Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt Ketki Gupta vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 November, 2024
Author: Milind Ramesh Phadke
Bench: Milind Ramesh Phadke
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT G WA L I O R
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
WRIT PETITION No. 21252 of 2024
SMT KETKI GUPTA
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appearance:
Shri N K Gupta - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Ishwar Singh
Jadon - Advocate, Shri Himanshu Sharma - Advocate and Shri Y.P.S.
Rathore - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Kamal Prajapati - Govt. Advocate for the
respondents/State.
Shri Arvind Dudawat - Senior Advocate alongwith Shri
Neerendra Sharma - Advocate for the respondent/caveator.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reserved on : 17/10/2024
Delivered on : 12/11/2024
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petition having been heard and reserved for orders,
comiing on for pronouncement this day, the Hon'ble Shri Justice
Milind Ramesh Phadke pronounced/passed the following:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER
The instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 08.07.2024 passed by respondent No.2, whereby while allowing the objections preferred by respondent No.6, who was neither co-applicant nor was an operator of a vehicle on the specified route, the application for counter-signature 2 in the State of Madhya Pradesh for permanent permits numbered:
CG/STA/77/2014 and CG/STA/78/2014 on Dindori to Korba route, each permitting one-one single daily operation, has been rejected. The rejection was predicated on the alleged outstanding motor vehicle tax on the applicant's vehicle No. MP18-H-4455, purportedly due from 01-08-2009 to 31-08-2019.
2. The aforesaid order was assailed on the ground that it was issued by respondent No.2 illegal and contrary to the established record, as it was made without due consideration of the relevant facts since the vehicle No. MP18-H-4455, which was originally registered by the Shahdol registering authority on 03-10-2005 but subsequently was cancelled by the Additional Regional Transport Officer, Shahdol vide letter dated 15-05-2008 under sub-section (5) of Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and as the said authority had cancelled the registration of the petitioner's vehicle, the petitioner was not obligated to deposit any tax, however, the authorities are now demanding tax from 01-08-2009 to 31-08-2019 on the vehicle in question, despite failing to update the vehicle's cancellation status on the relevant portal and while considering the petitioner's application for countersignature, respondent No. 2 erroneously shifted the burden of accountability onto the petitioner, rather than addressing the failure of the registering authority to maintain accurate records. The impugned order is further 3 assailed on the ground that the authority had incorrectly asserted that the petitioner had failed to provide cancellation of the vehicle's registration, despite the cancellation order dated 15.05.2008 was issued by the Additional Regional Transport Officer, Shahdol and this mis-judgement had led to the rejection of the petitioner's countersignature application.
3. Furthermore, the order has been assailed alleging that the outstanding tax liability was determined by the authority solely on the basis of the online portal record which was not updated by the office and without any substantive assessment or verification by the Regional Transport Offices (RTO) at Shahdol or Anuppur and this reliance on an unverified online record represents a significant procedural lapse and undermines the principles of natural justice that too based on the record of the petitioner's vehicle, which should have been updated by the authorities after cancellation of its registration which they failed to do, though the administrative law mandates that decisions should be based on a thorough and diligent examination of all relevant records, thus, the arbitrary reliance on an outdated online portal record, without comprehensive assessment by the responsible authorities, indicates a dereliction of duty and a failure to adhere to due process.
4
4. The order has further been assailed on the ground that allowing the objection from a party with no standing or direct interest in the matter further exacerbates the miscarriage of justice and involvement of respondent No. 6 in grant of issuance of regular permit to the petitioner since illegally unfounded, as he was neither a co- applicant nor an operator on the relevant route and no prejudice would have been caused to him if the petitioner would have been granted the permit and would have operated on the route in question. Thus, alleging the decision to entertain such an objection is procedurally improper and extraneous to the issue at hand, the present petition has been filed.
