Vinod Goel S/O Madanlal Goel vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2009

[Cites 5, Cited by 2]

Karnataka High Court

Vinod Goel S/O Madanlal Goel vs Union Of India on 26 August, 2009

Bench: P.D. Dinakaran

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26"' DAY or AUGUST, 2009

PRES£NT

THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAKARAN, CHIEF 3us'TIcI57o§"'  A"

AND   ._ V
THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE v.:'G'. sAe.HAHIT.'  "
WRIT PETITIONS No.22348'_o.r-j 2069'   
Between:      

Vinod Goel

Aged about 50 years

S/o Madanlal Goel _
Proprietor  _ 1    _
Shree Sai Venkateshware««j.M.'inera__|s g   " 
F\Eo.408, 12"' Main, R,..r.vr-.-1 E;i{tea.'_1sEo;T_  _ 
Sadashivanagar "   ,  '

Bengalooru ~ 560 O8!)  1];__

...PetEtioner

(E§y.V_S'r'iIH.'N'._ N"aAh;'or1'dareody, Sr. Advocate
forasri  -\_/inayakeerthy, Advocate)

An_.d?_

1. VU_rj§on:'o.f_V1radvéa«.A '  __
Rep_re5ented_"t1y '%tS~.Se}:retary
MinEs~*:ry--.of M'ines__ * "

 ¢._5haStr'i,_Bhavan .. 

New oerm --*"..}.lC' 001

' .4 'Staniie. of KarVr:--*a.ta ka

 4Re.o'rese'nted by its Secretary
Departmeant of Commerce and Industries

 V~E«dha'na Souciha, Ambedkar Veedhi .
"'oeU.9.aIooru _ 560 001

 



3. Director
Department of Mines and Geology
Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road

Bengaiooru ~ 560 001 .g 
...Respio_n'd_'en_ts

(by Sri Basavaraj Kareddy, GA for R2 and   in
Sri H. Venkatesha Docfderi, CGSC for R1) 

This writ petition is filed under Arti.cie's»-.2g26--i_andiiovff'the..
Constitution of India praying to consider they ap'piicati'on'--..ofA thef
petitioner at Annexure--F and grant mining ie-ase in"his..fayou_r'=.fo'r..

carrying out mining activity over an _extent-- of 55Og.a7c.reis in Jog,

Thimmappanagudi, Bhavihalli, NEB' Roingge, Sandur 'Tl."ai'uk'v--ii.l3c~=ilary * L'

District.

This writ petition coming upgfor oreilirn.:ir.3iry..hearinig"th'is day, the
Court delivered the followiri9:-- " '  2   

.3 u  

(Deigii._i;eréd' 'by,  oi, 'oi; n_ai<:a as ;  .)
Sri Ve_inkatesh.'_.. Q<i~dideri;~.i_'__learned Central Government
Standing Counsel 'takes.V_netice'"for'the first respondent.

2. ..4§{Tihe~ petitii'on.er__is'engaged in the business of carrying ouitﬁirniningw a,<::tivi'ty"'~--a__nd using the iron ore for manufacturing ':2_stainleissisteeii,'iiia~»i--l,_oy;i"steeEs and rolling products through blast '.:;furn--ace routQ:.'AAh'a"ying manufacturing facilities in Karnataka, 4: ii/slia'harrast»it--r_a and Goa. It is the case of the petitioner:

(i)

(ii) 3 that the petitioner's company is a fully integrated steei plant; the company has induction furnaces in Goa and a fuliy 'V' roliing rniil; the annuaf capacityiieof is 0.8 MT and the annuaf waves crore; the company has "given evn'i;3!oyrnen.it'~t.om about 3000 Eabourers;

that the petitionerVgapotriineot of 550 acres of Beilary District' No.2 and 3 said appiication an0d.«th.e of Karnataka also grantetda of land in Jog, .1iih§_rnm_appanag--u.di, Bhavihalii, NEB Range, ' Beliary Districtl; after a cietaifed .'t""corres*";j'en:tience with the petitioner the restponvdents No.2 and 3 recommended the case 0 the petitioner to the Centrai Government for its approval;

(iii) § (N) that the Secretary Government (Mines, SSE 8:

