Gujarat High Court
Dineshkumar Jagubhai Patel & 8 vs State Of Gujarat & 9 on 18 January, 2017
Equivalent citations: AIR 2017 (NOC) 598 (GUJ.)
Author: Bela M. Trivedi
Bench: Bela M. Trivedi
C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3776 of 1997
With
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2612 of 1997
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of
the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of
law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of
India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
DINESHKUMAR JAGUBHAI PATEL & 8....Petitioner(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & 9....Respondent(s)
==========================================================
Appearance in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3776 of 1997 :
MR. DHAVAL C. DAVE, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR KK TRIVEDI,
ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MS. JYOTI BHATT, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1 - 2
MR. M.C. BHATT, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MS SHACHI G MATHUR,
ADVOCATE for the Respondent(s) No. 3 - 10
Appearance in SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2612 of 1997
MR. PREMAL JOSHI, ADVOCATE For the Petitioner(s) No. 1
Page 1 of 18
HC-NIC Page 1 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017
C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT
MS. JYOTI BHATT, ASST. GOVERNMENT PLEADER for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI
Date : 18/01/2017
COMMON ORAL JUDGMENT
1. In both the present petitions, the petitioners have challenged the orders passed by the respondent authorities under the ULC proceedings in respect of the same land in question. Hence, both the petitions were directed to be heard together, and are being decided by this common order. As such the petitioner Dineshkumar of Special Civil Application No. 3776 of 1997 is the son of the petitioner Jagubhai of Special Civil Application No. 2612 of 1997.
2. The Special Civil Application No. 2612 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioner Jagubhai Dayabhai Patel challenging the order dated 08.11.1985 passed by the respondent - competent authority declaring 46,428 sq. mtrs. of land as the excess vacant land out of the total holdings of the petitioner, whereas the Special Civil Application No. 3776 of 1997 has been filed by the petitioner Dineshkumar s/o Jagubhai Patel challenging the impugned notifications dated 03.04.1986 and 26/27.05.1986 issued by the competent authority and the Government respectively under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Page 2 of 18 HC-NIC Page 2 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT said Act'). The said petitioner has also challenged the order dated 08.11.1985 passed by the competent authority.
3. It appears that both the petitions were earlier disposed of on the ground that they had stood abated on the ULC Act having been repealed by the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Repeal Act, 1999, as per the separate orders passed on 10.05.1999. So far as Special Civil Application No. 3776 of 1997 was concerned, the State Government had filed the Review Application being No. 1583 of 1999, however the same having been dismissed, the State had preferred Letters Patent Appeal being No. 177 of 2003. The said Letters Patent Appeal came to be allowed by the Division Bench vide the order dated 19.08.2004, whereby the order dated 10.05.1999 passed by the Single Bench in Special Civil Application No. 3776 of 1997 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Single Bench for deciding it afresh. So far as Special Civil Application No. 2612 of 1997 was concerned, the State had filed the Misc. Civil Application No. 2292 of 2005 for the review of the order dated 10.05.1999. The said Misc. Civil Application was allowed by the Single Bench as per the order dated 21.10.2005 and the Special Civil Application was directed to be heard afresh. Accordingly, both the petitions were heard afresh.
