be in order, the competent authority may issue certificate of practice as Notary directly by exempting appearance before the' Interview Board.] 7A. Constitution of the Interview Board.--(1) If the appropriate Government allows that the applicant may be asked to appear before the Interview Board, the competent authority, shall inform the applicant to appear before the Interview Board, on the date, time and place fixed, to judge the 10 competency of the applicant for being appointed as a Notary. The Interview Board shall submit its recommendations to the appropriate Government.
[(2) For the said purpose, one or more Interview Boards shall be constituted by the appropriate Government from amongst its officers dealing with legal matters and the Chairperson of every Interview Board shall be an officer not below the rank of Joint Secretary or Law Officer of that Government:]] [Provided that the appropriate Government may dispense with the condition of holding of interviews for which reasons are to be recorded in writing.] [7B. Transitional provision.--(1) All the memorials received, by the Competent Authority till 28th February, 2009 and which are pending shall be processed/examined in accordance with the provisions of the rules as amended by the Notaries (Amendment) Rules, 2009.
(2) The fresh memorials shall only be submitted on or after 1st July, 2009]
12. It is clear from Rule 7 (3) of the Rules, 1956 that the competent authority while making his recommendations shall have due regard to various factors including that whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes to practice as a Notary or not. Thus, it was necessary for the respondent no.2 to take that aspect into consideration. However, that was not done. It is true that the local residence of the area is not a minimum qualification, but it is a factor which is desired to be kept in mind while making recommendations. Furthermore, the respondent no.2 is merely a recommendatory body and he should have forwarded the applications alongwith his personal comments in respect of each and every applicants. That was not done. It is true that the 11 petitioner did not raise any objection before the respondent no.2 to the application filed by respondents no.3 and 4, but that would not result in automatic dispensation of the factors / considerations which are to be taken note of by the competent authority while making recommendations. Even otherwise, Rule 8 of the Rules, 1956 clearly provides that on receipt of report of the competent authority, the appropriate Government shall consider the report. Unless and until the recommendations are made thereby pointing out any qualification or disqualification, there is no question of consideration of the report by the appropriate Government. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suryakant Chandrakar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2000 (MP) 260 has held as under:-
7. Mr. Ahluwalia appearing on behalf of the answering respondents has taken the stand that Rule 7 or the Rules has to be read along with Rule 6 of the Notaries Rules, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules', and the very fact that the memorials of answering respondents were not rejected under Rule 6 of the Rules and the competent authority did not invite objections from the Bar Council, Bar Association etc., under Rule 6(2)(b) of the Rules and forwarded the names of the answering respondents, clearly go to show that in fact recommendations were made by the competent authority.
8. In view of the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties following questions fall for determination:
(i) Whether the validity of appointments of respondents 3 to 5 can be gone into at the instance of the petitioners?
(ii) Whether the appointment of respondents 3 to 5 suffers from procedural ultra vires?12
It is not in controversy that the petitioners initially submitted memorials for appointment as notaries. After submission of memorials, the President of the Bar Association was apprised that the memorials of the petitioners besides other persons were not in the prescribed format. There is a serious controversy as to whether the President of the Association apprised the petitioners about the request of competent authority to submit the memorial in the amended form. Be that as it may, in case, the memorials of the petitioners were not in prescribed format, the competent authority ought to have apprised the petitioners directly instead of informing the President of Bar Association. In any view of the matter, the petitioners were candidates for appointment as notaries and it is no body's case that they are not eligible for appointment as notary. They cannot be said to be interlopers. In such a situation, I am not inclined to sustain the objection of Shri Ghildiyal as also Mr. Jha that the legality or otherwise of the appointment of respondents 3 to 5 be not gone into at the instance of the petitioners. As regards the authority relied on by Shri Jha, same is clearly, distinguishable. Here in the present case, prayer made by the petitioner, is not only to quash the order of appointment of respondents 3 to 5 as notaries, but also to issue a writ of mandamus directing respondent No. 1 to appoint them as notaries. In such a situation, I am of the opinion that the petitioners have locus standi to canvass the legality or correctness of the action of respondent No. 1 in appointing respondent Nos. 3 to 5 as notaries.
