Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Usha Biswas & Anr vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 12 October, 2018
Author: Amrita Sinha
Bench: Amrita Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
Appellate Side
Present :- Hon'ble Justice Amrita Sinha
WP 21905 (W) of 2017
Usha Biswas & Anr.
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
For the writ petitioner :- Mr. Sourav Kumar Mukherjee, Advocate
Mr. Binoy Chandra Dhara, Advocate
For K.M.D.A. :- Mr. Partha Sarathi Basu, Advocate
Mr. Satyajit Talukdar, Advocate
For State :- Kalimuddin Mondal, Advocate
Mr. Bipin Ghosh, Advocate
Heard on :- 06/09/2018
Judgment On :- 12/10/2018
Amrita Sinha, J.
The offer:
Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority (KMDA for short) initiated a housing project viz. Barrackpore Housing Project Phase - II comprising of various flats/shops/offices including common area and garages. KMDA published a brochure mentioning in details about the location, scheme, amenities, price, eligibility criteria, application procedure, mode of allotment, service charge, home loan facility, refund/general information, documentation for transfer of the apartment on payment of entire sale price etc. An applicant could submit in filled application form/application money at the bank branches mentioned in the said brochure.
The brochure mentioned that the scheme envisaged the outright sale of 288 apartments. There was provision for outright payments scheme and instalment payment scheme. Selection of allottees and assignment of apartment to the allottees was to be decided by draw of lots. There was home loan facility which could have been availed from any nationalised bank and/or financial institutions subject to fulfilment of required financial criteria. It was mentioned that KMDA shall handover possession of the apartment to the allottees only after full and final payment and formation of cooperative housing societies for the maintenance of common services and common areas. Subject to the conditions prescribed in the said brochure the apartments were to be transferred by KMDA in favour of the allottees by way of outright sale after payment of the final amount of the price in full and on execution and/or registration of the deed of transfer in the form prescribed by KMDA. The stamp duty, registration fee and all other expenses related to the execution and/or registration of the deed was payable by the allottees. There was a bar for transfer of the apartment by the allottee within five years from the date of execution of the deed of conveyance without prior permission of KMDA. It was further mentioned that KMDA had absolute right and title of the land on which the apartment was being constructed.
Acceptance:
The petitioners upon going through the information mentioned in the brochure made an application for allotment of an apartment in their favour. The said application was made on 19th December, 2008 along with a pay order of Rs.26,000/- only. KMDA issued a letter of allotment in favour of the petitioners on 13th January, 2009 wherein the provisional sale price of the apartment was mentioned as Rs.6,06,000/- (six lakh six thousand) only.
Hand-over of possession:
Vide a memo dated 4th February, 2009 KMDA issued a possession advice in favour of the petitioners wherein it had been indicated that as the petitioners deposited the entire premium amount the petitioners were entitled and authorised to take physical possession of the apartment personally. It was further mentioned that documents required for transfer of the apartment in their favour were under preparation by the law cell and the same would be forwarded to them as soon as the deemed society is registered under the West Bengal Cooperative Societies Act, 1983. Pursuant to the aforesaid possession advice the petitioners took possession of the apartment on 13th February, 2009 and a formal possession certificate was issued by KMDA in favour of the petitioners. In the said possession certificate it was mentioned that the apartment would be transferred by way of sale to the allottee. It was further mentioned that if the allottee does not get the deed executed and registered within the appointed date the allotment is liable to be cancelled at the discretion of KMDA in accordance with the terms and conditions published in the brochure.
Acceptance of sale price:
The petitioners paid the entire sale price of the apartment in question by a bank draft. Barrackpore Housing Cooperative Society Limited was the Society that was formed by the allottees of the said project in accordance with the terms mentioned in the brochure and the said Society was registered with the West Bengal Housing Cooperative Society on 26th June, 2009. The fact of registration of the said society was indicated to the Chief Executive Officer of KMDA.
After the formation of the Society the allottees prayed before KMDA for execution of the deed of conveyance in their favour. The representatives of KMDA deferred execution of the deed of conveyance on various pleas.
