Punjab-Haryana High Court
Asi Ram Singh And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 October, 2012
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Date of Decision : October 09, 2012
CWP No. 11270 of 2011
ASI Ram Singh and others .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 3190 of 2012
Naresh Kumar No.684/RTK .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 3491 of 2012
Ballu Ram and another .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 3523 of 2012
Rajinder Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 3553 of 2012
Shamsher Singh EASI No. 762/RTK. .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 3560 of 2012
Anoop Singh ASI No.981/RTK ....
PETITIONER Vs.
State of Haryana ..... RESPONDENT
CWP No. 3722 of 2012
Naresh Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 2
CWP No. 3782 of 2012
Devender Kumar and others .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4053 of 2012
Samunder Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4059 of 2012
Bharat Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4134 of 2012
Om Parkash ASI No. 516/RTK (now 75/RTK) .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4140 of 2012
Harbhaj Singh ASI No. 533/RTK .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4143 of 2012
Balbir Singh ASI No. 1058/RTK .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4152 of 2012
Anoop Singh ASI No. 550/RTK(now 168/RTK) .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4163 of 2012
Jaibir Singh ASI No. 1029/RTK .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 3
CWP No. 4264 of 2012
Shri Bhagwan and others .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4311 of 2012
Karambir Singh ASI No. 420/RTK .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4323 of 2012
Jaibir Singh ASI No. 552/RTK .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4325 of 2012
Samunder Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4329 of 2012
Dilbagh Singh ASI No. 781/RTK .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4388 of 2012
Balwan Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5441 of 2012
Azad Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5444 of 2012
Suresh Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 4
CWP No. 5553 of 2012
Jaibir Singh and others .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5554 of 2012
Sujeet Singh and another .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5563 of 2012
Rameshwar Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5568 of 2012
Ramesh Chander .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5570 of 2012
Jitender Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5575 of 2012
Krishan Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5576 of 2012
Mitter Pal and another .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5582 of 2012
Rajinder Kumar EASI No. 478/SPT .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 5
CWP No. 5602 of 2012
Ashok Kumar HC No. 950/SPT .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5622 of 2012
Shamsher Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5737 of 2012
Balwan Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5747 of 2012
Krishan Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5853 of 2012
Krishan Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5937 of 2012
Mahavir Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5953 of 2012
Jagjit Singh and others .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6054 of 2012
Karambir Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 6
CWP No. 6109 of 2012
Raj Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6112 of 2012
Jai Ram .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6116 of 2012
Inder Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6134 of 2012
Prem Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6234 of 2012
Samunder Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6235 of 2012
Krishan Lal .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6260 of 2012
Rajinder Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6313 of 2012
Sethan Pal .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 7
CWP No. 6628 of 2012
Shamsher Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6629 of 2012
Rajesh Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 7943 of 2012
Chand Kaur .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 7944 of 2012
Vidya Wati .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 8085 of 2012
Rajwanti .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4262 of 2012
Ram Kumar and others .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 4263 of 2012
Sunil Kumar and others .... PETITIONERS
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5963 of 2012
Ram Rattan HC No. 594/SPT .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 8
CWP No. 5567 of 2012
Dilwar Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6110 of 2012
Krishan Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6120 of 2012
Rambir .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6122 of 2012
Mukesh Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6123 of 2012
Suresh Kumar .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 6129 of 2012
Bijender Singh .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5326 of 2012
Navender Singh ASI No. 310/SPT .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 5373 of 2012
Dharambir Singh EASI No. 209/SPT .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 9
CWP No. 5376 of 2012
Joginder Singh ASI No. 413/SPT .... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and others ..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. D.S.Patwalia, Advocate,
Mr. Sat Narain Yadav, Advocate,
Mr. Suresh Kumar Redhu, Advocate,
Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate,
Mr. Ravi Pratap Singh, Advocate,
Mr. Sandeep Singh Ghangas, Advocate,
Mr. Rakesh Lathwal, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana,
for the respondents.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
By this order, I propose to dispose of CWP No. 11270 of 2011 titled as ASI Ram Singh and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 3190 of 2012 titled as Naresh Kumar No.684/RTK vs. State of Haryana and others,CWP No. 3491 of 2012 titled as Ballu Ram and another vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 3523 of 2012 titled as Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 3553 of 2012 titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Haryana, CWP No. 3560 of 2012 titled as Anup Singh ASI No.981/RTK vs. State of Haryana, CWP No. 3722 of 2012 titled as CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 10 Naresh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 3782 of 2012 titled as Devender Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4053 of 2012 titled as Samunder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4059 of 2012 titled as Bharat Singh vs.State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4134 of 2012 titled as Om Parkash ASI No. 516/RTK (now 75/RTK) vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4140 of 2012 titled as Harbhaj Singh ASI No. 533/RTK vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4143 of 2012 titled as Balbir Singh ASI No. 1058/RTK vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4152 of 2012 titled as Anup Singh ASI No. 550/RTK(now 168/RTK) vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4163 of 2012 titled as Jaibir Singh ASI No. 1029/RTK vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4264 