Karnataka High Court
Colonel Krishnan Dutt Shelley vs The Assistant Conservator Of Forest on 16 June, 2017
Author: A.S.Bopanna
Bench: A S Bopanna
1
N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16th DAY OF JUNE 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION No.52947/2016 (GM-FOR)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No.53175/2016 (GM-FOR)
W.P.No.52947/2016
BETWEEN:
1. COLONEL KRISHNAN DUTT SHELLEY
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
RETIRED HAL OFFICER,
2. SMT. LEELA URMI SHELLEY
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS,
W/O COL.KRISHNAN DUTT SHELLEY,
3. SRI ADITYA KRISHNAN SHELLEY
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
S/O.COL.KRISHNAN DUTT SHELLEY,
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.B-2/422, GHATA PRABHA
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE,
KORAMANGALA,
BANGALORE-560047.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KIRAN V. RON, ADV FOR POONACHA C M, ADV.)
AND:
THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FOREST
WILDLIFE SUB DIVISION,
KANAKAPURA,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571511.
... RESPONDENT
(BY SRI A G SHIVANNA, AAG. A/W
SRI SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, HCGP)
2
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT NOT TO STOP THE VEHICLES CARRYING
BUILDING MATERIAL OR ANY OTHER VEHICLES TO
PETITIONERS PLOT IN THE PRIVATE LAYOUT CALLED
'NISARGA NIKUNJ NIRMAN' SY. NOS.2 AND 3 OF
BOMMSANDRA VILLAGE, UYYAMBALLY HOBLI, KANAKAPURA
TALUK AND QUASH THE ORAL INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO
THE FOREST GUARDS AT THE FOREST CHECK NAKA NEAR
SANGAM OR AT ANY OTHER POINT TO THE SAID LAYOUT.
W.P.No.53175/2016
BETWEEN:
1. OM SHANTHIDHAMAVEDA GURUKULA
RUN BY OM SHANTIDHAMA
CHARITABLE TRUST,
CAMPUS AT SANGAMA,
BOMMASANDRA, YELAGALLI P.O.,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571511,
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
SRI. SATHYAVRATHA.
2. ANANDHADHAMA RETREATS PRIVATE LIMITED
BOMMASANDRA,
UYYAMBALLI HOBLI,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571511,
REP. BY ITS DIRECTOR,
ANANTH G ARYA.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI KIRAN V. RON, ADV. FOR POONACHA C M, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE CHIEF CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
(TERRITORIAL)
CHAMARAJANAGAR CIRCLE,
CHAMARAJANAGAR.
2. THE DEPUTY CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
CAUVERY WILDLIFE DIVISION,
3
KOLLEGAL,
CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571 440.
3. THE ASSISTANT CONSERVATOR OF FORESTS
CAUVERY WILDLIFE DIVISION,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 511.
4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER (ELEC.)
BESCOM, SATHANOOR DIVISION,
SATHANOOR,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 511.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI A G SHIVANNA, AAG. A/W
SRI SHIVAPRABHU HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1-3
SRI V N MURTHY, ADV. FOR R4)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO QUASH THE
NOTICE DTD:18.7.2016 (ANNEXURE-K) AND ETC.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 06.06.2017, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED
THE FOLLOWING :
ORDER
The petitioners in W.P.No.52947/2016 are before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the respondent not to stop the vehicles carrying building materials or the other vehicles moving to the plot in the private layout called 'Nisarga Nikunj Nirman' in Sy.Nos.2 and 3 of Bommasandra village, Uyyambally Hobli, Kanakapura Taluk.
4
2. The petitioners in W.P.No.53175/2016 are before this Court assailing the notice dated 18.07.2016 whereunder an enquiry is being held under Section 99 of the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963 ('the Act 1963) read with Rule 69 of the Karnataka Forest Rules ('the Rules') and the provisions of the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 (the WL Act). The consideration therein relates to Sy.Nos.2 to 7 in Bommasandra village, Kanakapura Taluk.