Proceedings before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum: Finding no other alternative the Society filed a complaint case before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, North 24 Parganas, Barasat inter alia complaining of deficiency in service on the part of KMDA in not acting in accordance with the terms and conditions mentioned in the brochure and further not executing and registering the deed of conveyance in favour of the allottees. In the written version/statement filed by KMDA before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum it was stated that complete possession including all facilities and amenities as per the brochure had been given to the allottees. KMDA further mentioned that they were very much interested to register the proper deed of conveyance in favour of the allottees who had paid full consideration of their respective flats but as the allottees did not approach the KMDA for registration of proper deed of conveyance accordingly it could not be completed. The written version/statement was affirmed by the Executive Engineer, Real Estate, Division-1, KMDA and he was the authorised representative of KMDA.
KMDA also stated that it was already mentioned in Clause 10 of the brochure that after completion of all the requisite formalities the flat owners will have ownership rights over the allotted apartment along with proportionate share of land on which the building/block had been constructed.
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum vide judgment dated 9th January, 2013 inter alia directed KMDA to execute the deed of conveyance in favour of the flat owners within two months from the date of the order giving notice to all the flat owners for preparing deeds etc. by KMDA and for their appearance at the time of registration after taking all arrears from the respective flat owners, if any, and the appointed day must be informed by the KMDA within 15 days from the date of the order.
Proceedings before State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission:
KMDA filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission against the aforesaid order of the District Forum and by order dated 10th March, 2014 the State Commission allowed the appeal by setting aside the impugned order on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction by the District Forum to deal with the case.
Application under RTI Act:
The Society thereafter went on making series of representations before KMDA with request to execute the deed of conveyance in their favour. In the absence of any positive response from KMDA the Housing Society made an application under the Right to Information Act dated 27th October, 2016 seeking information as regards the status of registration and execution of the sale deed in respect of the apartments allotted in favour of the allottees.
The impugned communication:
Vide memo dated 22nd November, 2016 KMDA forwarded a pro forma lease deed to the Secretary of the Housing Society with request to circulate the same amongst all the allottees to enable them to do the needful towards execution of the lease deed of their respective flats. A notification dated 10th November, 2016 was also annexed with the aforesaid memo. In the said notification it was mentioned that as per the decision taken by the Competent Authority in KMDA only lease right can be given in favour of the allottees in view of the Land Policy Branch, Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal.
The recital of the pro forma lease deed mentioned that the lessee had applied to the Authority for allotment and grant of lease of residential flats in the housing complex/project on leasehold basis for a period of 99 years to which the Authority agreed in consideration of the lessee according to pay to the Authority a total lease premium of Rs. (blank) and an annual lease rent of Rs. 5/- per square feet plus service tax only as applicable per annum or as may be fixed by the Authority from time to time.
The respondent KMDA relied upon an order dated 26th December, 2012 of the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department, Land Policy Branch wherein it was indicated that the Governor after careful consideration was pleased to make the said land allotment policy which will be applicable to land owned or held by any department of the State Government or Agency funded by the State Government in any manner. The policy indicated that the land allotted to any individual/company/institution etc. under the policy would be transferred to them by the Government and its parastatals by way of long term lease for a period not exceeding 99 years with the option of renewal of such lease for the like period on the same terms and conditions and to such other terms and conditions as may be imposed and included in such renewal lease deed.
The Housing Society raised objection before KMDA on 16th December, 2016 indicating that the land policy of the Government dated 26th December, 2012 was prospective in operation and the same could not be made applicable in respect of the allotment of the apartments to the allottees of the Society as the same had been allotted as per the terms and considerations mentioned in the brochure of the year 2006. The Society prayed for execution of the deed of sale in favour of its members.
Submission of the petitioners:
The petitioners state and submit that they were interested and invested money on the said apartment with the view to purchase the same and accordingly they had paid the entire sale price of the said apartment in 2009. KMDA at such a belated stage (2016) was not entitled to change their stand and compel the petitioners to execute deed of lease instead of the deed of sale. The petitioners further ascertained that KMDA had executed deeds of sale in respected of similar and identical projects even after passing of the alleged land allotment policy dated 26th. December 2012. A copy of such a deed of sale executed by KMDA and registered on 20th June, 2013 in the office of the Additional Registrar of Assurance-I, Kolkata has been appended to the writ petition as annexed P-21.