ARGUMENTS
5. Shri N K Gupta, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Ishwar Singh Jadon, Shri Himanshu Sharma and Shri Y.P.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the petitioner had vehemently argued that respondent No.2 had illegally rejected the petitioner's application for counter signature by concluding that the petitioner has not been able to prove that vehicle's registration was cancelled in the year 2008 and this conclusion was reached despite of a cancellation letter dated 15.05.2008 issued by Assistant Regional Transport Officer, which was on record but only cause the Regional Transport Officer, Shahdol had 5 failed to update the status of the petitioner's vehicle on the portal, the said erroneous finding disregarding the substantial documentary evidence was given, which had resulted in an unjust rejection of the application, which is erroneous.
6. It was further argued that no notice regarding the alleged tax dues was ever issued to the petitioner for her vehicle bearing registration number MP18-H-4455 and this oversight had violated the principles of natural justice and due process, depriving the petitioner of the opportunity to contest the tax demand and rectify the records and the failure to issue a notice and then eject the petitioner's application based on the tax dues placed an unjust burden on the petitioner and had undermined her right to a fair hearing.
7. It was also argued that the petitioner was unaware that her vehicle bearing registration No.MP18-H-4455 had its registration cancelled by the authorities on 15-05-2008, as a result, she continued to operate the vehicle and pay the required taxes based on the issued permit and she only became aware of the cancellation order on 01-08- 2009 and from that point onwards she had immediately ceased operating the vehicle. It was also submitted that it was the duty of the Registering Authority to update and delete the vehicle's record from the online portal once its registration was cancelled by Respondent 6 No. 4, however, the Authorities have failed to do so and upon discovering that the vehicle's record had not been removed from the portal, the petitioner filed multiple applications requesting its removal but till date the office of respondent has not taken any action on these applications, and the record remains on the portal.
8. It was further argued that the respondent No. 2 had issued the impugned order without first ascertaining the locus of respondent No.6 and this critical oversight had resulted in the consideration of an objection from a party lacking legal standing in the matter. Thus, it was further submitted that the failure to address this fundamental issue not only reflects a lack of due diligence but also demonstrates a procedural flaw in the decision-making process. Hence, respondent No. 6 had no locus standi to file an application/objection regarding grant of permit to the petitioner's vehicle since he was neither a co- applicant nor an operator on the relevant route and thus had no direct interest or standing in the issue at hand.
9. While referring to the judgement of this Court in the matter of Gurinder Singh Atwaal Vs. State of M.P. & Others passed in M.P. No.4391/2018 it was argued that respondent No.6 being a part route operator had no locus to file an objection, but without determining the locus standi, the objections of respondent No. 6 were entertained, 7 which had rendered the order passed by respondent No.2 inappropriate and in total disregard to the procedural norms, thus, has undermined the procedural integrity of the order and since there is a critical lapse in the decision-making process, as it was allowed an extraneous and irrelevant objections to influence the outcome, the order deserves to be quashed. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, it was submitted that the present petition deserves to be allowed and the impugned order is liable to be quashed.
10. On the contrary, Shri Arvind Dudawat, learned Senior Advocate alongwith Shri Neerendra Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 while referring the contents of his short reply had argued that though registration of the petitioner's vehicle bearing No.MP18-H-4455 was cancelled by the Registering Authority, Shahdol under Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicle Act, vide letter dated 15.05.2008 and it was intimated to the petitioner on her registered address and she was directed to deposit the original registration certificate of the vehicle in the office, but the petitioner till date has not surrendered/deposited the required documents though they were mandatory to be deposited with the Registration Authority, Shahdol, which renders the arguments as raised by the counsel for the petitioner negatory that since the registration of the vehicle itself was cancelled in the year 2008, she was liable to pay any tax over it. 8
11. It was further argued that the petitioner without surrender/deposit of the original documents of vehicle like registration, fitness and insurance before the Registering Authority had plied alleged vehicle illegally on the route obtaining temporary permits and this fact was duly considered in the impugned order after verification report of the concerned Regional Transport Officer/D.T.O., Shahdol and Anuppur vide letters dated 06.03.2024 and 07.03.2024, therefore, on this count, it cannot be said that the petitioner was not liable to pay the tax after cancellation of the registration.
