Karnataka High Court
C Y S And Co vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2025
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:16899
WP No. 10568 of 2025
C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024
WP No. 7505 of 2025
AND 1 OTHER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 10568 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 33857 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 7505 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)
WRIT PETITION NO. 7891 OF 2025 (GM-RES)
IN WP No. 10568/2025
BETWEEN:
M/S. SHARADA STORES,
PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN,
KOHINOOR ROAD,
MADIKERI - 571 201.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. MOHAN KUMAR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by NAGAVENI
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL WELFARE,
2ND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:16899
WP No. 10568 of 2025
C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024
WP No. 7505 of 2025
AND 1 OTHER
2. DIRECTOR,
SCHEDULED TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
NO.34, 1ST FLOOR,
LOTUS TOWERS,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. R. R. ENTERPRISES,
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN,
NO.125/123,
H M SRINIVASA BUILDING,
KANNURAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
NEAR WATER TANK,
HOSKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. D. K. SANTHOSH KUMAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BHANUPRAKASH, AAG A/W
SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
BEARING NO.PVKN. PPUU.CR-01-2024-25 DATED 18.02.2025
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-A) ISSUED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.,
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:16899
WP No. 10568 of 2025
C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024
WP No. 7505 of 2025
AND 1 OTHER
IN WP NO. 33857/2024
BETWEEN:
C.Y.S. & CO.
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN,
NO.8-1, BHRAMARAMBHA MALLIKARJUNA
KALYANA MANTAPA,
BHUJANGESHWARA EXTENSION,
CHAMARAJANAGARA,
KARNATAKA - 571 313.
REPRSENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SHRI. V. MANJUNATHA,
C/O VEERABHADRAIAH G,
NO.37, 6TH BLOCK,
MADHUVANA LAYOUT,
SRI RAMPURA 2ND STAGE,
MYSURU - 570 023.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL WELFARE,
2ND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. DIRECTOR,
SCHEDULED TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
NO.34, 1ST FLOOR,
LOTUS TOWERS, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC:16899
WP No. 10568 of 2025
C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024
WP No. 7505 of 2025
AND 1 OTHER
3. R.R. ENTERPRISES,
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN,
NO.125/123, H.M. SRINIVASA BUILDING,
KANNURAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
NEAR WATER TANK,
HOSKOTE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI.D.K. SANTHOSH KUMAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BHANU PRAKASH, AAG A/W
SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI.C.PUNITH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH TENDER
ENQUIRY BEARING NO.DTWO/2023-24/IND0040 DATED
02.03.2024 (ANNX-A) ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND
CONSEQUENTLY CALL FOR FRESH TENDER AND ETC.,
IN WP NO. 7505/2025
BETWEEN:
C.Y.S. & CO.
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN,
NO.8-1, BHRAMARAMBHA MALLIKARJUNA
KALYANA MANTAPA,
BHUJANGESHWARA EXTENSION,
CHAMARAJANAGARA,
KARNATAKA - 571 313.
REPRSENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC:16899
WP No. 10568 of 2025
C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024
WP No. 7505 of 2025
AND 1 OTHER
SHRI. V. MANJUNATHA,
C/O VEERABHADRAIAH G,
NO.37, 6TH BLOCK,
MADHUVANA LAYOUT,
SRI RAMPURA 2ND STAGE,
MYSURU - 570 023.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADHUKAR M DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL WELFARE,
2ND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. DIRECTOR,
SCHEDULED TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
NO.34, 1ST FLOOR,
LOTUS TOWERS,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. R.R. ENTERPRISES,
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN,
NO.125/123,
H.M. SRINIVASA BUILDING,
KANNURAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
NEAR WATER TANK,
HOSKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC:16899
WP No. 10568 of 2025
C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024
WP No. 7505 of 2025
AND 1 OTHER
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI.D.K. SANTHOSH KUMAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BHANU PRAKASH, AAG A/W
SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI.C.PUNITH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
BEARING NO.PVKN/PPUU/CR-01-2024-25 DATED 18.02.2025
PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNX-A) ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.,
IN WP NO. 7891/2025
BETWEEN:
M/S. VINAYAKA ENTERPRISES,
1788/16,
FOREST NURSERY ROAD,
HOUSING BOARD COLONY,
CHAMARAJANAGAR,
KARNATAKA - 571 313.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. VEERABHADRASWAMY M.S.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MADESH V M.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRIBAL WELFARE,
2ND FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA,
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC:16899
WP No. 10568 of 2025
C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024
WP No. 7505 of 2025
AND 1 OTHER
BANGALORE - 560 001.
REPRESENTED BY
ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY.