of 2012 titled as Shri Bhagwan and others vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4311 of 2012 titled as Karambir Singh ASI No. 420/RTK vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4323 of 2012 titled as Jaibir Singh ASI No. 552/RTK vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4325 of 2012 titled as Samunder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4329 of 2012 titled as Dilbagh Singh ASI No. 781/RTK Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4388 of 2012 titled as Balwan Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5441 of 2012 titled as Azad Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5444 of 2012 titled as Suresh CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 11 Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5553 of 2012 titled as Jaibir Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5554 of 2012 titled as Sujit Singh and another vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5563 of 2012 titled as Rameshwar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5568 of 2012 titled as Ramesh Chander Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5570 of 2012 titled as Jitender Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5575 of 2012 titled as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5576 of 2012 titled as Mitter Pal and another Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5582 of 2012 titled as Rajinder Kumar EASI No. 478/SPT Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5602 of 2012 titled as Ashok Kumar HC No. 950/SPT Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5622 of 2012 titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5737 of 2012 titled as Balwan Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5747 of 2012 titled as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5853 of 2012 titled as Krishan Kumar Vs.State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5937 of 2012 titled as Mahavir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5953 of 2012 titled as Jagjit Singh and others Vs. State of Haryana and others CWP No. 6054 of 2012 titled as Karambir Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6109 of 2012 titled as Raj Kumar Vs. State of Haryana CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 12 and others, CWP No. 6112 of 2012 titled as Jai Ram Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6116 of 2012 titled as Inder Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6134 of 2012 titled as Prem Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others CWP No. 6234 of 2012 titled as Samunder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6235 of 2012 titled as Krishan Lal Vs.State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6260 of 2012 titled as Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6313 of 2012 titled as Sethan Pal Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6628 of 2012 titled as Shamsher Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6629 of 2012 titled as Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 7943 of 2012 titled as Chand Kaur Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 7944 of 2012 titled as Vidya WatiVs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 8085 of 2012 titled as Rajwanti vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4262 of 2012 titled as Ram Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 4263 of 2012 titled as Sunil Kumar and others Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5963 of 2012 titled as Ram Rattan HC No. 594/SPT Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5567 of 2012 titled as Dilwar Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6110 of 2012 titled as Krishan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6120 of 2012 titled as Rambir Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6122 CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 13 of 2012 titled as Mukesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 6123 of 2012 titled as Suresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others,CWP No. 6129 of 2012 titled as Bijender Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5326 of 2012 titled as Navender Singh ASI No. 310/SPT Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No. 5373 of 2012 titled as Dharambir Singh EASI No. 209/SPT Vs. State of Haryana and others and CWP No. 5376 of 2012 titled as Joginder Singh ASI No. 413/SPT Vs. State of Haryana and others, as common questions of fact and law are involved in these cases.
For convenience, facts are being taken from CWP No. 11270 of 2011. Petitioners, in this writ petition, have approached this Court challenging the show cause notices issued to the petitioners dated 21.06.2011 (Annexure P-6 colly.), vide which, in the light of the law laid down by this Court in CWP No. 7952 of 2004 titled as Naresh Kumar and others vs. State of Haryana, CWP No. 6350 of 2009 titled as Raghubir Singh vs. State of Haryana and the directions issued by this Court in CWP No. 2914 of 2010 titled as EHC Virender Singh vs. State of Haryana and others, 2010 (4) SCT 743 petitioners have been called upon to respond as to why the benefit i.e. enlistment in B-1, C-1 and list D granted to the petitioners be not withdrawn.
Petitioners contend that they were deputed to undergo different courses at different times, which included the Lower School CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 14 Course and in some cases, the Intermediate School Course. Respondents No. 5 to 32 were deputed to undergo the Lower School Course in pursuance to the directions issued by this Court in various writ petitions preferred by them and consequential benefit of seniority was granted to them as juniors to them were earlier deputed to undergo the course, which was not in consonance with the statutory Rules governing the service. Petitioners contend that the directions issued in Virender Singh's case (supra), which is being implemented by the respondents, do not, in any manner, deal with cases where the Constables have already been deputed to undergo the Lower School Course or the Intermediate School Course but it only orders the respondents to take action qua those constables/petitioners in those writ petitions, who had not been deputed to undergo the Lower School Course despite they being entitled to as per the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Naresh Kumar and Raghubir Singh (supra). Counsel for the petitioners, on this basis, contends that the show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners and that too, basing upon the directions issued by this Court in Virender Singh's case (supra), exceeding the mandate of the said directions and thus cannot be sustained. It is further contended that the benefit, which has accrued to the petitioners, is being sought to be withdrawn in the garb of implementing the directions issued by this Court, which, as a matter of fact, does not affect the petitioners and will not be applicable to the Constables/Head Constables, who have already CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 15 been deputed to undergo the course and have passed the same. It is submitted that in case the benefit, which has been granted to the petitioners for having passed the course and having been brought on list B-1, C-1 and list D, is withdrawn, they would not be entitled to be put back in the same position as by now, they had become overage. He, on this basis, contends that the said notices deserve to be quashed.