Textiles), "Commerce and Department-second respondent herein, by No.CI.252:MiVliV!;2OO6 dated 9"' October,"éoQ%~'j';~.:..u "' recommended to the Secretary.

of India, Ministry of Mlnes,':,to1'_'_'gir-lant=.Vrrli:n'jn§:"j---..w*A lease over an area of 5'S.Q"'~a,cresA'EnV l\:.E_Bl".vRa*n_'g*e,.. Sandur Taluk, Bellary oisoiizia in fav.ou'r.,Qf_,the petitioner's Coﬁ:§a.ny.g.Mi,/s.. Shree Sai Venkateshwara Ml,ii'e'rais': 'iron ore, after the ',R_:._rle_ S9._{ 1f}{a ) dot' the Mineral Co_ncesslVor;'.Rol'es,"1.§6Q {for short 'MC Rules']. that"thereai*ter','.'.trle:"_.Director of Department of and"Geo_l_og-y, vlde his letter dated 17"' _0Cto«b€«f,""*,2007 addressed a letter to the the Government (Mines, SS1 & " * peoartment, .4"Te>'§t,lles'l, Commerce and Industries Bangalore informing that fsovernment had already recommended " 140 Industries (V) hectares for grant of mining ieasenin favour of M/s. VISL under Section 17A of Mines Minerais (Development and Reguiation}§'_:«.}»\c'tr,',j'g'*r:..T*' 1957 [for short 'MMDR Act'],_for wriiichfiin,/'s-§ Kurnar Gowda and Sons has:'».,4brc;ug.ht stay' order NO.13(1O)/O7/O8,fi'«r:iVateci'-6*' seprt,e%rr:i:e_r,,g :3 2007 from the Mines TrEt;:i:Lr"i1.ai,-.._Gov.e'rnrn'ent,% of India and therefore,"exc«E_ud;,igng"the.:'said area of 140 hectares, an..~~--arefa 'o€_<_1_3ioir_ [$2.61 hectares}Vai<:}n'e. is free. _tor_gra nit, tha"t'* Secretary to Go'v_ern_menii,:V:.,'""r«:(F'~1E.n'e.s',"_. ssI and Textties), Comrnerce~ and Industries Department, by fetter rNo.ci;'2«s..2.:.i-*iMM.2006 dated 23" May,

--v2gAOO8*,g'a.ci'dressed to the Commissioner and "oérectioiij,'Mines and Geoiogy, stated that as per "the"'*«si<Vetch sent by the Commissioner, Mines it 'Vand Geology, 220 acres are availabie for granting the mining tease; and { 7JWVﬂMﬂ,d.. .. .

(vi) that, after deducting 140 hectares (350 acres) from 550 acres recommended under SectioVn'r_.._R*._ 17-A of the MMDR Act to M/s. visi. Limite;d"ior_~ grant of mining iease in favour of the_.,r>et.it'i"o,ne.r: 4 by proceedings dated 9"' Octo_ber.,.4gA2.DG--7g,.:

balance of about 200 acres a'i<e."avaii€Jb'iei,:for grantof mining tease in fayotir of thepetitioner.

3. It is with this backg'r'oiu;nd;i_tE»eiv p2e'titio;n'e.r sought a writ of mandamus direci,ing_ the"'V're:sp.on:o'e_nts consider his appiication and gra'n't..__rrii._n.i;'ng i.ea__se_iri-I' favour for carrying out mining activity';/'.i"'i' -

3. Sui3se'c;uentiy,Afjtne~~._o'eti~ti'oner fiied IA to amend the prayer as h_er.eunder:_:V 'aiternatiye, issue a writ, order or direction inandamus directin_g' the respondents to §o.n$iaer'"'ai%a:.. the mining iease appiication of the _ peti'fione,.f"rbfthe area remaining after exciuding (from x _*..the area surrendered by M/s. Chowguie & Co.) the area' VA "..f,brobo..sedV'to be reserved for M/s. i/ISL without prejudice fo_Vtne'petitioner's right to be considered and granted a area, this Court, on 12"' August, 2009, passed order:

V A. 2.vv"We find that even in the amended prayer, the _ 'pe'titi_oner is not in a position to mention the extent for mining lease for any or aii of the area proposed to be reserved/aiiotted in favour of M/s. 1/ISL. "

4. Misc. W. 8009/ 09 seeking gpermissiosn: to amend/insert the As the petitioner has not specificaily mentionedthe "Notice.

