Central Information Commission
Rajan Gupta vs Department Of Telecommunications on 20 January, 2026
के ीय सू चना आयोग
Central Information Commission
बाबा गंगनाथ माग, मुिनरका
Baba Gangnath Marg, Munirka
नई िद ी, New Delhi - 110067
File No: CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715
Rajan Gupta .....अपीलकता/Appellant
VERSUS
बनाम
CPIO
M/o Communications and
Information Technology,
Department of Telecommunications,
Director(SPPI-II) & CPIO, (SPPI Wing),
905,Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka
Road, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi-
110001. .... ितवादीगण /Respondent
Date of Hearing : 12.01.2026
Date of Decision : 19.01.2026
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER : Jaya Varma Sinha
Relevant facts emerging from appeal:
RTI application filed on : 11.09.2024
CPIO replied on : 23.09.2024
First appeal filed on : 13.10.2024
First Appellate Authority's order : 24.10.2024
2nd Appeal dated : 20.11.2024
Information sought:
1. The Appellant filed an RTI application dated 11.09.2024 (offline) seeking the following information:
"1.The applicant has submitted an online application on 15.05.2023 before the Central Public Information Officer, Office of Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 1 of 13 for providing the information. Copy of application is appended as Annexure A-
1.
2. That vide response dated 01.06.2023, the CPIO of office of Ministry of Home Affairs, informed the information seeker that his application has been transferred under Section 6(3) to the office of your good self. The copy of response dated 01.06.2023 as given by the respondent is appended as Annexure A-2.
3.That in this situation, you are requested to provide us the information as has been sought vide Annexure A-1."
2. The CPIO furnished a reply to the Appellant on 23.09.2024 stating as under:
"With regard to information sought under points (3), it is to inform that information pertaining to Review Committee is highly confidential and cannot be disclosed under Section 8(g) & 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005."
3. Being dissatisfied, the Appellant filed a First Appeal dated 13.10.2024. The FAA vide its order dated 24.10.2024, held as under:
"I have gone through the Appeal dated 13.10.24 along with the RTI reply dated 23.09.2024. The CPIO has informed that 'With regard to information sought under points (3), it is to inform that the information pertaining to Review Committee is highly confidential and cannot be disclosed under Section 8(g) & 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
I am in agreement with the CPIO and the reply is in order. Accordingly, the Appeal is disposed of."
4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied, Appellant approached the Commission with the instant Second Appeal.
Relevant Facts emerged during Hearing:
The following were present:-
Appellant: Advocate Anurag Jain, representative of the Appellant attended the hearing through VC.
Respondent: Shri M. Raj Anup, CPIO-cum-Director, attended the hearing in person.CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 2 of 13
5. The representative of the Appellant stated that the Respondent has not provided the relevant information as sought in the instant RTI Application. He added that in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matters of Bhagat Singh vs. CIC decided on 03.12.2007 in W.P. (C) No. 3114 of 2007 and in the matter of B.S. Mathur vs. PIO of Delhi High Court decided on 03.06.2011, the exemptions claimed by the Respondent under Section 8 (1) (g) and (h) of the RTI Act does not hold good. He further placed on record the copy of the above judgments on record.
6. The Respondent submitted that the information pertaining to Review Committee is highly confidential and cannot be disclosed under Section 8 1 (g) & (h) of RTI Act, 2005.
7. While explaining the brief background of the case, he submitted that the Appellant is seeking Minutes of Meeting of the Review Committee dated 25.04.2022 wherein interception done by various Law Enforcement agencies including the CBI for the interception orders issued by the Ministry of the Home Affairs. He added that such information pertaining to lawful interceptions undertaken in the interest of sovereignty, Integrity, security of the State, and public order. Disclosure of such records would expose sensitive information furnished in confidence to Law Enforcement Agencies (LEAs) and may compromise the intelligence gathering methods thereby, defeating the basic purpose of interception. Accordingly, exemption under Section 8 (1) (g) of the RTI Act, 2005 has been rightly invoked. Further, the records sought also pertain to interception orders issued for several numbers to various LEAs that might be connected with investigations, prosecutions, and proceedings, the status and scope of which are known only to the concerned LEAS. Disclosure of such information at this stage would impede Investigation and prosecution processes by prematurely revealing sensitive details, thereby attracting the exemption under Section 8 (1) (h) of the RTI Act, 2005. It is also relevant that certain recipient agencies, including the CBI, are exempt organizations under Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, and disclosure of information inextricably linked to such agencies through another public authority would defeat the legislative intent of the exemption.
CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 3 of 138. He apprised the Bench of the fact that the Appellant is also in litigation with the department before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM. M. No. 6657 of 2023 (Rajan Gupta vs CBI), wherein DoT had filed an affidavit dated 20.03.2023, conveying the outcome of the Review Committee's consideration of the interception orders in question in a sealed cover. However, the copies of the minutes of the Review Committee meeting were not disclosed. Exemption from disclosure of such records was specifically claimed under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with the due approval of the competent authority, and the same was accepted by the Hon'ble Court, as it appears from court order dated 19.04.2023, which is as under:
"1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for issuance of any appropriate order or direction for quashing of Impugned order dated 11.01.2023 (Annexure P-5), whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Section 91 Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.
2. Mr. Dheeraj Jaln, Senior Panel Counsel appearing for respondent No. 2-UOI submits that the documents which the petitioner wants, have already been destroyed. Respondent No. 2 shall hand over the demanded documents except the minutes to the petitioner in case the same had not already been destroyed,
3. At this stage, Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that as per rules they cannot destroy the documents.
4. Be that as it may, this Court is not going into this moot question and the petitioner has a liberty to take up this point in academic question in any other petition.
5. After hearing counsel for the parties at length, which order this Court proposes to pass is that it shall be permissible for the petitioner to apply for minutes, in case he wants to apply, it shall be permissible to him to apply under the Right to Information Act but in the present proceedings, the said documents cannot be ordered to be given to him.
6. Given above, the present petition is disposed of with the above observations."
9. The Commission orally directed the Respondent to file a detailed written submissions in view of the above statements made during the hearing. In compliance the oral directions of the Commission, a written submission has been received from Shri M. Raj Anup, CPIO-cum-Director, vide letter dated 14.01.2026, stating as under:
CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 4 of 13"Kind reference is invited to the Notice of Hearing issued by the Central Information Commission vide File No. CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 dated 24.12.2025, and the subsequent proceedings held during the second appeal hearing on 12.01.2026 at 12:00 PM before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Ms. Jaya Varma Sinha, in connection with the RTI application dated 11.09.2024 filed by Shri Rajan Gupta, S/o Shri Manohar Lal Gupta, R/o House No. 2507, Sector-47C, Chandigarh-160047.
2. The applicant vide RTI Application dated 11.09.2024 requested information on the following:
a) Minutes of meeting of the Review Committee dated 25.04.2022 wherein interception done by various Law Enforcement agencies including the CBI for the interception orders issued by the Ministry of the Home Affairs u/s 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act 1884 read with Rule 419A of the same from 01.01.2022 to 01.04.2022 were reviewed.
b) That in case the whole minutes of meeting of the review committee dated 25.04.2022 cannot be provided, the minutes pertaining to the review of the interception orders of mobile no. 9872477507 may be provided.
3. The applicant further stated in the RTI application that the same was being filed in pursuance of the order dated 19.04.2023 passed by the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in CRM M 6657 of 2023.
4. Vide letter dated 23.09.2024, the undersigned, in the capacity of Central Public Information Officer (CPIO), informed the applicant that the information pertaining to Review Committee is highly confidential and cannot be disclosed under Section 8(g) & 8(h) of RTI Act, 2005.
5. Aggrieved by the said reply, the applicant preferred a first appeal dated 13.10.2024, which was examined by the First Appellate Authority (FAA). The FAA, after due consideration, vide letter dated 24.10.2024, upheld the reply of the CPIO and disposed of the appeal.