4. The short facts giving rise to the present petitions are that the petitioner Jagubhai of Special Page 3 of 18 HC-NIC Page 3 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT Civil Application No. 2612 of 1997, who happened to be the father of petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 3776 of 1997, had filled in the forum No. 1 under Section 6 of the said Act declaring his holdings situated at villages Dubhal, Limbayat and Parvat. The competent authority after scrutinising the form and considering the objections of the landholder, had passed the impugned order dated 08.11.1985 declaring 46,428 sq. mtrs. of land as the excess vacant land. It appears that the said order of competent authority was challenged by the petitioner Jagubhai Dayabhai by filing the appeal being No. 145 of 1986 before the ULC Tribunal under Section 33 of the said Act. The said appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal vide the order dated 31.07.1987 (Annexure 'F'). It further appears that one Gajanan Industrial Cooperative Service Society, claiming to be in possession of the land bearing Survey No. 11 situated at village Parvat, Taluka Choryasi, which was declared as excess vacant land by the competent authority, had also challenged the said order of the competent authority dated 08.11.1985 before the ULC Tribunal, by filing the appeal being No. 155 of 1986 under Section 33 of the said Act. The said appeal also came to be dismissed by the ULC Tribunal vide the order dated 31.07.1987 (Annexure 'J' in Special Civil Application No. 3376 of 1997). Being aggrieved by the said order, the said society had preferred the petition being Special Civil Application No. 883 of 1988 before this Court. However, the said petition also came to be dismissed by the Court vide the order dated 30.04.1996 (Annexure Page 4 of 18 HC-NIC Page 4 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT 'K' in Special Civil Application No. 3376 of 1997). Thereafter, the petitioner Jagubhai filed the present petition being No. 2612 of 1997 challenging the order dated 08.11.1985 passed by the competent authority, and his son Dineshkumar Jagubhai also filed the Special Civil Application No. 3776 of 1997 challenging the said order passed by the competent authority as also the notifications issued by the respondent authorities under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the ULC Act. This Court while admitting the Special Civil Application No. 2612 of 1997 had granted ad-interim relief in terms of para 9 (B). However, the same was modified by the order dated 11.09.1997, taking into account the order passed by the Court in Special Civil Application No. 3776 of 1997 and had directed the parties to maintain status-quo as regards the land in question. It appears that during the period between the date when the petition being Special Civil Application No. 3776 of 1997 was disposed of and the date when it was revived by the Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal, the land in question was sold out by the petitioner Dineshkumar Jagubhai to the respondent Nos. 3 to 10 by executing a sale deed on 30.07.2001. The said respondents having made an application for being impleaded as the party respondents in the petition, they were permitted to be impleaded as party respondents Nos. 3 to 10 vide the order dated 06.10.2015.
5. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 had resisted the petitions by filing their respective replies Page 5 of 18 HC-NIC Page 5 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT contending inter alia that both the petitions suffered from suppression of material facts as the appeal proceedings filed by the petitioner Jagubhai and by the third party - Society before the ULC Tribunal, were not disclosed by the petitioners in the petitions. It was also contended that the possession of the surplus land was already taken over as back as on 09.09.1986 after following the due process of law and after drawing panchnama, and that the mutation entry No. 770 dated 20.04.1988 was also made in the revenue records in that regard. The petitioners have filed the rejoinder and further affidavits in support of their contentions raised in the petitions.
6. It is sought to be submitted by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Dhaval C. Dave for the petitioner Dineshkumar that the said petitioner Dineshkumar was the co-owner of the land bearing Survey No. 11 situated at village Parvat alongwith his father Jagubhai and as per the partition which took place in the year 1966, the said land had fallen into the share of Dineshkumar, however, his father Jagubhai while filling up the form No.1, had shown the entire land of Survey No. 11 as his exclusive land without disclosing the share of Dineshkumar. According to Mr. Dave, the competent authority, therefore, had not issued any notice to the petitioner Dineshkumar and the said petitioner was also not served with the notice and the notification under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the said Act. Challenging the contentions raised by the respondent authorities about the possession of the Page 6 of 18 HC-NIC Page 6 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT land having been taken over by the State Government, Mr. Dave submitted that the possession of the land in question was never taken over as per the so called panchnama dated 09.09.1986. According to him, the Court while disposing of the petition earlier, had not accepted the claim of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 about the possession having been taken over as per the said panchnama and even otherwise, when the peaceful possession of the land was not handed over under Section 10(5) of the said Act, the competent authority was required to follow the procedure under Section 10(6) by serving notice to the persons who were in possession of the land as held by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Hari Ram reported in (2013) 4 SCC 280.
7. Distinguishing the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam versus Bhaskar Jyoti Sarma and Others reported in (2015) 5 SCC 321, Mr. Dave submitted that in the said case, the dispossession was not challenged by the original owner, and with a view to get benefit of the Repeal Act, the alleged dispossession was challenged by the third party to whom the land in question was sold out by the owners unauthorisedly. He further submitted that the judgment in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Hari Ram (supra), has also been followed by the Division Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal NO. 1458 of 2015 titled as Mamataben D/o Narottam Chandulal Zaveri versus Urban Land Tribunal and Ex-Officio Secretary and others decided on 01.12.2016 and that Page 7 of 18 HC-NIC Page 7 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT the petitioner having not been served with the notice under Section 10(5) and under Section 10(6) of the said Act, the entire proceedings had vitiated. He further submitted that after the petition was disposed of by this Court and before the same was revived by the Division Bench, the petitioner had disposed of the land in question by executing the sale deed dated 29.12.2001 in favour of the private respondents, who are now in possession of the land in question. Mr. Dave also submitted that agricultural exemption was also granted to the said land at Parvat as back as on 05.05.1979, and therefore also the competent authority had committed an error in not taking into consideration the said exemption before declaring the said land as the excess vacant land. As regards delay in filing the petition, he has submitted that the petitioner was not served with any notice under the ULC Act, and therefore, the issue of delay had lost its significance.