3. Since the matter to be considered relates to the same issue, both the petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order.
The petitioners in W.P.No.52947/2016 have purchased the plot bearing No.4/16 in the residential layout formed in Sy.No.2 and 3 of Bommasandra village under the sale deed dated 25.11.2009. In order to put up construction they have obtained the approval of the plan from the Village Panchayat as the property was already converted under the order dated 26.05.2002. In the process of construction when the vehicles carrying 5 the materials were proceeding towards the plot, the forest guards are stated to have stopped the vehicles since the passage of vehicles in the forest area was not permissible. The petitioners in that view claiming to be aggrieved are before this Court.
4. The petitioners in W.P.No.53175/2016 contend that the agricultural lands in Sy.No.2, 3 and 6 were purchased and the lands were converted for residential, commercial and tourism purpose from the year 1992 onwards. Subsequently on 23.12.2000 the revenue department, Government of Karnataka is stated to have allotted lands in Sy.No.4 to the first petitioner for the activities of the Trust.
5. The Trust is accordingly stated to be carrying on its activities such as free education and value based education in Yoga, Ayurveda etc. Out of the total extent of land measuring 60 acres 13 guntas in Sy.Nos.2 to 7 the trust is stated to be in possession in 32 acres 31 guntas. In Sy.No.2, in an extent of 10 acres 34 guntas a residential layout is formed with the approval of the 6 concerned authority. While such activities are being carried out, the Government of Karnataka declared the area as Cauvery Wild Life Sanctuary under Section 18 of the WL Act, 1972. The petitioners contend that in the schedule the revenue villages, patta lands, revenue lands and the gomal lands have been excluded. The lands in question therefore not being notified either as a 'Reserved Forest' or the 'Wild Life Sanctuary' and being owned by the petitioner is being enjoyed by them. When this is the position, the notice dated 18.07.2016 is issued to the petitioner under Section 99 of the Act, 1963. The petitioners therefore claiming to be aggrieved are before this Court.
6. The respondents have filed detailed objection statement opposing the prayer made in these petitions. Reference is made to the notifications dated 10.04.1884, 07.01.1901 and 19.12.1903 to contend that an area of 30284 acres and 33 guntas is situate in the village 'Chilandvadi forest'. The notification dated 19.12.1903 is referred to point out that it provides details of 8 forest enclosures in the Chilandvadi State forest, each 7 surrounded by a ring or grazing land. The notification also provides the availability of a cart track from Hegnur towards Bommasandra Doddi of 2 yard width and 1 mile in length and footpath in continuation about 2 miles in length which is open for people and cattle. The notification dated 26.09.1940 is referred to state that an area of 100 acres in Chilandvadi State forest is to cease and Nallur Doddi Forest enclosure with an area of 40 acres and 26 guntas is notified as Forest enclosure No.8 in the 1903 notification shall cease to be a Forest enclosure. When this was the position, the Act 1963 has come into effect and the Chilandvadi State forest including the 7 forest enclosures became Reserved Forest. The Government of Karnataka declared an area of 52695 hectacres comprising 5 Reserved Forest in the Districts of Ramanagar and Chamarajanagar as Cauvery Wild Sanctuary under Section 26 A (b) of the WL Act, 1972 under notification dated 14.01.1987.
7. The different extent as contained in different enclosures is referred and it is pointed out that the entire area of Chilanavadi Reserved Forest is included in 8 the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary. Hence it is contended that the Bommasandra Doddi forest enclosure consisting of 56 acres and 27 guntas to which the petitioners are claiming is a forest enclosure in the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary which is to be protected. Hence it is contended that the conversion of the agricultural lands are illegal and void. In that regard the details are set out to contend with regard to the notifications which are referred to above and the limited right of approach to the property is asserted. Reference is made to a land owner in Soligere, Basavanabetta Reserved Forest, which is another enclosure of the Cauvery Wildlife Sanctuary, who had claimed similar right as that of the petitioners herein and the same being rejected. In that light on asserting with regard to nature of the land, being an enclosure in the Reserved Forest which is also within the Wild Life Sanctuary, the rights and duties under the Forest Act, 1963 and WL Act, 1972 is referred to in detail.