6. Thereafter, the applicant filed a second appeal before the Central Information Commission. The undersigned attended the hearing in person on 12.01.2026 at 12:00 PM before the Hon'ble Information Commissioner, Ms. Jaya Varma Sinha, while the advocates representing the applicant participated through video conferencing.
7. Pursuant to the oral directions of the Hon'ble Information Commissioner during the hearing held on 12.01.2026, the following is hereby submitted:
i. Lawful interception of messages is undertaken by authorised Law Enforcement Agencies in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(2) of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 (now replaced by Section 20(2)(a) of the Telecommunications Act, 2023), read with Rule 419A of the Indian Telegraph Rules, 1951 (now replaced by the Telecommunications (Procedures and Safeguards for Lawful Interception of Messages) Rules, 2024). ii. As per Rule 419A(17) of the Indian Telegraph Rules, the Review Committee, constituted vide Rule 419A(16) of the said rules, shall record its findings whether the directions issued under sub-rule(1) of the Rule 419A are in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 5 of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 5 of 13 and if the Review Committee is of the opinion that the directions are not in accordance with the provisions referred to above, it may set aside the directions and orders for destruction of the copies of the intercepted message or class of messages.
iii. The minutes of the Review Committee meetings are issued and maintained by the Department of Telecommunications (DoT), Government of India. The records of the Review Committee are official records comprising inputs related to various other investigating agencies like Intelligence Bureau, Enforcement Directorate, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, and other law enforcement agencies besides Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), as well. Therefore, it would not be in the public interest to disclose such documents since it could hamper any ongoing Investigation or go against the public interest. iv. It is further submitted that, in the proceedings before the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CRM. M. No. 6657 of 2023 (Rajan Gupta vs CBI), DoT had filed an affidavit dated 20.03.2023, conveying the outcome of the Review Committee's consideration of the interception orders in question, Including the interception order relating to mobile number 9872477507 referred to in the present RTI application. However, the copies of the minutes of the Review Committee meeting were not disclosed. Exemption from disclosure of such records was specifically claimed under Section 123 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, with the due approval of the competent authority, and the same was accepted by the Hon'ble Court, as it appears from court order dated 19.04.2023 (copy enclosed).
V. The Review Committee minutes relate to information pertaining to lawful interception undertaken in the interest of sovereignty. Integrity, security of the State, and public order. Disclosure of such records would expose sensitive information furnished in confidence to Law Enforcement Agencies and may compromise the intelligence-gathering methods defeating the basic purpose of interception. Accordingly, exemption under Section 8(1)(g) of the RTI Act, 2005 has been rightly invoked.
vi. Further, the records sought also pertain to interception orders issued for several numbers to various LEAs that might be connected with investigations, prosecutions, and proceedings, the status and scope of which are known only to the concerned LEAS. Disclosure of such information at this stage would impede Investigation and prosecution processes by prematurely revealing sensitive details, thereby attracting the exemption under Section 8(1)(h) of the RTI Act, 2005. It is also relevant that certain recipient agencies, including the CBI, are exempt organizations under Section 24(1) of the RTI Act, 2005, and disclosure of information inextricably linked to such agencies through another public authority would defeat the legislative intent of the exemption. vii. In this regard, reliance is placed on the judgment dated 08.12.2021 of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in Gulab Singh Rana vs CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank & Ors (copy enclosed). Para 50 of the said judgement order is re-iterated below:CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 6 of 13
50. Considering the fact that the Central Information Commission elaborately considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the order passed in the Second Appeal, arrived a conclusion that the exemption granted to CBI from applicability of the RTI Act, in terms of Section 24 (1) would became meaningless. If RTI applicants would get information from another Public Authority, the very information that they cannot get from the CBI or information, inexplicably linked to the information and materials provided by the CBI to the Public Authority.