8. Mr. M.C. Bhatt, learned advocate appearing for the private respondents Nos. 3 to 10 had supported the contentions raised by learned counsel Mr. Dave for the petitioner and submitted that the said respondents had purchased the land in question after verifying the revenue records in which the name of the petitioner was mutated. He also submitted that the said respondents having purchased the land for value without notice, the order of competent authority deserved to be set aside. Learned advocate Mr. Premal Joshi appearing for the petitioner Jagubhai Dayabhai Page 8 of 18 HC-NIC Page 8 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT Patel in Special Civil Application No. 2612 of 1997, has also supported the submissions made by learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave.
9. However, the learned AGP Ms. Jyoti Bhatt, for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vehemently submitted that both the petitions suffer from the vice of suppression of material facts. She pointed out that the petitioner Jagubhai i.e. father of Dineshkumar had already filed an appeal before the ULC Tribunal, which was dismissed as back as on 31.07.1987, and the appeal filed by Gajanan Industrial Cooperative Service Society, challenging the order of competent authority was also dismissed by the Tribunal on the same day i.e. on 31.07.1987. According to her, the petitioners had suppressed both these proceedings by not disclosing the same in the petitions. She also submitted that both the petitions also suffer from the vice of gross delay inasmuch as in both the petitions, the order dated 08.11.1985 passed by the competent authority has been sought to be challenged in the year 1997 i.e. after twelve years, without any justification whatsoever. Ms. Jyoti Bhatt further has relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and the original file of the proceedings to submit that no such exemption under Section 20 of the said Act as claimed by the petitioner, was granted by the respondents, and the so called order dated 05.10.1979 was concocted by the petitioners. She further submitted that the landowner i.e. the petitioner Jagubhai had not produced any document Page 9 of 18 HC-NIC Page 9 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT showing any exemption having been granted by the State authorities either under Section 20 or 21 of the said Act, and therefore, the competent authority had rightly declared the land in question as excess vacant land. According to her, the petitioner Jagubhai had also not disclosed in the form that his son Dineshkumar had a share or interest in the land in question. Relying upon the panch rojkam dated 09.09.1986, she submitted that possession of the land in question was already taken over after following the due process of law and after serving notice under Section 10 (5) of the said Act to the landowner and that there was no requirement under Section 10(6) to serve any notice thereafter. She also drew the attention of the Court to the order passed in Special Civil Application No. 883 of 1988 preferred by Gajanan Industrial Cooperative Service Society, in which the Court had taken note of the possession of the land having been taken over by the State Government. Hence, according to her, if any sale deed was executed by the petitioner in favour of the private respondents, in respect of the subject land, which had already vested in the Government, was a nullity.
10. She also submitted that the petitioner had sought NA permission under Section 65 of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, which was rejected on the ground that the subject land was forfeited in favour of the Government. She further pointed out that the petitioner having filed an appeal before the S.S.R.D., and the same having been rejected, the petitioner had Page 10 of 18 HC-NIC Page 10 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT preferred Special Civil Application No. 12159 of 2002, which was unconditionally withdrawn by the petitioner as per the order dated 30.04.2003.
