Gujarat High Court
Vijay Construction Co.Consulting ... vs Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited ... on 9 February, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIR 2018 GUJARAT 116
Bench: R.Subhash Reddy, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 882 of 2017
In SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 831 of 2013
With
CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 7186 of 2017
In
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 882 of 2017
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see Yes
the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the No
judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as Yes
to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any
order made thereunder ?
=============================================
VIJAY CONSTRUCTION CO.CONSULTING ENGINEERS &
CONTRACTORS....Appellant(s)
Versus
SARDAR SAROVAR NARMADA NIGAM LIMITED THRO CHAIRMAN / &
3....Respondent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR.DC DAVE, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR CHIRAG K SUKHWANI, ADVOCATE
for the Appellant(s) No. 1
MR KAMAL TRIVEDI, SR. ADVOCATE WITH MR NIRZAR S DESAI, ADVOCATE
for the Respondent(s) No. 1 2
NOTICE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 3
=============================================
Page 1 of 17
HC-NIC Page 1 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018
C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 09/02/2018
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. R.SUBHASH REDDY) [1] This Letters Patent Appeal under clause 15 of Letters Patent is filed by the original respondent No.1 in Special Civil Application No.831 of 2013 aggrieved by the order dated 26.04.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge. By the aforesaid order, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 original petitioners and quashed and set aside the order dated 30.11.2010 passed in Arbitration Reference No.16 of 2002 by the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal, Ahmedabad.
[2] Necessary facts, in brief, for disposal of this appeal are as under : [2.1] The contract, which would qualify as works contract, within the meaning of Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 was awarded to the appellant Contractor bearing proceeding No.LCB01/199394 for construction of distributaries and minors for Block No.3B of Mandwa Branch Canal (earth work, brick lining and structures) to be completed within 36 months from the date of award. Agreement was entered into on 25.05.1993. Contract work came to be completed, but not within time. Contract work came to be completed on Page 2 of 17 HC-NIC Page 2 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT 15.06.1999, whereupon the respondents have issued completion certificate. The appellant had preferred Arbitration Reference No.16 of 2002 before the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') constituted under Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (for short 'the Act, 1992') in respect of various claims towards loss, outstanding payment under different heads etc. [2.2] In the said Arbitration Reference No.16 of 2002, the appellant herein has filed Civil Application No.13 of 2010 before the Tribunal inter alia stating that in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Va Tech Escher Wyass Flovel Limited v/s. Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board reported in (2011) 13 SCC 261, such Arbitration Application is not maintainable before the Tribunal. In the aforesaid judgment which was delivered on 14.01.2010 in the case of Va Tech Esher Wyass Flovel Limited (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has ruled that if the contract qualified as works contracts under the Act contain arbitration clause for the purpose of adjudication of disputes in respect of such contract by and between the parties thereto, then in that case, reference of such dispute would not be required to be made to the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the said Act, but same would be required to made before the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act, 1996"). When the Civil Application No.13 of 2010 was filed by the appellant herein in view of Page 3 of 17 HC-NIC Page 3 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT judgment in the case of Va Tech Esher Wyass Flovel Limited (supra), same was granted and Arbitration Reference No.16 of 2002 was also disposed of in terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court by recording a finding that such reference is not maintainable before the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1992. [2.3] The appellant thereafter preferred Arbitration Petition No.77 of 2011 under Section 11 of the Act, 1996 for the purpose of appointment of Arbitrator. This Court disposed of the Arbitration Petition on the basis of statement made on behalf of respondent No.1 and 2 stating that one K.G.More is already appointed as arbitrator. In view of above statement, arbitration petition came to be disposed of as not pressed. In view of such appointment, Shri K.G.More, Retired Chief Engineer who was appointed as arbitrator had commenced arbitration proceeding. Meanwhile, the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered judgment in the case of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority and Anr. v/s. L.G.Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors reported in (2012) 3 SCC 495 holding interalia that earlier judgment in the case of Va Tech Esher Wyass Flovel Limited (supra) has been rendered per incuriam, more particularly, in view of earlier judgment of the Supreme Court rendered on 12.05.2008 in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. v/s. Anshuman Shukla reported in (2008) 7 SCC 487.