2. The petitioner has fiied'amenVdr.nent aprpiicatiQ_n prayer as foiiows:

"In the aiteri'iat}v_e,'--_issstie a"wriit;'iorder or direction in the nature of ."ma'n§i'a'rrius directing _t.i€e '-respﬁondgehnts .to'~.b.t'¢o_ns'id'er: and grant" 'the; mii?1ing"';'ease appii'cation of the pvetitioner "ui7i)"r._ "tne"~_a'r--ea ' remaining after eXci;,iding '(froiri'--th'e.___.a.*'ea surrendered by M/s.Chowgd/e'v--_& ACo.)--"Vthe area proposed to .«.ibe i'i'eserved=..for M/s. 1/ISL without prejudice toE"thejapetitionens right to be considered and inining lease for any or ail of the it W'areahifproiayovsed to be reserved/aiiotted in fa-jotir of M/s. VISL which he is seeking grant of mining lease. MI"

§:......W\ 2009 disposed of on 20"' August, 2009), following the judgment rendered in Writ Petition No.SO22 of 2009 disposed of c'»§x:1i"

June, 2009 wherein it has dealt with the ma.ttVe'r_s"si'_._:0i'. industrialization and the necessity for prompt_deVci~-s,iVonl,::'én the grant of mining lease which would development of the Country, has observed'---as'V.hereur£deVr:A' "8.4. That apart, emphasi's__:is-..ai'so maderas toithe need for prompt exercise'-._of _bovver--.b;rl"the State and Central Government in clearl'ngl5' .i'he.,'lia,o_,;v,licati'ons for approval contemplated, under. .Sect'io_h__5' of MMDR Act and Section 2 {of Forest?('C'on'se,rvationﬁ Act within a reasonable time_"«.li'mit5'._in 'sand dated 11"' June 2009 madegvin.Wri'tl«1l3etitl."ori which reads as hereuni;ler.- C _ H V V _ _ "18. VWhile nrlning"as'ia._.staynd-alone industry cannot be ignor,ed,_ thev..co"ntent'io_n' of the petitioner based on the policy decisi.on'«.,rJf the Central and State Go.vernment'..,that'"preference should be given to c.a,l:gti've' ml'ni'ng'*--wihifle. granting mining lease, also deserves "due consideration. The schedule of time , 'prescribedaunder Rule 53,4 of the MC Rules is also .g re'qJl'r'editoi' .be'--:.strictly adhered to, 'as the State is . bound'v f'b.,v such time schedule in deciding the 'ap,olication's for grant of mining lease. It is true that no 's,becifi'c time limitation is given for granting a,o,oroval by the Central Government, but that does » not mean that the Central Government could take ,0 " itsown sweet time, which in our considered opinion

-- _ xwotgld be unreasonable and arbitrary, because any Such delay would affect the economic growth of the State.

12 which is 'fairplay in action'. Due observance of this obligation as a part of good administration raises a reasonable or legitimate expectation in every citizen to be treated fairly in his interaction with the State and its instrumentalities, with this element.f'-- forming a necessary component of th_e_'.~--._ decision--mal<ing process in all S_tate__actions. V "

To satisfy this requirement of" «.n'o_n---I' ._ arbitrariness in a State ac't?ion;,"'=i1* is, _' therefore, necessary to c.onsidei«..ahd give,jgA"~ * due weight to the reasonable or le.qitimate_ expectations of the perso'n.s"'~ilil<ely to 'be;

affected by the decision 'or else that unfairness in the ex'ercise,.of'ihe*po':aier may-A amount to an a'bu--s_eﬁ or;excess~.._'o,f"«power apart from affecting the bona= fid'es~.of* the decision in a given__case. The deci's'.'or1_-'so made wouldibe exp'ose'q'~tp _challengVe«.Qn the ground oif'Varl_'y'.ti'ariness: F"ule'*ofVi'aw..dQ'es not comple:"ely._ §€,'_J,'."'l;'}'.'?l'.'Vla_iEf' ..,disCreftion , in the exercise of"pow'er, asjit"is.,~un'realisti'c, but provifdes'efo'i 'cqntrcl_ 'of its 'o>__<_ercis}e by judicial rﬁleview."-. 1'5" * "