11. At the outset, it is required to be stated that in both the petitions, the petitioners who are the father and son, have challenged the order dated 08.11.1985 passed by the competent authority, in the year 1997 i.e. almost after 12 years of the passing of the said order, and that too suppressing material facts from this Court. As transpiring from the record, the petitioner Jagubhai, who had filled in the form No.1, had already challenged the said order passed by the competent authority, by filing the appeal being No. 145 of 1986 before the ULC Tribunal under Section 33 of the ULC Act which was dismissed by the Tribunal vide the order dated 31.07.1987. The said fact has been suppressed by him in the petition being No. 2612 of 1997 filed by him. Similarly as transpiring from the reply filed by the respondent - competent authority, the petitioner Dineshkumar after having attained majority had executed an Agreement to Sell the subject land, along with his uncle Shantilal Parshottambhai Patel in favour of one Gajanan Industrial Cooperative Service Society (proposed) and had also executed an irrevocable Power of Attorney in favour of one Kirtikumar Shantilal Patel. The said society also claiming to be the party interested in the land in question, had challenged the order of competent authority by filing an appeal being No. 155 of 1986 before the ULC Tribunal, which was dismissed Page 11 of 18 HC-NIC Page 11 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT by the Tribunal on 31.07.1987. The said order was further challenged by the said society by filing Special Civil Application No. 883 of 1988 before this Court. While dismissing the said petition, this Court had observed inter alia that possession of the land in question was already taken over by the respondent authorities on 09.09.1986 in presence of panch witnesses and the necessary intimation in that regard was given to the respondent No. 4 of the said petition i.e. the petitioner Jagubhai of this petition, on 30.09.1986. The Court had also concluded that the possession of the land in question was not with the said society. These orders and facts have also been suppressed by the petitioner Dineshkumar in his petition i.e. Special Civil Application No. 3776 of 1997. Hence, both the petitions suffering from the vice of suppression of material facts, deserve to be dismissed on that ground alone.
12. It is further pertinent to note that the petitioners of both the petitions, have remained absolutely silent about their inter se relationship as that of the father and the son. The petitioner Dineshkumar had stated in the petition that he had a share in the land in question, which was not disclosed by his father in form filled up by him. However, his father Jagubhai in his petition or in the form filled in by him, had not uttered a word about the share of his son Dineshkumar in the land in question. His share or interest in the subject land having not been declared in the form No. 1 filled in by Jagubhai, no Page 12 of 18 HC-NIC Page 12 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT fault could be found of the competent authority in not issuing any notice before finalising the form, to his son Dineshkumar, who even otherwise was minor at the relevant time. It is pertinent to state that as per the averments made by the petitioner Dineshkumar in his petition, the subject land bearing Survey No. 11, had fallen into his share when the partition was made through his guardian Shantilal Patel, and that before the ULC Act came into force, the name of Jagubhai was substituted as the guardian of the petitioner Dineshkumar in place of guardian Shantilal. As stated hereinabove, the said petitioner Dineshkumar and the said Shantilal had executed an Agreement to Sell the land in question to the proposed society named Gajanan Industrial Cooperative Service Society, which had no legal entity. Hence, the entire story put up by the petitioner Dineshkumar that the subject land had fallen into his share at the time of partition between him and his father when he was minor, does not inspire any confidence.
13. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner Jagubhai in his petition being Special Civil Application No. 2612 of 1997 has specifically stated that the said petitioner was not challenging the order of competent authority in respect of lands at Parvat and Limbayat, as the said lands were already sold out by him to others prior to ULC Act having come into force and that he was not interested in those lands. He had confined his challenge only to the extent of selection of excess land from Survey No. 66 Page 13 of 18 HC-NIC Page 13 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT situated at Dumbhal. Thus, no such contentions as raised by his son Dineshkumar in the Special Civil Application No. 3776 of 1997 were raised in Special Civil Application No. 2612 of 1997. Infact, the petitioner Jagubhai had not challenged any of the proceedings undertaken by the authorities under the ULC Act, including the issuance of notices under Section 10 of the ULC Act or taking over of the possession of the subject land at Parvat.
14. Though it was vehemently submitted by the learned Senior Advocate Mr. Dave for the petitioner Dineshkumar that an exemption under Section 20 of the said Act was granted to the land in question, as per the order dated 05.10.1979 annexed as Annexure II-A annexed along with the additional affidavit-in-reply filed by Kiritkumar Shantilal Patel i.e. the respondent No. 10, the said submission cannot be accepted. It is pertinent to note that no such contention was raised by the petitioners in either of the petitions. On the contrary, the petitioner Dineshkumar had stated in his petition that the petitioner had put up construction of various industrial shades on the subject land before the ULC Act came into force on 17.02.1976 as per the permission granted by the Parvat Group Gram Panchayat on 01.10.1974. If the petitioner had already constructed industrial shades on the subject land, there was no question of granting permission under Section 20 to the subject land for using the same for agricultural purposes as sought to be contended by Mr. Page 14 of 18 HC-NIC Page 14 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT Dave. The learned AGP Ms. Bhatt has seriously disputed the genuineness of the said order dated 05.10.1979 relied upon by Mr. Dave, by submitting that the said order was concocted by the petitioner and the private respondents. The Court also finds substance in the said submission of Ms. Bhatt inasmuch as the Court had perused the original file and no such order with the signature of Mr. A.A. Dudani as produced on record, was found in the file. It is also pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the competent authority also, it has been stated that the petitioner Jagubhai had failed to produce on record any order granting exemption either under Section 20 or 21 of the ULC Act. No such contention was taken up by the said petitioner in the appeal filed by him before the Tribunal. If the said order was infact in existence, the petitioner would not have missed to produce on record before the ULC Tribunal or along with the petition. It is only when the private respondents were permitted to be joined in the petition, such contention was sought to be raised by producing on record the said order dated 05.10.1979 allegedly passed under Section 20 of the said Act. The Court, therefore, is of the opinion that no such exemption was ever granted and no such order was ever passed by the respondent authorities granting exemption to the subject land at Parvat under Section 20 of the said Act.