Page 4 of 17 HC-NIC Page 4 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT [2.4] In view of aforesaid development, after the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh Rural Road Development Authority (supra), respondent Nos.1 and 2 filed Writ Petition being Special Civil Application No.831 of 2013 seeking to quash and set aside order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Tribunal with a request to restore Arbitration Reference No.16 of 2002 of the appellant to the Tribunal for the purpose of deciding the same on merits. [2.5] Learned Single Judge vide impugned CAV judgment dated 26.04.2017 allowed the aforesaid petition, filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.11.2010 passed by the Tribunal, in Arbitration Reference No.16 of 2002 with further directions to restore the said reference, before the Tribunal, for deciding the same on merits. Learned Single Judge in the judgment has held that, order passed though with conformity at the relevant time, but same is against the provisions and without jurisdiction, as such, it will be void abinitio. Further, it is held that Hon'ble Supreme Court in subsequent decision has reversed its earlier decision decided in the case of Va Tech Esher Wyass Flovel Limited (supra).
[3] Heard Mr.D.C.Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Kamal Trivedi appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2. [4] In this appeal, it is contended by Mr. D.C.Dave, learned Senior Page 5 of 17 HC-NIC Page 5 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT Counsel appearing for the appellant that learned Single Judge committed error in allowing the petition filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 by quashing and setting aside the order dated 30.11.2010. It is submitted that at the relevant point of time, law declared in the case of Va Tech Esher Wyass Flovel Limited (supra) was in force and subsequent change in law is no ground to take away jurisdiction from the arbitrator who was appointed under the provisions of the Act, 1996. Learned Counsel in support of his argument has placed reliance in the case of Union of India v/s. Madras Telephone SC and ST Social Welfare Association and Ors. reported in (2006) 8 SCC 662. In this case, considering the dispute relating to seniority, in view of change in law, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paragraph Nos.19,20 and 21 as under : "19. We, therefore, direct that such of the applicants whose seniority had been determined by the competent authority, and who had been given benefit of seniority and promotion pursuant to the orders passed by Courts or Tribunals following the principles laid down by the Allahabad High Court and approved by this Court, which orders have since attained finality, cannot be reverted with retrospective effect. The determination of their seniority and the consequent promotion having attained finality, the principles laid down in later judgments will not adversely affect their cases.
20. This Court has clearly clarified the position in its aforesaid judgment. The observations made by this Court while disposing of the appeal of Parmanand Lal are also pertinent. This Court clearly laid down the principle that the seniority fixed Page 6 of 17 HC-NIC Page 6 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT on the basis of the directions of this Court which had attained finality is not liable to be altered by virtue of a different interpretation being given for fixation of seniority by different benches of Tribunal. Consequently, the promotions already effected on the basis of seniority determined in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment of the Allahabad High Court cannot be altered.