The petitioners allege discrimination and pray for a direction upon KMDA to register the deed of conveyance in respect of the apartment allotted in their favour. The petitioners have also prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for setting aside the notification dated 10th November, 2016 and for a further declaration that the order dated 26th December, 2012 does not have any application in respect of the petitioners.
The learned Advocate for the petitioners placed reliance on an unreported order dated 16th August, 2013 passed in WP no. 14349 (W) of 2013 wherein a learned Single Judge of this Court had been pleased to direct KMDA to execute and register the sale deed within a stipulated time frame. The petitioners pray that similar orders may be passed directing the authorities to execute the deed of sale in their favour.
Submissions of KMDA:
The Joint Secretary, KMDA filed affidavit in opposition wherein it has been mentioned that KMDA is under obligation to be guided by the policy of the Government of West Bengal in the matter of dealing with the land owned by the State and which came into force on and from 26th December, 2012. It further states that the order dated 26th December, 2012 is binding on KMDA as the entire control of the land matter rests entirely with the State Government. It states that KMDA does not have any right, title or interest of freehold nature in the land in question and accordingly transfer of freehold right in favour of the writ petitioners was not possible. A copy of the lease deed dated 24th June, 2003 executed by and between the Governor of the State of West Bengal as lessor and KMDA as lessee for a period of 99 years at an annual rent of Rs. 1/- has been annexed with the opposition in support of the aforesaid statement. One of the covenants of the lease deed mentioned that the lessee could use the said plot for the purpose of erecting housing complex for sale to the public subject to the terms and conditions of the present indenture.
KMDA prayed for dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of res judicata as the case filed by the Society on behalf of its members before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum had been dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The order of dismissal attained finality. The petitioners being members of the Society were barred from agitating the selfsame issue by filing the instant writ petition. The learned Advocate relies upon an unreported judgment dated 14th November, 2017 passed in FMA 3350 of 2016 wherein a similar issue had been decided by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court. The Court directed KMDA to execute and register the deed of lease in favour of the allottee within a stipulated time period. The learned Advocate prays that similar orders may be passed in the present writ.
Submission on behalf of the State:
The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the State respondent submits that the writ petition was not maintainable and it was hit by the principle of res judicata. He relied upon the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kopargaon SSK Limited vs State of Maharashtra & Ors. reported in (2009) 3 SCC 273 and also the case of Parisans Agrotech (P) Limited vs Union of India reported in (2015) 9 SCC 657 paragraphs 14 to 23 in support of his contention.
Discussion by the Court:
Since the issue of maintainability of the writ petition has been raised by the respondents I intend to deal with the same at the first instance. From the case made out by the petitioners it appears that the cause of action of the instant writ arose only upon issuance of a letter dated 22nd November, 2016 by KMDA in favour of the Secretary of the Housing Society forwarding a pro-forma of the lease deed for execution. A notification dated 10th November, 2016 issued by KMDA was also forwarded along with the aforesaid letter. In the said notification KMDA for the first time disclosed before the petitioner that as per the decision taken by the competent authority in KMDA only lease right can be transferred in favour of the allottees of Barrackpore Housing Society Phase-II in view of the order dated 26th December, 2012 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department, Land Policy Branch. The petitioner has made a specific prayer in the writ petition for issuance of a writ of certiorari and a further declaration that the notification dated 10th November, 2016 and the order dated 26th December, 2012 does not have any manner of application in case of the petitioners. The prayer of execution of the sale deed becomes consequential only if the aforesaid prayers of the petitioners are allowed.