15. So far as the possession of subject land is concerned, Mr. Dave has seriously challenged the Page 15 of 18 HC-NIC Page 15 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT action of taking over possession by the respondent authorities by drawing the panchnama on 09.09.1986. He submitted that as such, actual possession was never taken and it was only a paper possession which was sought to be taken and that too without giving any notice to the petitioners, who were in possession of the subject land at the relevant time. The said submission cannot be accepted. As stated hereinabove, the factum of taking over possession was recorded by the ULC Tribunal in the appeal filed by Gajanan Industrial Cooperative Service Society as well as by this Court while passing the order dated 30.04.1996 in Special Civil Application No. 883 of 1988 to the effect that the possession was taken over by the respondent authorities on 09.09.1986 in presence of panch witnesses. It is settled proposition of law that the normal mode of taking possession is by drafting the panchnama in presence of Panchas. Thus, taking possession and giving delivery to the beneficiaries by drawing panchnama is the accepted mode of taking possession of land. Subsequent thereto, the retention of possession would tentamount only to illegal or unlawful possession.
16. In the instant case, the possession of the subject land having already been taken over by the State as back as in 1986 and the said fact was also recognized by this Court in the earlier petition filed in respect of the subject land, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner Dineshkumar to say after so many years that no notice under Section 10(3) or 10(5) Page 16 of 18 HC-NIC Page 16 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT was served to him. The petitioner Jagubhai who had filled in the form had never alleged that he was not served with such notices. He had also chosen not to challenge the order of ULC Tribunal confirming the order of the competent authority. The petitioner Dineshkumar had miserably failed to show that he was ever in possession of the subject land at the relevant time or at any other point of time. Hence, the subject land having already stood vested in the Government with possession prior to the date when the ULC Act was repealed by the Repeal Act of 1999, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam (supra), it was too late in light of the day for the petitioner Dineshkumar to allege that he was not served with the notice under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the said Act. The petitioner Jagubhai having accepted the order of ULC Tribunal and he having not disputed the receipt of the notice and notification issued under Section 10(3) and 10(5) of the said Act, the decisions in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh versus Hari Ram (supra), or in the case of Mamataben (supra) relied upon by Mr. Dave would not be applicable to the facts of this case. As stated earlier, the petitioner Jagubhai has not challenged any of the notices or orders passed in the ULC proceedings in the Special Civil Application No. 2612 of 1997 and has confined his challenge only to the extent of selection of excess vacant land from Survey No. 66 of Dumbhal. Even otherwise, the Court has found that both the petitions suffer from suppression of material facts. It is a rule of equity Page 17 of 18 HC-NIC Page 17 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017 C/SCA/3776/1997 JUDGMENT as well as of law that suppressio veri is equivalent to suggestio falsi, and the writ jurisdiction being an equitable jurisdiction, the same should not be exercised, when the petitioners suppress material facts from the Court and do not come with clean hands. In that view of the matter, both petitions deserve to be dismissed and are dismissed accordingly. Rule in both the petitions is discharged.
17. At this juncture, a request is made on behalf of Mr. M.C. Bhatt for the private respondents to continue the interim relief for challenging this order before the higher Forum. The said request is rejected as both the petitions have been dismissed on merits for the reasons stated herein above.
(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.) Amar Page 18 of 18 HC-NIC Page 18 of 18 Created On Sat Aug 12 12:33:09 IST 2017