21. Having regard to the above observations and clarification we have no doubt that such of the applicants whose claim to seniority and consequent promotion on the basis of the principles laid down in the Allahabad High Court's judgment in Parmanand Lal's case have been upheld or recognized by Court or Tribunal by judgment and order which have attained finality will not be adversely affected by the contrary view now taken in the judgment reported in 1997 (10) SCC 226. Since the rights of such applicants were determined in a duly constituted proceeding, which determination has attained finality, a subsequent judgment of a Court or Tribunal taking a contrary view will not adversely affect the applicants in whose cases the orders have attained finality. We order accordingly." [4.1] It is the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that order dated 30.11.2010 is an order in invitum and as such, petition should not have been entertained to question such order. While referring to section 5 and 16 of the Act, 1996, it is submitted that no intervention is necessary at this point of time in the arbitration proceedings. It is submitted that as much as, no objection was raised with regard to jurisdiction before filing of statement of defence, it is not open to raise such Page 7 of 17 HC-NIC Page 7 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT dispute at this point of time, as proceedings before the Arbitration Tribunal constituted under the Act, 1996 are at advance stage. In support of contention that intervention is not necessary at this point of time, learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance in the case of SBP and Co. v/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. and Another reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618 and also in the case of MSP Infrastructure Limited v/s. Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation Limited reported in (2015) 13 SCC 713. [5] Mr. Kamal Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 has submitted that dispute between the parties to works contract, is not in dispute and the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1992 alone has jurisdiction to adjudicate the disputes. It is submitted that said Act is enacted by the State Government to provide for constitution of Tribunal to arbitrate in disputes arising from works contracts to which the State Government or a Public Undertaking is a party and to provide for matters connected therewith. It is submitted that under Section 21 of the Gujarat Act No.4 of 1992, the provisions of the Arbitration Act, shall in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, cease to apply to any dispute arising from a works contract and all such disputes stand transferred to Tribunal constituted under the said Act. It is submitted that even before the judgment of Va Tech Esher Wyass Flovel Limited (supra) was delivered on 14.01.2010, there was judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Anshuman Shukla (supra) delivered on 12.05.2008 Page 8 of 17 HC-NIC Page 8 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT interpreting similar legislation, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the award of the Arbitral Tribunal is not subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is submitted that when State legislation is in force, provisions of the Central Act has no application. It is further submitted that judgment in the case of Va Tech Esher Wyass Flovel Limited (supra) was rendered per incuriam in view of later judgment in the case of L.G.Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors (supra). It is submitted that only Tribunal constituted under the State Act has jurisdiction to decide the disputes. It is submitted that jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the consent of the parties and it is a legislative function. In view of operating law in the State of Gujarat, i.e. Act No.4 of 1992, the learned Single Judge has rightly quashed the order and ordered to restore Arbitration Reference No.16 of 2002. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Trivedi has brought to our notice judgment of the this Court in Special Civil Application No.12632 of 2012 and allied matters, wherein, the Tribunal constituted under the Act had passed orders based on judgment in the case of Va Tech (supra) and such orders are quashed and set set aside and Arbitration References are restored. Further, it is brought to our notice the judgment in the case of Sardar Construction Co. v/s. State of Gujarat reported in (1999) 3 SCC 114, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has confirmed the order passed by this Court transferring proceedings to the Tribunal constituted under the special Act. Further, reliance is placed by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Trivedi in the case of Page 9 of 17 HC-NIC Page 9 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT M.A.Murthy v/s. State of Karnataka and Ors. Reported in (2003) 7 SCC 517, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that law declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court normally is to be assumed as law from inception. It is held in the said case that prospective overruling which is an exception to normal rule. Further in support of his argument that jurisdiction of the Court cannot be conferred by the consent of parties, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Trivedi has relied on the judgment in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and Ors. v/s. Director, Health Services, Haryana and Ors. reported in (2013) 10 SCC 136.
[6] Having learned Senior Counsel for both the sides, we have perused the order passed by the learned Single Judge and other material placed on record.
[7] Before we consider submissions made by learned Counsels, we deem it appropriate to refer certain relevant provisions of the Gujarat Public Works Contracts Disputes Arbitration Tribunal Act, 1992 (Gujarat Act No.4 of 1992). Said Act is enacted to provide for constitution of the Tribunal to arbitrate in disputes arising from works contract to which the State Government or a Public Undertaking is a party and to provide for matters connected therewith. Works contract is defined under Section 2(k) of the said Act reads as under : "2(k) Works contract" means a contract made by the State Government or the public undertaking with any other person for Page 10 of 17 HC-NIC Page 10 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT the execution of any of its works relating to construction, repairs or maintenance of any building on superstructure, dam, weir, canal, reservoir, tank, lake, road, well, bridge, culvert, factory or work shops or of such other work of the State Government or, as the case may be, of the public undertaking as the State Government may by notification in the official gazette specify and includes :
(i) a contract made for the supply of goods relating to the execution of any of such works.