2. DIRECTOR,
SCHEDULED TRIBAL WELFARE DEPARTMENT,
NO. 34, 1ST FLOOR,
LOTUS TOWERS,
RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. R. R. ENTERPRISES,
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN,
NO.125/123,
H M SRINIVASA BUILDING,
KANNUARAHALLI MAIN ROAD,
NEAR WATER TANK,
HOSKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114.
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. D.K. SANTHOSH KUMAR.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.BHANU PRAKASH, AAG A/W
SRI.SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 & R2;
SRI.PUNITH C., ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
BEARING NO.PVKN.PPUU.CR-01-2024-25 DATED 18.02.2025
PASSED BY THE R-2 (ANNX-A) ISSUED BY THE R-2 AND ETC.,
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:16899
WP No. 10568 of 2025
C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024
WP No. 7505 of 2025
AND 1 OTHER
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners in all these cases, call in question issuance of work orders to all the successful tenderers in the respective tenders on an allegation that the tenders are issued to those successful tenderers after the expiry of 90 days - the validity period notified in the tender.
2. Heard Sri. Madhukar M. Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Bhanuprakash, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri. Shamanth Naik, learned HCGP appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 in W.P.Nos.10568/2025, 33857/2024, 7505/2025 7891/2025 and Sri. C. Punith, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 in W.P.Nos.33857/2024, 7505/2025 and 7891/2025.
3. The petitioners in all these cases claim to be suppliers of food grains to the families in the tribal areas in the eight districts. The districts are those which are averred in the petition. The State notifies a tender calling for applications from tenderers for the supply of food grains to those tribal families in -9- NC: 2025:KHC:16899 WP No. 10568 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024 WP No. 7505 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER the eight districts, in which the petitioners were earlier supplying. The tender was notified on 02.03.2024 and the last date for submission of the bids was on 15.04.2024.
4. The petitioners choose not to participate in the tender. They did not submit their bid. They were watching what would be the outcome of the tender proceedings. 90 days passed by, tenders were awarded after the expiry of 90 days in terms of the period of validity, as stipulated in the tender. Immediately after the tender was awarded to those successful tenderers, the petitioners run to the doors of this Court.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would admit that none of these tenderers have participated in the tender, but in terms of Rule 22, 90 days period is already over. The tender could not have been awarded beyond the period of 90 days. Therefore, the tender is deemed to have abundant or shelved. If the tender is to be held to be shelved, and a new tender is notified, the petitioners would get opportunity to participate, is the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16899 WP No. 10568 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024 WP No. 7505 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER
6. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General would submit that the tenders have been awarded to the successful tenderers beyond 90 days and these are tenders for supply of food grains to the families in the hilly and tribal regions. The delay is not on account of the State, but there was a writ petition challenging the tender and there was an interim order of stay operating for further proceedings that was granted by this Court. This Court vacates the interim order and permits transportation of food grains by taking the tender to its logical conclusion. He would contend that the petitioners having chosen to remain outside the tender, cannot now contend that the tender is carried beyond the period of 90 days.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The justification of the State is pendency of a writ petition before
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16899 WP No. 10568 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024 WP No. 7505 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER this Court. The justification merits acceptance, but the right of the petitioners to challenge the process of tender is what is required to be considered. It is an admitted fact that the petitioners did not participate in the tender. Having chosen to stay out of the tender, cannot now contend that 90 days are over. The tender is deemed to have been terminated and a fresh tender is to be issued and if the fresh tender is issued, they would be entitled to be participate. The said submission is on the face of it is unacceptable, as the petitioners are not co-tenderers with the other tenderers and on an anticipation that if the tender would be notified at a later date, they would also participate will not clothe these petitioners with locus to challenge the proceedings of tender in which they did not participate.
9. The issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. This Court in W.P.No.17266/2022 disposed on 09.11.2022, considering an identical circumstance of non-participation of a tenderer, therein has held as follows:
"9. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record. In
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16899 WP No. 10568 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024 WP No. 7505 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER furtherance whereof the issues that would fall for my consideration are -
(i) Whether BESCOM was right in seeking to re-tender only those 10 tenders that were quashed by this Court? and
(ii) Whether petitioners have any locus to question any act of BESCOM qua the tender notified, notwithstanding their non-participation in the tender process?
In the light of the second issue cutting at the root of the matter, I deem it appropriate to consider the same at the outset.
Issue No.2:
(ii) Whether petitioners have any locus to question any act of BESCOM qua the tender notified, notwithstanding their non-participation in the tender process?