viii. The 2 judgement copies of Hon'ble High court of Delhi in cases pertaining to Bhagat Singh us CIC (WP(C) No. 3114 of 2007) and B.S.Mathur us PIO of Delhi High Court /WP(C) No. 295 of 2011 and WP(C) 608 of 2011), though were submitted by applicant to the O/o Information Commissioner, the same were not provided to the undersigned before the hearing. Hence, the copies were taken physically after the hearing from the O/o Information Commissioner. After examining the same, it was understood that the judgments cited in both pertain to cases where Section 8(1)(h) was invoked mechanically without establishing a nexus with investigation or public interest. The facts of those cases are clearly distinguishable from the present matter, which concerns lawful Interception and national security-related assessments.
In view of the submissions made hereinabove, it is respectfully submitted that the reply dated 23.09.2024 furnished by the undersigned, in the capacity of CPIO, is in accordance with the provisions of the RTI Act. 2005. The exemptions under Sections 8(1)(g) and 8[1](h) have been correctly and judiciously applied, keeping in view the nature of the information sought, public safety, and national security implications. It is therefore respectfully prayed that the second appeal be dismissed and the reply of the CPIO be upheld."
Decision:
10. The Commission after adverting to the facts and circumstances of the case, hearing both the parties and perusal of the records, observes that the CPIO initially invoked the exemptions under Section 8 1 (g) and (h) of the RTI Act mechanically without establishing a nexus with investigation.
However, the Respondent during the hearing and vide written submission dated 14.01.2026 has explained in detail that why such exemptions were claimed by the CPIO at the relevant point of time and the Commission upholds the same.
11. The facts and circumstances of the cases relied upon by the representative of the Appellant during the hearing are clearly distinguishable from the present case since the instant matter concerns lawful Interception and national security-related assessments.
CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 7 of 1312. It is pertinent to mention that the Appellant is seeking Minutes of Meeting of the Review Committee wherein interception done by various Law Enforcement agencies including the CBI and such recipient agencies, are exempt organizations under Section 24 (1) of the RTI Act, 2005, and disclosure of information inextricably linked to such agencies through another public authority would defeat the legislative intent of the exemption. In this regard, the Commission relies upon a judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in a recent judgement in Gulab Singh Rana vs. CPIO, Indian Overseas Bank, WP No 37231/2016 decided on 08.12.2021, wherein the Court has held as under:
"xxx....
38. The petitioner requested for a copy of request letter received from CBI for seeking sanction, copy of internal office memorandum containing the opinion/views of Disciplinary Authority for giving sanction for prosecution, copy of first advice given by CVC, New Delhi, the outcome of the reconciliatory meeting between Disciplinary Authority and CBI office of the New Delhi, the copy of any further clarification sought for by the CVC, the copy of internal office memorandum containing the opinion/views of Disciplinary Authority for giving sanction for prosecution, the copy of latest correspondence from CVC requesting/advising the Bank, the copy of internal office memorandum containing the opinion/views of the present Disciplinary Authority and finally copy of draft sanction supplied by CBI.
39. Considering the nature of questions sought for, interestingly, the first information is the request letter received from the CBI for seeking sanctioning. The said letter may have certain information pertaining to the investigation/interrogation. The second document is copy of internal office memorandum containing the opinion/views of the Disciplinary Authority. 40 .This Court is of the considered opinion that note file, opinions, views of the Disciplinary Authority may vary from time to time based on the informations and based on the collection of facts and evidences. Even at later point of time, initial opinion may not be final opinion in many cases. Subsequent facts may provide a different views and opinion and therefore, if the copy of the opinion and views are supplied, it will create unnecessary hindrance for the peaceful investigation, interrogation and to proceed with the departmental disciplinary proceedings as well as the criminal proceedings. For example, on receipt of the preliminary report, the Disciplinary Authority would have formed certain opinions or expressed some views. However, those opinions and views cannot be construed as final, as far as the decisions to be taken. During subsequent period, if further documents are made available or certain other facts are placed, then the Disciplinary Authority may change his opinion or views. This is exactly the CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 8 of 13 reason why, in disciplinary case, the rule contemplates opportunities to the delinquent officials. Therefore, the internal office memorandum containing opinion/views if supplied, undoubtedly, would create unnecessary issues as the petitioner will certainly rely on the document for the purpose of destroying the case. However, any accused/delinquent officials is entitled to defend his case in the manner known to law.