8\._._Tl?.e Vmerea reasonable or legitimate expectation of aA'c.iti'2'en,' in such a situation, may not by itself be,-~a distinct enforceable gright, but-.faiiu're to consider and give due v_»'~:'.,yveight to "":'t_____n1ay render the decision , arb"itraVi'y, and this is how the requirement of ._due*c,ons"i'deration of a legitimate expectation forms 'V Vpiartg. of the principle of non~ '--..,,arbitrar_iness, a necessary concomitant of the rule or' -law. Every legitimate expectation is a relevant factor requiring due consideration in a Vfatir decision--mal<ing process. Whether the expectation of the claimant is reasonable or "legitimate in the context is a question of fact

----in each case. Whenever the question arises, it is to be determined not according to the claimant's perception but in larger public interest wherein other more important 13 considerations may outweigh what would otherwise have been the legitimate expectation of the claimant. A bona fide decision of the public authority reached in this manner would satisfy the requirement of non--arbitrariness and withstand judicial scrutiny. The doctrine of , legl'tima-te._':"~.Vv" it expectation gets assimilated in'"th--e.gru{'_e of law and operates in our legal system in 'this ' manner and to this extent." ' ' " ' ten<:phasis' v-.supplieTd_) 19.6. In the case of OgFFICIAL=.,LIQUIDATOR.' v. DA YANAND reportec'l,in {2o08)10 'scc 1, the Apex Court while dealing' witih 3 th'ef doctrine of legitimate expectation obsery'e'd'Vthat_.-.._ " ' "

"102. The con-ceptiz of, "due-.' process or law"

has played a1}majoi* role' in the debt/e'iopment of aC'i?ll'Ti.'v$'ff3'E7.i'Vt3' law;--..__It~._ensLires_fairness in public _vadmini'stra'tion;.V"- administrative authorities w'i.i;o..aie_e.ntruste.d_with the task of deciding lis between . the parties or aofjudiicating"-.,upon"~._ the 'rights of the individuals--are:fduty:bou.nd to comply with the "rules or natural, justice, which are multifa"ceted, "They absence of bias in the ;'decision--mal<ing process and compliance ._"'?:4/ith audi alterarnpartem are two of these facets. The doctrine of legitimate expectation .,is~a 'na's_ce'n_t addition to the rules of natural justice} Itgoes beyond statutory rights by A "-.iservi'nVg--. as another device for rendering just~ice."f..~At the root of the principle of ''.legitimate expectation is the constitutional prinréiple of rule of law, which requires .«_reg'ularity, predictability and certainty in "Governments dealings with the public----J. "Raz, The Authority of Law [(19?9) Chapter 11]. The "legal certainty" is also a basic principle of European community. European , .. ,47,,,__1 14 law is based upon the concept of vertrauensschutz (the honouring ofa trust or confidence). It is for these reasons that the existence of a legitimate expectation may even in the absence ofa right ofprivate law, A' justify its recognition in public law.

103. In Halsbury's Laws of England}_g'éith'*--:'_".'V Edn.), the doctrine of legitimate expeci_ta--tion< has been described in the following :g--vords."--.

"A person may haveta legitl'ri:ate'ov:V.it . expectation of bei'ng--_Vti=eated " in a A certain way by an adrri,'.nistrative authority even though he has no legaik right in private 'law to reeeiveii'-such treatment. The "expecta tion may» arise either from a representa_ti'on"gor. promise, made... the au'tl.7o'r*.'7-.ti_y--,""

including. an implied rep'resentat'.;on, or from Cpiisistevnt ﬂoast p'i'act'icev.----'?~

104. A -iformal statement. on the doctrine of leg'itirna_tej; expec--tation-. can"'t:e"found in the }'udgmenVt7o~f theVHouse__of_Lords in Council of Civil "Servi'ce.:"~tinioVns.__ v". Minister for Civil Service. t In .that*case__ the Government tried to forbid tifade unionism among civil service.

_For this," the .Civil"Service Order in the 1982 ..«.{Council wastissued. The Court of Appeal Vdeclared that" """ the Minister had acted unlawfully in abridging the fundamental right "of"a_ ci'ti;>:en"to become a member of the trade un'ioh,., Th'e"' House of Lords approved the .""%]'udgn:ehtl:' of the Court of Appeal and held that'su--ch a right could not be taken away without consulting the civil servant .concerned.