12. It was further argued that the respondents No.4 and 5 after verification of the record of the petitioner has given the report that, the petitioner had obtained fitness certificate of the said vehicle after the cancellation of registration and so also had deposited the monthly Motor Vehicles Tax till 31.07.2009 and had also verified that petitioner was plying temporary permits on different-different route after the registration was cancelled,
13. It was further argued that against the petitioner tax liability to the tune of Rs.23,44,049/- was due, therefore, without clearance the tax dues, petitioner was not eligible for grant of the counter signature of impugned permits, therefore, the order impugned was in accordance 9 with the provisions of law and decisions of the Apex Court and this Court.
14. Learned Senior Counsel while referring to Section 88(4), which provides that any grant, revocation or suspension of countersignature of permits, shall be governed by the provisions of Chapter-V of Motor Vehicles Act and from the provisions of the aforesaid Chapter, it is clear that the countersignature is also a grant of permit because an inter-state permit comes into existence only after grant of permit of countersignature. Therefore, for obtaining countersignature no dues certificate for payment of tax is a condition precedent and in want of non-payment of dues of taxes, no countersignature of a permit could be granted. To be precise, it was argued that the provisions of Section 72, which provides for conditions for grant of fresh permits is also applicable in the case of grant of countersignature, as provided under Section 88(1) and(3) and, therefore, the provisions of Rule 72(3) of the M.P. Motor Vehicle Rules, 1994 was rightly made applicable in the case in hand while considering the application for countersignature of petitioner's permit, thus, no illegality has been committed in declining the countersignature of the petitioner's permit on the basis of dues of tax.
15. It was also argued that admittedly on the date for 10 consideration on the application for countersignature the petitioner was having dues of taxes on vehicle bearing Nos. MP18-H-44, CG10- G-1622 and CG10-G-1445, as "No Dues Certificates" in conformity with clause (d) of Rule 72(3) were not produced, as such the petitioner was not eligible for grant of countersignature as per law laid down by the Apex Court in the matters of Arbind Kumar Singh Vs. Nandkishore Prasad and Anr. reported in AIR 1968 SC 1227; State of M.P. Vs. State Transport Appellate Tribunal and Anr. passed in W.P. No.1616/1996 decided on 04.02.2000 and in the matter of Kisan Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2008(1) MPJR 87 and admittedly, the petitioner had not filed any no dues certificate of her vehicles as required under Rule 72(3)(d) of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 to the competent registering authority neither she had challenged the dues of the tax which is shown against the said vehicle independently, as per Section 20 of the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, therefore, such dues of taxes cannot be questioned in the instant petition, as it is settled principle of law that "what cannot be done directly, cannot be permitted to be done indirectly", as it has been held in the matter of M/s Taxi Owners United Transport Vs. State Transport Authority (Orissa) reported in AIR 1983 SC 281;.
16. It was thus argued that in view of the said facts and legal position, the contention of the petitioner that due to cancellation of the 11 registration of vehicle in question, she could not be held liable to pay the dues of taxes, shown against her is not legally accepted and unless she produces no dues certificate to the concerning Taxation Authority, it cannot be presumed that she was not liable to pay the tax.
17. Without prejudice to the said contention, learned Counsel has also submitted that despite service of letter dated 09.04.2008 informing the cancellation of registration of vehicle No.MP18-H-4455 on 28.03.2008, the petitioner had failed to comply the provision of sub-Section (6) of Section 55, as neither she had filed any document of the concerning registering authority for compliance of said provision of sub Section (6), nor she had surrendered the document of registration immediately to the concerning registering authority, therefore, for want of strict compliance, of sub-Section (6) of Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the document cannot be looked into for relaxation of the dues of taxes.
18. It was further brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner had filed a separate writ petition No.3428/2024 on 08.02.2024 before this Court, Principal Seat at Jabalpur and in the said matter no interim relief has been granted, therefore, dues outstanding against Vehicle No.MP18-H-4455 is still in existence. Hence, order impugned passed on 08.07.2024 is sustainable in the eyes of law. 12
19. To further bolster his submissions, learned counsel for respondent No.6 had placed reliance in the matters of Chandra Kishore Jha Vs. Mahavir Prasad and ors. reported in AIR 1999 SC 3558; Ram Kishan Vs. State of M.P. & ors. reported in 2007(3) MPLJ 190; and Neerendra Singh Chauhan Vs. State of M.P. & ors. reported in 2020(3) MPLJ 302.