9. Appointment of notaries is governed under the provisions of the Notaries Act, 1952 and the Rules framed thereunder i.e., Notary Rules, 1956. Rule 4 of the Rules provides for making 13 application for appointment as notary. For appointment of a notary, a candidate is required to submit his application in the form of a memorial addressed to such officer or authority of the appropriate Government as that Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, designate in this behalf. Such an officer or authority is known as competent authority and it is common ground that the District and Sessions Judge has been designated as the competent authority. For being eligible for appointment as a notary, one has to be practising legal practitioner atleast for 10 years on the date of application and various other categories of people have also been made eligible for appointment as a notary. Those persons who claim eligibility on account of having practiced as a legal practioner for 10 years are required to submit the memorial in accordance with Form-I attached with the Rules. On the submission of the memorial, the competent authority is Required to examine the same and in case, he is satisfied that the applicant does not possess the qualification as specified in Rule-3 of the Rules, the competent authority is obliged to reject such memorial. The competent authority is further obliged to reject memorials of such applicants whose previous application for appointment as a notary was rejected within six months. All those applications which are not rejected under Rule 6(1) of the Rules, the competent authority in his discretion may invite objections, if any to the appointment of the candidates from any Bar council. Bar Association, Incorporated Law Society or other Authorities.
10. Rule 7 of the Rules confers power on the competent authority to make recommendation to the appropriate Government after holding such enquiry as he thinks fit and after giving the 14 applicant an opportunity of making representations against the objections, if any. Rule 7 of the Rules, which is relevant for the purpose reads as follows:
7. Recommendations of the competent authority,
-- (1) The competent authority shall, after holding such inquiry as he thinks fit and after giving the applicant an opportunity of making his representations against the objections, if any, received within the time fixed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 6, make a report to the appropriate Government recommending either that the application may be allowed for the whole or any part of the area to which the application relates or that it may be rejected.
(2) The competent authority shall also make his recommendation in the report under sub-rule (1) regarding the persons by whom the whole or any part of the costs of the application including cost of hearing if any, shall be borne.
(3) In making his recommendation under sub-rule (1), the competent authority shall have due regard to the following matters, namely:--
(a) Whether the applicant ordinarily resides in the area in which he proposes to practise as a Notary;
(b) whether, having regard to the commercial importance of the area in which the applicant proposes to practise and the number of existing notaries practising in the area it is necessary to appoint any additional notaries for the area;
(c) whether, having regard to his knowledge and experience of commercial law and the nature of the objections, if any, raised in respect of his appointment as a notary and in case of a legal practitioner also to the extent of his practice, the applicant is fit to be appointed as a Notary;
(d) Where the applicant belongs to a firm of legal practitioners, whether having regard to the number of existing notaries in that firm, it is 15 proper and necessary to appoint any additional Notary from that firm, and
(e) Where applications from other applicants in respect of the area are pending, whether the applicant is more suitable than such other applicants.
A plain reading of Rule 7(1) of the Rules makes it clear that the competent authority is required to make recommendation either that the application may be allowed for the whole or any part of the area to which the application relates or that it may be rejected. Under Rule 7(3) of the Rules, the competent authority while making recommendation is required to give due regard to various aspects enumerated in clauses (a) to (e). After the report of the competent authority, the appropriate Government, is required to consider the same and make appointment of notaries. The State Government while making appointment of a notary is required to consider the report. Here, in the present case, the competent authority has stated in clear terms that he did not make any recommendation. From the letter of competent authority dated 2nd of March, 1998, it is apparent that he has just forwarded the memorials of 7 persons including respondents 3 to 5 alongwith the other documents to the State Government for appropriate action. The original records have been produced before me by Mr. Ghildiyal and a perusal thereof also does not show that the competent authority had made any recommendation as required under rule 7 of the Rules. In fact, he has forwarded memorials of all the applicants along with the documents. Such a recommendation was obliged to be made by the competent authority under Rule 7 of the Rules. Non-rejection of the memorials under Rule 6 of the Rules and forwarding the same along with the documents of the respective memorialists, in my 16 opinion, cannot be construed as recommendation of the competent authority. He has thus failed to discharge his statutory obligation. That being so, appointment of respondents No. 3 to 5 as notaries suffers from procedural ultra vires and cannot be allowed to stand. The view which I have taken finds support from the judgment of this Court in case of Ashok Kumar Chowdhary (supra).