2105. In India, the courts have gradually recognised that while administering the affairs of the State, the Government and its departments are expected to honour the 15 policy statements and treat the citizens without any discrimination. The theory of legitimate expectation first found its mention in Navjyoti Coop. Group Housing Society v. Union of India. In that case the right of a housing society for right to priority in the matter of registration was recognised in the

15) following words: (SCC pp. 494-95, paras 15- I' "151 In the aforesaid facts, the"

Group Housing Societieswere"entitled ' to 'legitimate expectatio_n"'~of folio-wing_ consistent past practice 'iirt the matter I ' ' of allotment, even thhough"-they may"

not have any legal right in pri'_v.ate.law to receive su'ch--. treajtmentf .,The existence of 'legitimate exp«e.cta--tion? may have ay'num,ber" .of._ different consequences and..«' one." f_'of_ such con.se.que_inces~. is that _.the authority otiighz,".no't"--.__to"--.a-ct" to, defeat the 'legi'tirnaite e><pectation"'wi'tl*.§out some I'ouetrridingxfi;."'eason*-of p'u't3vliC" policy to justi'"fy._--v its "<doi'ng"*«.so_ In a case of . 'i'egit.'rnate"-.t' I >eeXpect'ati'on' if the "authority '-.propa_._se':"" to defeat a person's' .'le'g.itima'te expectation' it . should afford3him an opportunity to Vmaiteirepreseritations in the matter. this con'n'ecti'on reference may be _ irnadev to the discussions on _ V'--v.'_'le.gitirriate expectation' at p.151 of fvol. v.j1'(1) of Halsbury's Laws of En.gia'nd, 4th Edn. (re--issue). We may also refer to a decision of the House , of Lords in Council of Civil Service "Unions v. Minister for Civil Service. It has been held in the said decision that an aggrieved person was entitled to judicial review if he could show that a decision of the public authority affected him of some benefit or 16 advantage which in the past he had been permitted to enjoy and which he legitimately expected to be permitted to continue to enjoy either until he was given reasons for withdrawal and the opportunity to comment on such reasons.

16. It may be indicated here that the doctrine of 'legitimate expectation' imposes in essence a duty onypublic' authority to act fairly by ta'l<i'ng";'nto--, consideration all relevant: factors relating to such 'legitimate expectation'. Within the Conspectus of * fair dealing in case 'Qf"*~.fiegitirnate_u expectation', the '=..reasonab'i-e ' it ' ' opportunities to. make represeh~tati'on by the parties iil_<ely to_'Vbe_ai']€efct.ed..by any change of consistentﬁoastpoticty,_ come in. We have" nott'been.-~«.shoj'rm any corripellingi"'reaysons' ._t'a_t<en; into consi'd~eratio.n by the .j_'~.Centrai Gover*:iment._i to ' « make _.-.3 f- departure from the existing.jpvo'li::_y" oﬂallotment with», "re:ference«--. 'to. «'seniori'ty in i'egi'stra'tion ffbv"-in.troduci'ng a new guideline. ' (emphasis supplied ) V _ .t9;~;?.'.._'rh¢» Apex Court in TATA IRON AND '$TEEL"CO. V£;.T£_2. V. UNION OF INDIA reported in ~.('.'£.996)9_"_~.SC'C' 709, approving the view of the C.ornmi_ttee----V_appoi'nted by the Central Government pursuant to the directions to the High Court of Orissa,";. consisting of senior officers from the = .. Mini'stry of Mines, the Indian Bureau of Mines and vth'e,Geologi'cai Survey of India, that the National 'Mineral Policy having been tabled before both the 'Houses of Parliament, is a guiding factor in the fdecision~mal<ing process of the Government and, ::,_,...._;,*:M\ 17 both i'n the National Mineral Policy as well as the Industrial Policy of the State of Orissa, captive mining has been recognized as a fundamental guideline in determining the criteria for granting mining lease, held that the Committee made an estimate of the captive mining requirement of each of the parties appearing before it, after coming to the conclusion that captive mining _ _ is a fundamental guideline to be kept in mingd"-X L" ' while renewing the lease.