On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioners have been granted undue benefit, which is not in consonance with the statutory Rules and the law as laid down by this Court. After the issuance of the directions by this Court in Virender Singh's case (supra), four Review Committees were constituted by the Director General of Police. The said Committees have re-looked into the whole facets and have come to a conclusion that the petitioners and others, who have been granted the benefit, which they were not entitled to as per the statutory Rules and as interpreted by this Court in Naresh Kumar and Raghubir Singh's cases (supra), are not entitled to continue to reap the fruit of such illegal benefit, which has been conferred on them. He contends that while re-fixing the seniority of the Constables as per the directions issued by this Court, the consequential effect is that the persons, who are finally declared senior to the petitioners, will have to be granted the said seniority as also the other consequential benefits. While implementing the said effect, petitioners will have to be reverted at CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 16 the appropriate stage, which is being given effect to and for that purpose, the show cause notices have been issued to the petitioners, to which they have not responded and instead approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.
At this stage, counsel for the petitioners states that reply to the show cause notices has been filed by the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petition in pursuance to the order passed by this Court while issuing notice of motion on 28.06.2011.
This fact is not denied by the counsel for the respondents. He, therefore, states that the final order could not be passed in the light of the pendency of the writ petition. He, however, states that if the directions are to be implemented, the consequence will have to fall upon the petitioners and, therefore, for giving effect to the directions, the show cause notices were issued to the petitioners, to which they have filed reply. The action of the respondents is in accordance with law and, therefore, does not call for any interference by this Court. The writ petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed.
I have considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties and with their assistance, have gone through the records of the case.
It is not in dispute that the present issue, which has arisen in these writ petitions, is a fall out of the directions issued by CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 17 this Court on 11.08.2010 in Virender Singh's case (supra). These directions read as follows:-
" (i) Such of the constables/petitioners who have failed in 55% merit quota are entitled to be considered for being brought on list B-1 under 35% quota on the principle of seniority-cum-merit, provided they have the requisite experience and are otherwise eligible under the rules;
(ii) Such of the constables who were less than 35 years of age as on the day of their consideration, but not more than 40 years, they will be entitled to be brought onlist B-1 by deputing them to Lower School Course;
(iii) The petitioners who acquired eligibility prior to the DGP's instructions dated 13.02.2007, will be deputed for the course without considering the question of minimum bench marks as prescribed under the Government instructions and in their cases seniority and other eligibility criteria prescribed under the rules, will be enough for their deputation to the course;
(iv) The petitioners who became eligible for deputation after the issuance of the instructions dated dated 13.02.2007 and have achieved the minimum bench marks, be deputed to the course notwithstanding their juniors have better bench marks;
(v)Inter-se-seniority of the constables will be CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 18 determined on the basis of their seniority in their respective districts in the constabulary and not on the basis of passing the Lower School Course in all such cases, who are ignored by the above directions. However, the inter-se-seniority of constables will not be governed by the above directions where senior was ignored on account of pendency of any disciplinary proceedings or who suffered any other disqualification for deputation to Lower School Course;
(vi) Deputation of the petitioners shall be made on the basis of their seniority in their respective districts and against the available vacancies."
A perusal of the above directions would make it amply clear that these directions although appear to be general in nature but are to be given effect to by the respondents viz-a-viz those Constables/petitioners, who had yet not been deputed to undergo the Lower School Curse. These directions do not, in any manner, state that those, who have already been deputed to undergo the Lower School Course and have passed, will also be affected by the said order nor do these directions, in any manner, affect adversely the right, which has accrued to the petitioners, who had earlier approached this Court and/or have been granted the benefit as a consequence of the orders/directions issued by this Court. All the CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 19 directions, which have been issued by this Court, take effect and are passed with an intention to grant the constables/petitioners, who were entitled to be deputed to the Lower School Course as per the law laid down by this Court in Naresh Kumar's case (supra) but were not granted the benefit of the said judgment. Direction (V) reproduced above throws light on this aspect and leaves no scope for any ambiguity. The show cause notices, which have now been issued to the petitioners, therefore, being not in consonance with the spirit and effect of the directions issued by this Court in Virender Singh's case (supra) dated 11.08.2010 cannot be sustained.
It would not be out of way to state here that the petitioners, in the given facts and circumstances, would continue to hold the post, which they were holding when the show cause notice was issued to them but will have to remain at the same stage till the benefit of seniority is granted to all the persons, who are declared senior to them as a consequence of the directions issued by this Court in Virender Singh's case (supra). They will not be reverted nor will they be eligible for further promotion unless persons senior to them reach the same stage as the petitioners in the hierarchy of ranks and have been granted the benefit except where they are unable to reach there because of the Rules/Instructions governing the service or due to some other justifiable reasons in accordance with law. This observation of this Court is accepted by the counsel for the petitioners and is rather based on the statement as made by CWP No. 11270 of 2011 and other connected cases 20 them in the Court at the time of arguments.
In view of the above, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned notices/orders are hereby quashed.
Directions are issued to the respondents to implement the directions issued by this Court in Virender Singh's case (supra) dated 11.08.2010, which have been now clarified as above by this Court.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
October 09, 2012 JUDGE
pj