The issue before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum was entirely different. Before the Forum the Society complained of the deficiency in services of KMDA and the judgment was delivered on 9th January, 2013. The order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was passed on 10th March, 2014. The cause of action of the present writ petition arose long thereafter in November, 2016. Accordingly, under no stretch of imagination can the writ petition be considered to be not-maintainable. Moreover the prayer for issuance of the writ of certiorari and the declaration not to give effect to the order issued by the Land and Land Reforms Department Government of West Bengal could not have been made or decided by either the District Forum or the State Commission as such, in my considered opinion the writ petition is maintainable before this Court.
Now I intend to discuss whether the order of the Land and Land Reforms Department dated 26th December, 2012 and the notification dated 10th November, 2016 could be made applicable to the petitioners.
Admittedly KMDA published of brochure inviting applications for outright sale of apartments of Barrackpore Housing Project Phase-II. The project is located on the Barrackpore Kalyani Expressway near its crossing with Barrackpore-Barasat road adjoining CMDA Nagar. Barrackpore Housing Complex is about 2 kms. away from Barrackpore Railway Station. The brochure claimed that the complex would have various facilities viz; bituminous roads and pathways, deep tubewell, best piped water supply, surface drains and sceptic tanks, aerial lighting, adequate open space amongst others.
The petitioners satisfied with the location and the amenities provided by KMDA being an undertaking of the Government made an application for allotment of a residential apartment in their favour in the year 2008. A provisional allotment letter was issued in their favour in January, 2009. The petitioners paid the entire sale price of the apartment immediately thereafter and in February, 2009 KMDA issued the possession advice in favour of the petitioners taking into consideration the payment of the entire consideration money of the apartment. The petitioners were informed that the documents relating to transfer of the said apartment was under preparation and if the petitioners do not get the deed of sale executed and registered within the appointed date the allotment was liable to be cancelled. The aforesaid condition mentioned in the possession certificate carried penal consequences in as much as the allotment itself was liable to be cancelled at the sole discretion of KMDA.
As the petitioners paid the entire consideration amount they were highly interested in execution of the deed of sale, more so because the petitioners would have been eligible for home loan facility only upon deposition of the original sale deed with the financier. Since thereafter the KMDA maintained a stony silence over the issue of execution of the deed of sale. Finding no other alternative the Society approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum with allegation of deficiency in service with additional prayer for a direction upon KMDA to execute the deed of sale in favour of its members. In the written version/statement filed by KMDA before the District Forum the executive engineer being the authorised representative of KMDA affirmed an affidavit specifically mentioning that KMDA was all along willing to execute the deed of sale in favour of the allottees and only upon completion of the requisite formalities the flat owners will have ownership right in respect of their apartments along with proportionate share of land on which the particular building/block had been constructed. All along the KMDA represented before the petitioners as well as the general public that KMDA was the lawful owner of the land in question and the deed of sale would be executed immediately on completion of all formalities.
It is only for the first time in 2016 KMDA informed the Housing Society that instead of a deed of sale deed of lease would be executed. KMDA relied upon an order dated 26th December, 2012 issued by the Government of West Bengal, Land and Land Reforms Department, Land Policy Branch in their support.
In the order no. 6686-LP/1/A-18/2012 dated 26th December, 2012 of the Land and Land Reforms Department, Government of West Bengal the following was mentioned:
1. Whereas the State Government, its parastatals (Corporations, Development Authorities) and urban local bodies etc. have been allotting and pricing land/other assets in line with various Departmental and other norms which often vary in their content and their applicability.
2. And whereas there is need to introduce uniformity, reduce discretion and avoid case by case decision-making to ensure transparency while dealing with public assets.
Para 3 of the said order mentions that the Governor after careful consideration of the matter is pleased hereby to make the following Land Allotment Policy which will be applicable to land owned or held by any department of State Government or Agency funded by the State Government in any manner. Clause I of para 3 read as follows:
(i) The land allotted to any individual/company/institution etc. under the policy would be transferred to them by the Government and its parastatals by way of long term lease for a period not exceeding 99 years, with the option of renewal of such lease for the like period on the same terms and conditions and to such other terms and conditions as may be imposed and included in such renewal lease deed.