20. In that view of the matter, we do i_--i'ot's"ei_='3'y ' any error or illegality on the part of the 'p_etiti'o:ner'' ' in approaching this court for seekingfappropria-te" _ direction to both Central and State Government--to » = process the applications in<ac.cordanc_e' wi'thWthev___ policy decision taken by tl7em',--,«3s..ythe petitioner is", H entitled to seek such relief based on legitimate expectation.

21. Therefore, we "are V tco;nLfi'nceVd..g that the petitioner is bonafide in approaching this' vC,fo.u__r.l; with the above public-interest "i'i't--ig'ati'on'laying this hands on the very l}la'ti'on}al M=iner:al...Poli'cy'; and 2008 as well as the _.i<arnatai'<'a__ Mineral Policy, 2008, which "itself provide forvépromoting and encouraging sci'entifi'i:u mining, ni-etihods "by" employing advanced mining eg¢i4ipinen't.and 'maJchineri'es with skilled and non~sl<i'lled "rnanpowei-' and actively encouraging vaitie addition which should go hand--in--hand with fl";.é,'V.gi'?fQWfi?zOf theV'rn'i'neral sector as a stand--alone .' 'industrial activity and to give priority to the _ "'applican_ts,. Lniho propose to establish industries " ._based"on~value"addition making it clear that mining as "a standéalone industry needs to be encouraged asait provides large scale employment; new mineral based industries should be set up to match the available raw material resources,' existing and new intjustries should set up facilities to bring the 'available raw materials up to the required 'speciﬁcations by processes like beneficiation, __?pelietisation and sintering; and these industries will 18 generate more employment and spawn auxiliary industries.

22. In the circumstances, we direct:

(0

(ii)

(iii) the State Government to strictly adhere to the time schedule prescribed under Ruie 63A _ of the MC Rules in disposing the appli'cations:.._'_» r- ' for grant of mining iron ore within the State of Karnataka;

to consider the matters Zspeciﬂed under" ._ Section 11(3) of the MMDR Act-ré~ad,w'ith*- V Rule 35 of the MC Rules strictly inthe mat.ter_ , " "

of grant of mining lease of iron ore i'ngt'heV State of Karnataka;

to give preference 'the 'c'aptiye_:§ consumption of'ir.on ore for their existing iron and steel i'n'diistrie,s, {off course', ._without causing any harm to-1thel'existi'ngVmining as a stand--alone industry fasit 'E4/Ould gojin line with thevi'Vation[ai l\_4inera.lV'Po*licy; 2008 and the liarnatakav * Mineral _ l?oli'cy,"".2008 to generate_n'ior_Ve en.7p_lo'y.ment".in the State and also _pro_vi'de rm-.1Vva.iue "atldi'tion and satisfy the _end~--usé3;:_.o_f minerals 'bysuch applicants;

(iv) direct the'Eentral;Govemment to dispose of the «.app,'i'ca'tion_s*for»-the approval of mining lease as contemplated under Section 5 of the MMIJR Act and/or 'Section 2 of the FC Act, as S " the casemay be. within the reasonable time, Enot.__exceedi*ng...six months from the date of "receipt of applications for such approval, so »_that;.the_re would not be any financial strain

--On.ti:e'iri.vestments that may be made by the industrialists as well as ﬁnancial aid that may be _extended by the State or state-owned . V'Corporati'on or the Nationaiised Banks in this ' regard; and 21 further orders, in accordance with the provisions' MMDR Act, within six months thereafter. '4 it the recommendations to be made by ._

(iii) Government to the Central Go'V'eVrn'rnent orders of the. Centrat Government7'ﬁi'i*ected..'A't?. passed in this regard, referreda to in,_cViausensV:"{§.)and

(ii) above, shall be without p'Eeg'ta1ce td ~th:ér§:gh.t:~§ of the petitioner and su.tijectg.iito=theVv"'cf_ecision"*o€"Vthe revision pending befoie'gtheo__CentraiijE5/iitnes Tribunat against the lease gra.nte.d'--..inV..favo'tir.'ot.i.»V\"iSL under Section i7A;of"t;h;e MM__DP_. Actyr

8. Ho'WevesrV,':iither:e; "sha'!~l_:be no'"'o'r'dier as to costs.

Sdfl ' Chief Iusticé Sd/'3 IUDGE {"Yesb/"i*lo "_WebfHost: Yes / No

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court