8. The petitioners have filed their rejoinder and have sought to dispute the averments contained in the 9 objection statement, more particularly with regard to the approach road and the manner in which the property is put to use. In that light they contend that the respondents do not possess the authority to prevent the petitioners having free passage and to put the property to use in the manner as they desire for which they have secured approval. The respondents in response to the rejoinder have filed their reply and reasserted the power to protect the forest and the wild life. The power available to the Forest Officer is referred to in detail and the duty to protect the forest is asserted.
9. In the light of the above, I have heard Sri Kiran V. Ron, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri A.G.Shivanna, learned Additional Advocate General with Sri Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned Government Advocate, Sri. V.N.Murthy, learned counsel for the respective respondents and perused the petition papers.
10. Though elaborate pleadings are filed and the respondents in their objection statement have adverted to the entire conspectus of the matter in an attempt to 10 controvert the claim of the petitioners, what is necessary to be noticed is that in W.P. No. 52947/2016 the prayer is in the nature of injunction against official respondents and in W.P. No. 53175/ 2016 the challenge is to a notice which has been issued to the petitioners. The justification put forth for the action taken by the respondents in both the cases is the action required by them in discharge of their statutory duty as the activities regarding which the petitioners are claiming the right is in the vicinity of the Reserved Forest which is also declared as a Wild Life Sanctuary. Hence the matter is necessary to be examined in that regard, also keeping in view the fact that the proceedings pursuant to issue of the notice is still under progress. Therefore at this stage what is necessary in my opinion is only to examine the limited extent to arrive at the conclusion as to whether the action initiated by the respondents with issue of notice lacks jurisdiction as contended by the petitioner. On such basic examination, if it is found that the respondents have the authority and a detailed consideration is required by the respondents, then the 11 respondents are required to be permitted to proceed further in the enquiry, to come to their conclusion in accordance with law and the decision taken will be available for judicial review if raised at that stage.
11. To examine that aspect of the matter, the nature of the land and its location with brief reference to the right claimed is to be noticed which is as hereunder.
The petitioners in the first petition have purchased the property through the sale deed dated 25.11.2009. The petitioners in the second petition seek to contend that a portion of the land in fact was granted to them through the revenue department of the State of Karnataka on 23.12.2000. The petitioners in both these petitions have contended with regard to the conversion having been obtained in respect of the property in question. In this regard, the land which is relevant for consideration is situate in Sy.Nos.2 to 7 of Bommasandra Doddi village. The question therefore is with regard to the manner in which the said lands bearing Sy.Nos.2 to 7 of Bommasandra Doddi is 12 described in the notification which was issued to declare the Reserved Forest even though the lands in issue itself were not declared as forest. In this regard, it is the common case of the parties that the notification dated 09.12.1903 which is at Annexure-R3 to the objection statement filed by the respondent is the relevant notification to take note to determine the right as contended. The petitioners contend that in the said notification dated 09.12.1903 the lands in question is not declared as a Reserved Forest and therefore the respondents cannot exercise any right either under the Forest Act, 1963 or the WL Act,1972. Hence, it is contended that the restriction as sought to be applied at this juncture, more particularly in a circumstance where the Revenue Authorities have granted conversion of the lands for residential and commercial purposes and also when the Village Panchayath has sanctioned the plan for construction, the respondents cannot interfere.