20. A reply has been filed on behalf of the State and on the basis of the contents of the reply it was argued by the learned Govt. Advocate that the order/letter of the cancellation of registration of the petitioner's vehicle dated 15.05.2008 was validly and legally issued by Additional Transport Officer and subsequently an attempt was made to serve the notice at the address provided by the petitioner in the vehicle registration documents. However, the notice could not be served as the address was found to be incorrect. As a result, another notice was issued to the petitioner under the provisions of Section 55(5) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, directing her to submit the original registration certificate and other related documents to the department for further verification, but despite being duly notified, the petitioner failed to comply with the notice and did not submit the original registration certificate of her vehicle. Consequently, the department was unable to proceed with further steps under Sections 55(6) and 55(7) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, which pertained to the deletion 13 of a vehicle's entry from official records. As a result, the vehicle remained on record as registered vehicle of the petitioner, which made her liable to pay the required taxes for the same.
21. It was further argued that the petitioner herself had admitted in para 5(x) of the writ petition that she became aware of the cancellation of her vehicle's registration only on 01.08.2009, until that time, she had regularly paid the applicable taxes on the vehicle. However, after 01.08.2009 the petitioner never approached the respondent authorities, nor submitted any of the original documents, including the registration certificate, which would have enabled the authorities to cancel the vehicle's registration and remove its entry from the official records. Thus, the petitioner's inaction had left the registration status of the vehicle unchanged and, therefore, she is liable for payment of taxes associated with the said vehicle.
22. It was further argued that the petitioner only started raising grievances through representations in the years 2022-2024, i.e. more than a decade after the issue first arose and this considerable delay in approaching the respondents and taking necessary action further undermines the petitioner's case, as at no point during this extended period did the petitioner fulfiled the statutory obligations required for the cancellation of the vehicle's registration or provide the necessary 14 documentation that would have allowed the department to act accordingly.
23. In the light of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the State argued that petitioner's failure to comply with the legal notices and the procedures under the Motor Vehicles Act, coupled with long delay in pursuing the matter, renders her claims unsustainable and as the petitioner had remained liable for the taxes due on the vehicle, and the department can be said to have acted within the bounds of the law in issuing the notice and seeking compliance with the statutory requirements. Thus, the representations made by the petitioner are therefore without merit and do not entitle her to any relief.
24. With regard to filing of another writ petition No.3428/2024 before the Principal Seat at Jabalpur regarding same cause of action of correcting the entries on the portal, which is currently pending, it is submitted that the petitioner's pleadings regarding the cancellation of registration of said vehicle cannot be considered in the present petition.
25. Heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
26. A Division Bench of this Court in the matter of M.P. State 15 Road Transport Corporation, Gwalior Vs. Ram Prasad Purohit and others, reported in 2001(3) MPLJ 339; has held that the provision of sub rule (3) of Rule 72 of the M.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1994 and sub-section (1) of Section 70 of M.P. Motor Vehicles Act are not mandatory. While quoting Rule 72(3) it was held that under the aforesaid rule, an application for stage carriage permit or reserved stage carriage permit as required under subsection (1) of Section 70 of the Motor Vehicles Act shall be accompanied by the documents including no dues certificate issued by the Regional Transport Officer concerned and since this provision has been held to be not mandatory, the petitioner is not required to submit such a no dues certificate alongwith the application for the permit but this would merely mean that such a no dues certificate may be supplied even later on and only on account of said provision having been held to be not mandatory, it does not mean that an applicant who is in arrears of dues would become entitled for consideration of his case for grant of permit and the person who is in arrears of dues in the nature of tax, composition fees and interest at the time of consideration of the application for grant of permit, would not be entitled to the said permit, thus, it is for sure that any operator who is in dues of tax, fees or any interest over any of his vehicles shall be debarred from grant of permits. Further, as per Rule 5 of the M.P. Motoryan Karadhan Adhiniyam, 1991, the tax 16 over a vehicle is liable to be paid upto 10th of each month and if the same is not paid, then compensation fees and interest is payable and if such dues are payable at the time of consideration of application for grant of permit, the person will not be entitled for the said permit.