41. Thus, furnishing of such opinions and views of the Disciplinary Authority at various stages, if provided under the RTI Act, then it will hamper the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings and further, disrupt the investigation to be conducted by the investigating agency.
42. Perusal of other documents and informations sought for by the petitioner are all relatable to the reconciliatory meeting between the officials. Clarifications sought for by the CVC, latest correspondence etc., of such informations and documents sought for reveals that it is between the authorities and more so, relating to views/opinions, internal correspondences etc.,
43. No doubt, all such correspondences are protected under Section 8 of the RTI Act. However, it is the "subjective satisfaction" of the authorities. The "subjective satisfaction" must be considered by the Public Information Officer, while complying with the request of the information seekers. This exactly is the purpose and object of 8(h) of the Act. "Section 8(h) contemplates of information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders."
44. Where the circumstances narrated under Section 8(h) on that informations, which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. Thus, if the information provided, would cause any hindrance to the investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders. The language employed is "Apprehension". Thus, "Apprehension" of the competent authority is also considered in the legislation. The word "Apprehension", no doubt, can be interpreted widely and further, it provides discretion to the authorities for forming an opinion, whether there is an "Apprehension" or not. In this regard, the subjective satisfaction of the competent authority is of paramount importance. The Public Information Officer is expected to consider in the event of furnishing such informations, which all are connected with the investigation or prosecution of offenders and providing of such informations, would impede the process, then, he is empowered to exercise power of discretion and reject the application of the information seeker. Thus, the scope of section 8(h) is to be understood, with reference to the context and to the subjective satisfaction of the authorities competent. If the competent authority satisfied that there is a likelihood of impede the process of investigation or prosecution of offenders, then such informations or documents shall be denied.
CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 9 of 1345. The purpose and object of the exemption clause is to ensure that the administrative confidentiality are protected and because of providing of information, the further continuation of investigation or prosecution cannot be impeded. This being the scope of exemption under Section 8(h), the questions sought for by the petitioner in the present case with reference to 8(h) is to be considered.
46. As discussed in the aforementioned paragraphs, the questions and documents sought for by the petitioner in the present case is relatable to internal office memorandum containing opinions/views of reconciliatory meeting between the Disciplinary Authority and CBI clarification sought for by CVC internal office memorandum containing opinions/views latest correspondences from CVC etc.,
47. This Court is of the considered opinion that such informations, if provided, it will create unnecessary hampering of the Disciplinary Proceedings or the prosecution. Even an apprehension in this regard is sufficient is to deny information to the applicants. The word "Apprehension" is employed in the Act, so as to protect the prosecution and process of investigation, which should not be paralyzed at any circumstances in the public interest. When the investigation is undertaken, then the authorities must be provided with an amount of discretion for the purpose of culling out the truth in respect of the allegations. Thus, any hindrance in between, would undoubtedly paralyze the investigation process, which would dilute the prosecution and would extend unlawful benefit to the accused persons.
48. The opinions and views formed by the competent authorities on every stage may vary or change depending on the progress made in the investigation and based on the further facts culled out from and out of the evidence. During the course of such investigation or prosecution, if information are provided regarding the opinions already formed, then undoubtedly the same will hamper further investigation and disrupt the prosecution to be conducted by the agency. If such nature of information or documents are provided, then it may not be possible to proceed with the prosecution for the purpose of establishing the offence.