12. Though that be the position, the petitioners in any event do not dispute the fact that the properties in 13 question are indicated as the enclosures in the forest which is declared as Reserved Forest under the said notification. In this regard a closer perusal of the notification dated 09.12.1903 would indicate that on declaring the Chilandvadi State forest, in the note enclosed thereto it is stated that there are 8 enclosures in the said forest, each surrounded by a ring or grazing line to show that it is a forest enclosure free from reservation. In that light of the matter, what is necessary to be taken note is that even though the lands in question are indicated to be free from reservation as forest and is stated as an enclosure, the nature of the right that could be enjoyed by the persons who are the owners of the said enclosures is also an aspect to be deduced from the notification and the surrounding circumstance. A further perusal of the notification in question though does not refer with regard to the nature of usage of the property, the details as provided therein with the name of the enclosure, the survey numbers, the extent and the access allowed to the said enclosure is indicated in the remarks column. 14
13. Insofar as the property which is the subject matter of these petitions and situate at Bommasandra Doddi in Sy. Nos.2 to 7, the same is depicted at Sl. No.7 therein. In respect of the extent of 56 acres 27 guntas, in the remarks column the access provided therein is a cart-track from Hegnur towards Bommasandra Doddi, two yards wide and about 1 mile in length and a foot path in continuation about 2 miles in length and open for people and cattle. It enters the forest above 50 yards to the west from the south east corner bunds of Sy. No.64 of Hegnur and runs south through the forest and ends with it. The subsequent notification dated 14.09.1940 which is relied on at Annexure `R4' would indicate that there is no change insofar as the boundaries as contained in the notification dated 19.12.1903. If that be the position, the consideration that is required at this point is whether the claim as put forth by the petitioners at this juncture that the respondents have no manner of right to interfere, could be accepted? In the background of the position of lands being in the enclosure to the forest and the petitioners 15 have subsequently purchased the land as also plots in the said area. In such event, the petitioners cannot contend absolute and unfettered right as if they have purchased the lands in a regular revenue or a residential layout, as they are bound to be aware of the fact that the lands to which they claim the right is situate within the enclosure to the Reserved Forest with the limited right of way to approach the said property which is indicated as per the details furnished in the notification and restrictions thereto.
14. Therefore, insofar as the approach road to the property is concerned though the petitioners have produced the photographs along with the rejoinder to the objection statement in W.P.No.53175/2016 and refer to the photographs at Annexure T2 to V4 and in that light they seek to point out that at present there is a motorable road which is also asphalted to a certain extent, when there is no other document or notification to indicate that the Government has in any manner altered the indication with regard to the approach as contained in the notification dated 09.12.1903, the 16 absolute right as claimed by the petitioner to have a passage in any other manner and also to transport construction material in heavy vehicles, more particularly when the land in question is situate in an enclosure to the Reserved Forest would not be justified. However, any action in that regard by the respondents shall be taken only by following due process of law.
15. The further fact which is also not in dispute is that subsequently the notification dated 27.12.2011 constituting the Cauvery Wild Life Sanctuary as provided under Section 18 of the WL Act, 1972 is also issued. The perusal of the provision contained in Section 18 of the WL Act would disclose that the State Government may by notification declare its intention to constitute any area other than an area comprised within any Reserved Forest or territorial waters as a sanctuary if it considers that such area is of adequate ecological, faunal, floral, geo-morphological, natural or zoological significance for the purpose of protecting, propagating or developing wildlife or its environment. Such notification is required to specify the situation and 17 limits of such area as nearly as possible. In the instant case, as seen from the notification dated 27.12.2011, through Schedule-II it has included the Chilandvadi forest which is the Reserved Forest to which the lands belonging to the petitioner is stated to be an enclosure. If that be the position, an aspect of the matter which cannot be overlooked is that through the notification of the year 1903 though the lands in question is not included in the Reserved Forest, the said area no doubt forms a part of the enclosure of the Reserved Forest. When law provides that while declaring the Wild Life Sanctuary, even an area depending on the fauna and flora can be included in such Wild Life Sanctuary though it is not a Reserved Forest, the intention and importance of the same cannot be lost sight. The said provision is also further regulated as provided under Section 26(A) of the WL Act, 1972 and Section 27 thereof provides with regard to the restriction of entry in a sanctuary and also the grant of permit in that regard in respect of the persons who have right over the immovable property within the limits of the Sanctuary. 18 The said provisions would indicate that even though an extent of land in the vicinity may not be a Reserved Forest and even if other parcels of land which are permissible to be owned is within the Reserved Forest area and the Wild Life Sanctuary is declared, the regulation of the use thereof could be made by the competent authority.