The Joint Secretary, KMDA affirmed an affidavit in opposition wherein it has been mentioned that the authority is not in a position to execute any sale deed for conveying right of outright sale as the authority itself is lacking such right over the land in question. Owing to such lack of title and freehold right KMDA started executing lease deed in favour of the allottees. A copy of the alleged deed of lease executed by the State Government in their favour has been annexed as Annexure R-2 to the opposition.
The lease deed which has been annexed as R-2 is dated 24th June, 2003. The said lease deed had been executed between the Governor of the State of West Bengal as lessor and Kolkata Metropolitan Development Authority as lessee in respect of a piece or portion of land or ground measuring 3.75 acres (11 bighas 6 katahs 14 chittaks) in the township of Kalyani, District Nadia. Accordingly it is very clear that the authorities not only tried to mislead the petitioners but have also attempted to mislead the Court by claiming that the lease deed was in respect of the land in question at Barrackpore. KMDA has not come up with any document to show their title or lack of it in respect of the land in question. On the contrary KMDA published the brochure and invited applications for allotment of apartments in the Barrackpore Housing Project Phase-II with the offer to sell apartments in favour of the allottees who would be selected by draw of lots. From 2008 onwards till 21st November, 2016 KMDA represented themselves as owners of the land in question and even affirmed affidavit before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum claiming that they were interested to execute the deed of sale in favour of the allottees who had paid their entire consideration amount.
The order dated 26th December, 2012 which the KMDA relies upon clearly mentions that to introduce uniformity, reduce discretion and case by case decision making, to ensure transparency while dealing with public assets the land allotment policy was being made and any land allotted under the policy would be transferred by long term lease. The order under reference did not have any retrospective effect. The land allotment policy came into effect on and from 26th December, 2012 and not prior to that. In the instant case the petitioners applied for allotment of apartment in 2008 when there was no existence of the aforesaid policy. The apartment that had been allotted in favour of the petitioners was not covered by any policy. The order of 2012 cannot be made applicable in the case of the petitioners.
The petitioners contended that the Barrackpore Housing Project Phase-II is a follow up of Barrackpore Housing Project Phase-I wherein KMDA had executed deeds of sale in favour of the respective allottees. KMDA ought to have executed similar deeds in favour of the allottees of Phase-II.
The plea taken by the KMDA for not executing the deed of sale in favour of the allottees of Barrackpore Housing Project Phase-II appears to be highly dubious. Since 2006 KMDA represented before the general public that they were the owners of the land in question and the apartments constructed on the said land would be available to the general public by outright sale. KMDA held on to the said stand before the learned Consumer Forum and also before the learned State Commission. It is only in the year 2016 KMDA took resort to an order passed by the Land and Land Reforms Department in December, 2012. Curiously from 2012 to 2016 when the complaint case filed by the Society was pending before the learned Consumer Forum KMDA did not rely on the said order. KMDA in fact affirmed affidavit indicating that the deed of sale could not be executed due to non-compliance of all the formalities by the allottees. In the written statement there was no whisper of the impugned order of the Land and Land Reforms Department. In the affidavit in opposition filed in connection with the instant writ KMDA raised their stand of lack of ownership right, title and annexed a purported deed of lease in their favour. On perusal of the deed of lease it appears that the same related to certain plots of land at Kalyani, district Nadia. The said deed of lease simply did not have any bearing with the instant case. This action on the part of KMDA raises genuine doubt in the mind of the Court as regards to the status of KMDA in respect of the land in question.
At the same time the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that prior to taking a decision for purchasing a property a purchaser is supposed to make necessary searches with regard to the title of the property to be sold. The doctrine of "caveat emptor" comes to play the moment a purchaser proceeds to purchase a property. It is the duty of the buyer for making the necessary searches in the office of the land records to ascertain whether the seller had the right, title and interest to sell the same to the purchaser. Prior to payment of the entire consideration money being the sale price of the apartment in question the purchasers i.e, the petitioners herein ought to have satisfied themselves that the seller i.e, KMDA had good title to transfer the same in their favour.