49. In this context, the rights of both the parties should be considered by the Courts. It is not only the right of the information seekers, but the right of the information provider must also be considered by this Court. Whenever a statutory right is conferred to the citizen, equally such right is conferred to the other citizen, whose interest is also to be protected before allowing a person to exercise such a statutory right. To elaborate, right and duties are corresponding terms, so also, rights can be exercised by any citizen, honouring the corresponding rights of the other citizen. It is exactly the constitutional perspective and the philosophy. Take a case, where information or documents are mechanically provided to the information seekers in all circumstances, then the right and duties of the investigating agency and the prosecutors are denied, establishing their cases before the CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 10 of 13 competent Court of law or before the Disciplinary Authority. Thus, a balancing approach is required, while implementing the provisions of the RTI Act. It is not as if, an information seeker is entitled to get all information and documents including certain internal correspondences and views or opinions recorded by the competent authorities then and there and time to time. Therefore, practical and pragmatic approach coupled with rules of constructive interpretation is of paramount importance to take a decision in such circumstances. In the event of committing any lapses, the same would provide unlawful gain to the accused/delinquent persons, which would result in destruction of the prosecution or the case of the Disciplinary Authority and larger the public interest involved in the matter of criminal prosecution is also to be considered by the Court. State being the prosecutors, right of investigation, collected evidence, record the opinions and views in those files must be protected in all circumstances and by obtaining all such information and documents from the competent authorities, the accused may not be allowed to destroy the basis of prosecution as such views/opinions or internal correspondence can never be construed as final opinion/views or the final decision.
50. Considering the fact that the Central Information Commission elaborately considered the grounds raised by the petitioner in the order passed in the Second Appeal, arrived a conclusion that the exemption granted to CBI from applicability of the RTI Act, in terms of Section 24(1) would became meaningless. If RTI applicants would get information from another Public Authority, the very information that they cannot get from the CBI or information, inexplicably linked to the information and materials provided by the CBI to the Public Authority.
51. The above findings of the Central Information Commission explicitly clarifies that what an information seeker could not able to get from the CBI, cannot attempt to get from his employer or from other agencies. Such calculated applications filed under the RTI Act, at no circumstances, are entertainable. In the present case, the information and documents sought for are no doubt relating to the files being maintained by the CBI and about the investigation of the Criminal case, so also pertaining to the sanction, which all are relatable to investigation/interrogation or prosecution. Thus, the first proviso to Section 24(1) cannot be extended merely under the ground that the word 'Corruption' is employed in the Statute.
52. Distinctions are to be drawn in this regard and Section 24(1) proviso must be read and understood along with the spirit of Section 8(h) of the Right to Information Act. Rule of constructive interpretation in such circumstances are imminent to ensure that the purpose and object of the RTI Act is not defeated. So also at the time of providing information or documents, the rights of other parties and the criminal laws system of CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 11 of 13 prosecution by the State is not affected or destroyed on account of providing such confidential information to the information seekers.
53. In view of the principles considered by this Court in the aforementioned paragraphs, this Court is able to form a concrete opinion that the information and documents sought for by the petitioner are rightly rejected by the Public Information Officer, Indian Overseas Bank, First Appellate Authority and finally by the Central Information Commission/Second Appellate Authority."
13. In the light of the above observations, the Commission upholds the written submission sent by the Respondent vide letter dated 14.01.2026 which is more elaborate and is treated as updated reply but a copy of the same has not been sent to the Appellant. Accordingly, the Respondent is directed to send a copy of the same along with relevant annexures to the Appellant within one week of receipt of this order. No further action is required in the instant matter.
The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
Jaya Varma Sinha (जया वमा िस ा) Information Commissioner (सूचना आयु ) Authenticated true copy (अिभ मािणत स ािपत ित) (Ashutosh Vasishta) Dy. Registrar 011- 26107042 CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 12 of 13 Copy To:
The FAA, M/o Communications and Information Technology, Department of Telecommunications, DDG(SPPI), (SPPI-WING), 907, Sanchar Bhawan, 20, Ashoka Road, Sansad Marg Area, New Delhi-110001.CIC/DOTEL/A/2024/651715 Page 13 of 13
Recomendation(s) to PA under section 25(5) of the RTI Act, 2005:-
Nil Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)