(ii) a contract made by the Central Stores Purchase Organization of the State Government for purchase of sale of goods. "
[8] Under Section 3 of the Act, 1992 the State Government is empowered by notification in official gazette to establish a Tribunal to be called Gujarat Public Works Contract Disputes Arbitration Tribunal. The said Tribunal consists of the Chairman and such number of other members as may be appointed by the Government. Qualification of Chairman and members of the Tribunal are prescribed under section 3(3) of the Act.
Reference to procedure of Tribunal is referred in Chapter III of the Act.
Section 8 of the Act reads as under : "8(1) Where any dispute arises between the parties to the works contracts, either party shall, irrespective of whether such works contract contains an arbitration clause or not refer, within one year from the date when the dispute has arisen, such dispute in writing to the Tribunal for arbitration in such form and accompanied by such documents or other evidence and by such Page 11 of 17 HC-NIC Page 11 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT fees, as may be prescribed.
(2) On receipt of a reference under subsection (1), the Tribunal may, if satisfied after such inquiry as it may deem fit to make, that the requirements under this Act in relation to the reference are compiled with, admit such reference and where the Tribunal is not so satisfied, it may reject the reference summarily.
(3) Where the Tribunal admits the reference under sub section (2), it shall, after an opportunity to the parties to submit their arguments, make an award or an interim award giving its reasons therefore.
(4) The Tribunal shall use all reasonable despatch in entering on and proceeding with the reference admitted by it and making the award, and an endeavour shall be made to make an award within four months from the date on which the Tribunal had admitted the reference.
(5) The award including the interim award made by the Tribunal shall, subject to an order, if any, made under section 11 or 12 be final and binding on the parties to the dispute. (6) An award including an interim award as confirmed or varied by an order, if any, made under section 11 or 12 shall be deemed to be a decree within the meaning of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 of the principal Court of original jurisdiction within the local limits whereof the award or the interim award has been made and shall be executed accordingly."
[9] It is clear from section 8(6) of the Act, 1992 that an award including an interim award passed by the Tribunal shall be deemed to be decree within the meaning of Section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, Page 12 of 17 HC-NIC Page 12 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT 1908. Under section 13 of the Act, 1992 Civil Court jurisdiction is barred. As per section 21 of the Act, 1992, provisions of the Arbitration Act, shall in so far as they are inconsistent with the provisions of said Act are not applicable to any dispute arising from works contract and even pending proceedings shall stand transferred to the Tribunal constituted under the said Act.
[10] In this case, it is not dispute that as per terms of contract, works executed by the appellant relate to works contract within the meaning of Gujarat Act No.4 of 1992. The appellant has rightly approached the Tribunal constituted under the said Act and raised dispute which is numbered as Arbitration Reference No.16 of 2002. However, during pendency of proceedings before the Tribunal constituted under the said Act, the appellant herein has filed Civil Application No.13 of 2010 before the Tribunal in view of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Va Tech (supra). In fact, there was earlier judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Anshuman Shukla (supra), wherein, interpreting similar provisions of the M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held that award of the Arbitral Tribunal is not subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is also held that disputes arising out of works contract, the Tribunal constituted under the State Act alone has jurisdiction to decide the lis. It is true that in the case Page 13 of 17 HC-NIC Page 13 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT of Va Tech (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that after enactment of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, all kinds of disputes including the dispute relating to work contracts are covered under the said Act. Further in subsequent judgment in the case of L.G.Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that earlier judgment in the case of Va Tech(supra) was rendered per incuriam.