Will non compliance of the principles of caveat emptor be fatal in the facts and circumstances of the instant case? No. KMDA being an organ of the State and a statutory body itself should not have mis-represented the actual facts before the general public and lured them to purchase apartments in their projects. KMDA have simply misused the faith and trust which common people reposed upon it and parted with their hard earned money to purchase an apartment in the said project. Had it been notified that the apartments in the project were up for lease then may be the petitioners would not have been interested to go for it. It was only with the view to own an apartment that the petitioners had invested such sum. Going back on the promise to sell the property entails both civil as well as criminal consequences.
The judgment relied by the learned Advocate appearing for KMDA is not at all applicable in the instant case in as much as KMDA has not come up with any scrap of document to disclose their title in respect of the land in question. In the judgment relied upon the party accepted the modified terms for letting out the property in question. But in the case at hand the petitioners have not yet expressed their willingness to acquire the property on lease. Hence the said judgment and order is not at all applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.
On the contrary the judgment relied upon by the petitioners in support of their case though applies to the facts and circumstances herein, but I cannot persuade myself to pass a direction for execution of the deed of sale in favour of the petitioners in the absence of specific information as regards the title of KMDA in respect of the land in question. In case KMDA is not the lawful owner of the property then it will not have the right and/or authority to execute the deed of sale.
Sale of immovable property is governed by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act (TP Act in short). Section 54 of TP Act defines "Sales" as follows:
Sale is a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised.
In the instant case the offer to sell the apartment was made by the respondent at a specified rate. The petitioners herein accepted the offer made by KMDA in the year 2006 and acted in accordance with the same. The petitioners paid the entire consideration money in respect of the said apartment in the year 2009. The moment the petitioners accepted the offer and acted in furtherance of the same the parties entered into a contract. Though the contract was not formally written down but there is enough evidence to prove the same. KMDA never alleged non payment of the consideration amount by the petitioners.
As per Section 54 TP Act the transfer of immovable property has to be made by way of a registered instrument or by delivery of the property. In the present case the possession of the property had been delivered in the year 2009 upon full payment of the consideration amount and the petitioners are in possession since then. It is only after continuous persistence by the petitioners for executing the formal deed of transfer that the respondents came up with the plea of not executing and registering the same on the ground of lack of ownership.
Section 55 of the T.P Act specifies the rights and liabilities of the buyers and sellers of immovable property. Omission to make any disclosure as mentioned in the section under reference is fraudulent. The respondent being the seller of the property was bound to disclose any defect in the seller's title to the property which the seller in the instant case has failed to do.
A mere perusal of the aforesaid provision will show that it was incumbent upon KMDA to disclose to the allottees their true status and title over the property. The petitioners were dealing with an instrumentality of the State. They were entitled to legitimately proceed on the assertion that the respondents, a statutory body, an instrumentality of the State, were the owners of the land and shall act fairly. The petitioners had paid more than rupees six lakh on the expressed promise by KMDA that as owner it will execute and register the deed of sale on payment of the full consideration price. The petitioners will be deprived of owning the apartment in the absence of a deed of sale in their favour. In law it is the obligation of the vendor to convey an encumbrance free, good and marketable title subject to contract to the contrary.
The present stand of KMDA to execute lease deed in favour of the petitioners means that the petitioners can never be absolute owners of the apartment. The lease deed will be subject to renewal by KMDA. The rights and privileges of an owner are quite different from that of a lessee. KMDA has undoubtedly failed to perform their part of the contract.
Every breach of contract gives rise to an action for damages. It is settled law that where a party suffers by reason of a breach of contract damages are to be granted so as to place the suffering party in the same position as if the contract had been performed.
Conclusion:
In view of the discussions made herein above it is held that the writ petition is not hit by the principles of res judicata. The order of the Land and Land Reforms Department dated 26th December, 2012 and the subject notification dated 10th November, 2016 are not applicable to the petitioners. KMDA is directed to execute the necessary deed of transfer of the subject apartment in favour of the petitioners within a period of ten weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners will be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings for compensation and damages against the respondents if so advised.
WP No. 21905 (W) of 2017 is disposed of accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Urgent certified photo copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties expeditiously on compliance of usual legal formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)