16. Therefore, in that circumstance whether the free and unfettered passage as claimed by the petitioners should be provided or whether it is to be provided in a regulated manner only as contained in the notification dated 09.12.1903 and mandated in the relevant statutory provision even though the land purchased by the petitioner is not a Reserved Forest; whether merely because the petitioners have secured conversion of the same and approval of the plan from the Village Panchayath the respondents should permit such constructions to be put up therein and in that regard what are the restrictions to be made so as to preserve the fauna and the flora in the Wild Life Sanctuary are all aspects which are required to be 19 taken note, considered and thereafter a conclusion is to be reached by the respondents. This is more particularly so in a circumstance where the factual aspects of the matter relating to the actual state of the land, location thereof and the approach road existing is disputed through the rival averments put forth before this Court. Such disputed questions of fact in any event cannot be decided in a writ petition of the present nature, more particularly it need not be adverted to in a circumstance when the respondents have in fact issued a notice to the petitioners and opportunity is given and the contentions as put forth herein would indicate that the parties will have to put forth the said contentions in the proceedings to be held pursuant to the impugned notice issued wherein a conclusion is to be reached. When a conclusion is reached by the respondents, the validity of such conclusion may arise for judicial review in the limited scope that will be available in a certiorari proceedings and not in the present circumstance to render a finding of fact more particularly at the stage 20 when the notice is issued and proceedings are being held.
17. Learned counsel for the petitioner has however relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case of Pradeep Krishen vs. Union of India and others [(1996)8 SCC 599] to contend that in the said proceedings the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held with regard to the right of the villagers and the Tribals residing in the area while considering the validity of the order which had prevented such right to the villagers and Tribals on the ground that there would be damage caused to the flora, fauna and the wild life in the area. Having considered the same, I am of the opinion that it will not be of assistance to the case of the petitioners. The very same benefit as has been extended to the persons therein would not arise in the case of the petitioners since what was being considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was a traditional right of the villagers and the tribals living around the area as the original inhabitants. Presently, what the petitioners seek to contend is that they have got the conversion of 21 the revenue lands and they intend to put up commercial and other constructions in the area and according to them the same cannot be prevented. This contention cannot be accepted when it is clear that the flora and fauna is to be protected since the area is declared as Wild Life Sanctuary. That apart the nature of the use for which the land could be put to and the manner in which a coexistence could be regulated both by protecting the fauna and flora as also by permitting the petitioners to make use of the land to such extent and in the manner, are to be considered by the respondents. The said aspects are to be taken into consideration in the enquiry which is proposed pursuant to the impugned notice. Therefore at this juncture in any event this Court cannot extend the benefit as it is a matter yet to be considered by the respondents.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner in order to contend that the notice dated 18.07.2016 impugned at Annexure-K1 cannot constitute a valid show cause notice has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghorka Security services vs. 22 Government (NCT of Delhi) & others [(2014)9 SCC 105] with specific reference to paragraphs 21 and 22 thereof. In the said decision wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court was considering the requirement of a valid show cause notice before blacklisting a person in relation to defaults in tender/contract matter, has arrived at the conclusion that the blacklisting of a person without proper show cause notice would not be justified. It is held therein that the show cause notice should be of such nature that it should indicate the reason for which a proceeding has been initiated against the person and the default alleged to have been committed with specific details. Such requirement is for the reason that the person who is put on notice is required to understand the contents thereof and reply to the same for the purpose of an effective consideration. If the said decision is kept in view and the impugned notice is taken into consideration, a perusal of the same would indicate that the notice refers to all details with regard to the nature of the land; the manner in which it is located; the right as claimed by the respondents; the 23 relevant Acts which govern to restrict the usage of the same and in that background the action is proposed. Therefore in that circumstance, the notice impugned herein cannot be said to be defective. In any event when such notice is issued and the proceedings is initiated if any further details are required by the petitioners for the purpose of putting forth their contention and enabling the respondents to thereafter arrive at an appropriate conclusion, it is still open for the petitioners to seek for such details.