27. Herein case the only ground for rejection of the petitioner's application for grant of permit was that on her vehicle No.MP18-H- 4455 purportedly the vehicle tax was due from 01.08.2009 to 31.08.2019.
28. The intention of the legislature in this regard appears to be that if the owner of the vehicle is plying a particular vehicle on some routes without payment of tax of other vehicles which are being played on another route is allowed, it would fail the very intention of the legislature, thus, at any time if an operator evades the liability to pay tax and circumvent the process of law and ply the busses on the routes taking a technical view that the tax is to be paid in respect of each vehicles and on harmonious construction it is apparent that no person should be permitted to ply vehicle without payment of tax or dues any of his or her vehicles.
29. Cancellation of registration is provided under Section 55 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. For reference Section 55 is quoted herein below:-
17
"Section 55(5) in The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (5)If a registering authority is satisfied that the registration of a motor vehicle has been obtained on the basis of documents which were, or by representation of facts which was, false in any material particular, or the engine number or the chassis number embossed thereon are different from such number entered in the certificate of registration, the registering authority shall after giving the owner an opportunity to make such representation as he may wish to make (by sending to the owner a notice by registered post acknowledgement due at his address entered in the certificate of registration), and for reasons to be recorded in writing, cancel the registration.[(5A) If any registering authority or other prescribed authority has reason to believe that any motor vehicle within its jurisdiction has been used in the commission of an offence punishable under section 199A, the authority may, after giving the owner an opportunity of making a representation in writing, cancel the certificate of registration of the vehicle for a period of one year:Provided that the owner of the motor vehicle may apply for fresh registration in accordance with the provisions of section 40 and section 41.]"
30. Sub-Sections (1) to (5-A) deals with the instances on which the registration can be cancelled. Sub-Section (6) deals with the procedure after cancellation of registration of the motor vehicles and provides that the same shall be communicated to the owner of the vehicle in writing and thereafter the owner of the vehicle shall forthwith surrender to that authority the certificate of registration of the said vehicle.
31. Further sub-Section (7) provides that the registering authority making an order of cancellation, if it is the original registering authority, will cancel the certificate of registration and make entry relating to the vehicle in its records, and, if it is not the original registering authority, forward the certificate of registration to that authority, and that authority shall cancel the certificate of registration and the entry relating to the motor vehicle in its records 18 shall be made.
32. The provisions of Section 55 deals with the eventualities on which the registration of a vehicle can be cancelled and thereafter on the basis of the cancellation and after surrendering of the certificate of registration by the owner of the vehicle shall correct the entries on the record, but the aforesaid Section does not deal with any issue that in case the certificate of registration is not submitted to the registering authority, who had ordered its cancellation, what would be the effect. The only provision which is found in the Motor Vehicles Act is under Section 192 when the vehicle without registration is being plied/used, which provides for punishment of fine which may extend to the tune of Rs.5000/- for the first offence, but shall not be less than Rs.2000/- for second and subsequent offences with imprisonment which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend Rs.10,000/- but shall not be less than Rs.5000/- or with both, as it would amount to contravention of Section 39, which deals with necessity of registration, which prohibits the use of a motor vehicle in any public place or in other place unless it is registered and the certificate of registration of the vehicle has not been suspended or cancelled.
33. Herein case, admittedly the registration of vehicle bearing No.MP18-H-4455 was cancelled on 15.05.2008. Prior to cancellation 19 of the registration a notice dated 04.04.2008 was issued to the petitioner showing cause as to why the registration of her vehicle be not cancelled as per provisions of Section 55(5) of Motor vehicles Act. Thereafter, as per the petitioner, due to the lack of knowledge of cancellation of said registration fresh temporary permits 18.11.2008, 22.11.2008, 20.05.2009 and 09.07.2009 were obtained and also fresh fitness certificate No.30/116 validity period 22.10.2008 to 21.10.2009 was obtained from the Regional Transport Office, Shahdol.