13. The coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Suryakant Chandrakar (supra) has specifically stated that non-rejection of the memorials under Rule 6 of the Rules and forwarding the same alongwith the documents of the respective memorialists cannot be construed as a recommendation of the competent authority and thus, it was held that the competent authority had failed to discharge his statutory obligation of making recommendation under Rule 7 of the Rules, 1956.
14. Similarly, the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajendra Kumar Chaudha Vs. Ayaz Ahmad Khan reported in 2010 (2) MPLJ 230 has held as under:-
16. In the instant matters what District Judge has done that he has invited the objections from the Bar Association, no objection was received and thereafter has forwarded the list of all the persons arranged in order of seniority to the State Government. The District Judge has totally failed to act as per the mandate of Rule 7(3) of the Rules. It was incumbent upon the District Judge to send the names arranged in order of suitability of the incumbents whom he has considered to be appropriated having due regard to knowledge and experience, extent of practice and fitness, which has not been done in the instant case. Thus the learned Single Judge is justified in quashing the consequential action taken on the basis of violation of Rule 7(3) of the Rules.17
17. Shri V.S.Shroti, learned Sr. Counsel has submitted that the District Judge should be permitted to conduct oral interview of the incumbents. We do not go to that extent as oral interview is contemplated in the next stage after recommendation is made by the competent authority to the State Government, however, in order to ascertain the suitability, it is open to him to make such inquiry as he deems fit. He is free to call the candidates to find out the suitability as per Rule 7 of the Rules but simply calling a candidate to elicit an information would not amount to interviewing him, it would only be step in aid in order to form an opinion under Rule 7(3) of the Rules. When the competent authority applies the mind to the requirement of Rule 7(3), which may be applicable in the case, it should appear from the noting of the file that the competent authority has made the recommendation after due compliance of Rule 7 of the Rules. He is not supposed to act in a mechanical manner. The appointment of notary, as already mentioned, is an important job and names of only honest persons with integrity should be recommended by the District Judge, not the names of all the incumbents in order of their seniority or category wise as done in the instant case. The eligibility of an incumbent is a different aspect than assessing the suitability.
Arranging the names in order of seniority cannot be said to be as per suitability. A person's suitability has to be adjudged on the basis of objective criteria as laid down in the Rules. It has been considered, must reflect from the file. The competent authority cannot shirk from it's significant responsibility enjoined upon him under the Rules to ensure that incompetent and dishonest incumbents are not appointed as notary on political basis and eliminated at grass root 18 level. Recommendation of the District Judge serves the purpose of weeding out such elements from the zone of consideration who are not otherwise fit and suitable as per the requirements of the Rules. The District and Session Judges are expected to rise to the occasion, select the persons for recommending the names as per the criteria which has been laid down under the Rules and not to oblige every incumbent by sending the entire list to the State Government which amounts not only shirking from duty but tantamounts to flagrant violation of the rules at the end of the competent authority which cannot be tolerated even for a moment. Thus District and Session Judges to be careful in future in making the recommendation. It has to be ensured that only the names of suitable persons be recommended as per requirements of Rules.
15. Thus, it is clear that whenever any application is invited for appointment on the post of Notary, then a recommendation has to be made by the District Judge / respondent no.2 after taking into consideration the factors mentioned in Rule 7 (3) of the Rules, 1956. In the present case, the same was not done. Undisputedly the respondents no.3 and 4 are the residents of Kolaras. The respondents no.1 and 2 have failed to consider that aspect while taking a final decision in the matter. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 21/8/2018 issued by respondent no.1 cannot be given the stamp of approval. It is, accordingly, hereby quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of all the aspirants who had made their applications for appointment on the post of Notary in Tahsil Badarwas, District Shivpuri after taking note of various factors including those mentioned in Rule 7 (3) of the Rules, 1956.
1916. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of two months from today.
17. With aforesaid observations, the petition is finally disposed of.
(G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE Arun* ARUN KUMAR MISHRA 2022.10.18 18:31:34 +05'30'