19. Therefore, in the present circumstance having taken note of the contents of the notice, it cannot be held that it is defective. The very nature of the contentions as put forth by the petitioners while assailing the said notice in these petitions itself would indicate that the petitioners having understood the contents of the said notice are seeking to pre-empt the same by questioning the same before this Court. Such objections in any event is to be filed before the Competent Authority which has issued the notice and the Competent Authority is required to take a decision 24 in the matter. Therefore, the notice cannot be interfered with in this proceedings only because a ground is raised that it is defective.
20. Insofar as the contentions put forth on behalf of the petitioners that the notice as issued is without authority since such power is not vested in the respondents cannot be accepted, a perusal of the provision contained in Section 99 of the Act, 1963 under which the enquiry is initiated by issue of notice, would certainly indicate that the power is vested with the respondents to enter upon any land and to survey or to consider the aspects as stated in the said provision. If that be the position, in the instant case when the land to which the petitioners claim is an enclosure to the Reserved Forest and is also situate within the area which is declared as Wild Life Sanctuary, certainly the respondents in the course of the enquiry pursuant to the notice issued to the petitioners would be entitled to make a spot visit, survey the land if need be and thereafter come to a conclusion. In such circumstance, it is appropriate that all these 25 aspects should be allowed to be considered in the enquiry, more particularly in a circumstance where the petitioners are asserting their right relating to the manner in which they are entitled to put the land to use by raising constructions while the respondents are contending that the nature of the constructions which are sought to be put up by the petitioners is likely to interfere with the free movement of the wild animals and thus affect the preservation of the wild life in the area. The respondents in that regard have also sought to rely on the decisions of this Court wherein a consideration was made with regard to the protection of the wild life in the sanctuaries named therein and a similar right was sought therein. Therefore, all these aspects of the matter are required to be taken note in the course of the enquiry and thereafter a conclusion is to be reached. Hence, until such enquiry is conducted and a decision is taken by the respondents in such enquiry, the issue relating to the nature of the usage of the road to approach the land or the nature of the constructions 26 that is sought to be put up by the respondents will not arise for consideration in the instant petition.
21. Another aspect is also that the petitioners contend that when the petitioners are the rightful owners of the property, they cannot be prevented from using their property. It is contended that if at all the respondents were to prevent, due to which loss would be caused to them, the respondents can only do so by acquiring the property and compensating the petitioners. On this aspect of the matter also the question would arise only after the conclusion is reached in the enquiry. I am of the said opinion for the reason that in the enquiry that is to be held pursuant to the notice, if the conclusion to be reached by the respondents is to the effect that the petitioners will not be in a position to use the land at all and the land in question is to be utilized by the respondents to make it contiguous part of the Reserved Forest and the Wild Life Sanctuary, certainly at that stage the respondents would also take into consideration as to whether the land owners in such of those areas are to be provided 27 land elsewhere or the said land is to be acquired and compensation is to be paid in that regard as has been done in the case of certain other Wild Life Sanctuaries. These are all aspects which would arise depending on the nature of the enquiry and the ultimate restriction that is likely to be put with regard to the usage of the land on the conclusion of enquiry to be held. Hence, these aspects of the matter are also left open to be considered at an appropriate stage. The stage at present is that there should be no interference with the enquiry that has been undertaken by the respondents as otherwise there would be serious damage to the environment and also the wild life in the area.
In terms of the above, the petitions are dismissed with liberty to avail the appropriate remedy at the relevant stage. No costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE akc/bms