[11] Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dave to buttress his argument that subsequent change in law cannot be operated retrospective, placed reliance on the judgment in the case of Union of India v/s. Madras Telephone SC and ST Social Welfare Association reported in (2006) 8 SCC 662. This judgment relate to dispute regarding seniority in service law. Taking note of the fact that earlier seniority list was prepared based on law which was declared, same was acted upon and promotions were given effect to, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that determination of seniority and subsequent promotions having attained finality, subsequent change in law cannot affect rights of such persons. However, in the case on hand, there is dispute with regard to very jurisdiction based on the special legislation brought into force by the State. As such, we are of the view that said judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant would not render any assistance.
Page 14 of 17 HC-NIC Page 14 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT [12] Further, learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dave has also contended that as proceedings before the Tribunal constituted under the Act, 1996 are at advance stage, as such, no intervention could have been made by entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has placed reliance on the judgment in the case of SBP and Co. v/s. Patel Engineering Ltd. And Anr. reported in (2005) 8 SCC 618. In the said judgment, while considering the provisions of Act, 1996, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that once the matter reaches the Arbitral Tribunal or the sole arbitrator, the High Court would not interfere with the orders passed by the arbitrator or the Arbitral Tribunal during the course of the arbitration proceedings and the parties could approach the Court only in terms of Section 37 or 34 of the Act. With reference to said submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that judgment of Patel Engineering Ltd. and Anr. (Supra) would not render any assistance in support of the appellant having regard to facts of the case. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal was not subject matter of dispute in the said case.
[13] Having regard to issue involved in the present case viz. whether in view of Tribunal constituted under State Act for resolution of disputes relating to works contract, the Tribunal constituted under the Act of 1996 can be allowed to handle the disputes relating to works contract, is a matter which arise for consideration. In that view of the matter, by placing reliance on the judgments referred above and by referring to Page 15 of 17 HC-NIC Page 15 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT provisions under Section 5 and 16 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, we are not convinced to accept submission made by learned Counsel for the appellant that learned Single Judge has committed error by entertaining the petition at this stage. Further, it is to be noticed that order impugned dated 30.11.2010 in the petition is passed only in view of judgment in the case of Va Tech (supra) and same is held to be per incuriam in the subsequent judgment in the case of L.G.Chaudhary Engineers and Contractors (supra).
[14] In the case of M.A.Murthy (supra) relied by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Trivedi for the respondents, it is categorically held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that normally, decision of the Court enunciating a principle of law is applicable to all cases irrespective of stage of pendency from inception. In the aforesaid judgment, it is held that doctrine of prospective overruling which is a feature of American jurisprudence is an exception to the normal principle of law. Further, in the case of Jagmittar Sain Bhagat and Ors. (supra) relied by learned Senior Counsel Mr. Trivedi for the respondents, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that conferment of jurisdiction is a legislative function and it can neither be conferred with the consent of the parties nor by a superior court, and if the court passes a decree holding no jurisdiction over the matter, it would amount to nullity as the matter goes to the root of the matter. Both the judgments referred above, supports the case of the respondents.
Page 16 of 17 HC-NIC Page 16 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018 C/LPA/882/2017 CAV JUDGMENT [15] Further, in the case of Executive Engineer, Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam v/s. Bhaven Construction and Anr. reported in 2013 (1) GLR 580, the Division Bench of this Court has held that dispute arising out of public works contract is to be adjudicated by Arbitration Tribunal under the Act, 1992 and not under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
[16] In view of above case law on subject, which supports the case of the respondents and having regard to findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, we are of the view that learned Single Judge has not committed any error so as to interfere with the said judgment. [17] For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that order passed by the learned Single Judge is required to be confirmed by rejecting this appeal of the appellant. Accordingly, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. No order as to costs. Consequently, Civil Application stands disposed of.
(R. SUBHASH REDDY, CJ) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) satish Page 17 of 17 HC-NIC Page 17 of 17 Created On Fri Feb 09 22:59:21 IST 2018