34. It is also an admitted fact that the reference of the cancellation of registration of the vehicle of the petitioner bearing No.MP18-H-4455 is not available on the transport website and vehicle 4.4 portal and it is also an admitted fact that for the fresh temporary permits obtained by the petitioner, the tax for the said period had been paid, which was till 31.07.2009 and the tax dues, which have been shown against the vehicle of the petitioner is from 01.08.2009 to 31.08.2019, the period during which no fresh temporary/regular permits were obtained by the petitioner on the said vehicle, nor it is the case of the respondents that the said vehicle was plied thereafter in absence of valid registration.
35. Since, under Section 55 of the Motor Vehicles Act, there is no provision regarding after effects of non submission of the 20 certificate of registration after its cancellation and the only provision which relates to plying of the vehicle after cancellation of the registration, which is Section 192 of the Motor Vehicles Act, which provides for penal provisions for either fine or imprisonment, this Court fails to hold that the registration of the vehicle was live even after its cancellation vide order dated 15.05.2008 in absence of surrender of certificate of registration.
36. From the record, it is also revealed that based on the applications filed by the parties, respondent No.5 had sought information from respondent No.4 vide letter dated 13.02.2024 regarding the status of petitioner's vehicle No.MP18-H-4455, as the petitioner had submitted a show cause notice dated 04.04.2008, whereby she was show caused as to why the registration of the aforesaid vehicle be not cancelled in lieu of Section 55(5) of Motor Vehicle Act. From the record, it also reveals that alongwith the application the petitioner has also preferred an application before the DTO, Office, Shahdol on 13.02.2024 for correcting entries on the portal and in pursuance to the aforesaid letter, respondent No.5 has written above letter. But in the meanwhile, vide letter dated 07.02.2024 the District Transport Officer, Anuppur had issued a letter of the tax dues of the said vehicle from 01.08.2009 to 31.03.2023 and in that regard the Secretary, State Transport Authority wrote a letter to 21 the District Transport Officer, Anuppur to clarify as to on what basis he has issued such a letter and likewise, another letter dated 04.03.2024 was issued to the Regional Transport Authority Officer, Shahdol and an information was called with regard to any permits granted to the petitioner after the cancellation of registration of the vehicle and on 05.03.2024 an amended letter was sent to the Regional Transport Officer, Shahdol, which was replied by Regional Transport Officer, Shahdol vide letter dated 06.03.2024 and it was informed that the registration of the vehicle was cancelled on 15.05.2008 and thereafter temporary permits were issued with fitness certificate valid for the period 22.10.2008 to 21.10.2009 and the monthly tax of the said vehicle have been paid till 31.07.2009. Likewise, the District Transport Officer, Anuppur vide letter dated 07.03.2024 has informed the same and it has also come in his letter that the cancellation of the registration dated 15.05.2008 has not been uploaded in MP Transport website as well as vehicle 4.O portal.
37. Thus, this fact of cancellation of the registration of the vehicle bearing No.MP18-H-4455 was very much available before the authority prior to passing of the order and only on the ground that the cancellation order was not uploaded on website of vehicles 4.0 portal, it has been concluded that there were certain dues on the vehicle, which to this Court doesn't appear to be a valid reason. At the most, 22 for contravention of Section 39 of Motor Vehicle Act, the petitioner could not penalised under Section 192, she cannot be debarred from participating in the fresh process for grant of permit for other vehicles, as there are no dues on any of the vehicles.
38. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 08.07.2024 is hereby set aside and the Secretary is directed to grant permit for other vehicles.
Certified copy as per rules.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE) JUDGE neetu NEETU Digitally signed by NEETU SHASHANK DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH SHASH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, 2.5.4.20=36b486bb0d381b950e435ec09e066bc6b58cb94 7c1474b7dc349a1cf27eaa2ce, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=E60A9BBFC39E0EE500EAADE1E0B3B8565 CB3A7DC9F5CD048197DF0FF3149AE58, cn=NEETU ANK SHASHANK Date: 2024.11.12 17:08:07 -08'00'