10. The afore-narrated facts with regard to issuance of notice inviting tender for the works notified therein are not in dispute. The petitioners though belong to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and reservation of 10 tenders being accorded thereto out of 50 tenders, did not participate in the tender process, are all a matter of record. The notice inviting tender did no where restrict any tenderer to participate in any tender on the NIT dated 28.03.2022. Though reservation was stipulated qua 10 tenders, the tenderers belonging to Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes were not precluded from participating in the tenders of general category. As a matter of fact, there were several tenderers who did participate in both the tenders reserved for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and in the general category. The petitioners chose to sit on the fence, did not participate in the tender process at all, neither in the 10 reserved tenders nor in the 40 unreserved tenders. Therefore, the petitioners now seek to point out lacunae in the tenders, sitting outside throughout. Whether that would be permissible is the question?
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16899 WP No. 10568 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024 WP No. 7505 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER
11. A tenderer who remains outside and then seeks to question the tender process or conditions stipulated in the tender notification would not get locus to challenge and condition of tender. This issue need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (supra) considering this issue, has held as follows:
"20. While considering the relief claimed by the respondent (claimant), the same should have been tested on the touchstone of the principle governing the tender process, especially when the validity of the tender document has not been put in issue or challenged before any competent forum. Going by the terms and conditions in the tender documents, as already alluded to in para 10 above, there is no title of doubt that the right of the claimant (respondent) to match the bid of L-1 or to exercise ROFR would come into play only if the respondent was to participate in the tender process pursuant to the notice inviting tenders from the interested parties. The objective of tender process is not only to adhere to a transparent mechanism but to encourage competition and give equal opportunity to all tenderers with the end result of getting a fair offer or value for money. The plain wording of the eligibility clause in the tender documents and the incidental stipulations make it explicit that the respondent was required to participate in the tender process by submitting its sealed bid (technical and financial). The fact that a deeming clause has been provided in the tender document that if the respondent was to participate in the bidding process, it shall be deemed to fulfill all the requirements of the tender Clauses 3 to 6 of RFP, being the existing concessionaire of the project, does not exempt the respondent from participating in the tender process; rather the tenor of the terms of the documents made it obligatory for the respondent to participate in the tender process to be considered as a responsive bidder, along with others. Having failed to participate in the tender process and, more so, despite the express terms in the tender documents,
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16899 WP No. 10568 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024 WP No. 7505 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER validity whereof has not been challenged, the respondent cannot be heard to contend that it had acquired any right whatsoever. Only the entities who participate in the tender process pursuant to a tender notice can be allowed to make grievances about the non-fulfillment or breach of any of the terms and conditions of the tender documents concerned. The respondent who chose to stay away from the tender process, cannot be heard to whittle down, in any manner, the rights of the eligible bidders who had participated in the tender process on the basis of the written and express terms and conditions. At the culmination of the tender process, if the respondent had not participated, in law, the offer submitted by the eligible bidders is required to be considered on the basis of the stated terms and conditions. Thus, if the claim of the respondent was to be strictly adjudged on the basis of the terms and conditions specified in the subject tender document, the respondent has no case whatsoever."
(Emphasis supplied) The Apex Court clearly holds that the tenderer who would chose to stay away from the tender process cannot be heard to whittle down the rights of eligible bidders who had participated in the tender process on the basis of written and express terms and conditions. At the culmination of the tender process, if the tenderer had not participated in law, he cannot be seen to question the terms and conditions. The petitioners, in the case at hand, have admitted their non participation in the tender. Staying away from the tender, they cannot now seek to challenge the tender. It is further germane to notice a similar view taken by the Calcutta High Court. A Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta in the case of SUBIR GHOSH v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND OTHERS1 has held as follows:
"4. The more important factor is that the tender process in this case opened sometime in March, 2019 and the closing date for submitting 1 2020 SCC OnLine Cal 2213
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16899 WP No. 10568 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024 WP No. 7505 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER online bids was April 1, 2019. The writ petition was filed in January, 2020. Though it is submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the time to submit the bids was extended, no specific date in such regard is indicated. What is apparent is that the writ petitioner did not participate in the bidding process and yet chose to challenge the same.
5. It is possible that a prospective bidder finds the terms of the tender documents to be unfair or illegal and challenges the same; but such challenge has to be before the time to put in the bids is closed. At any rate, if a bid is made and the bid is thrown out on an illegal or unfair ground contained in the tender documents, even then, a challenge can be fashioned. But a person who has not participated in the bidding process at all cannot challenge the tender conditions on any ground whatsoever. This admitted aspect of the matter escaped the attention of the Single Bench while passing the impugned order of January 15, 2020.
6. For the reasons aforesaid, the order dated January 15, 2020 cannot be sustained and the same is set aside. Since the best arguable case of the writ petitioner will not result in any of the tender terms being altered as the writ petitioner did not participate in the process at all, the writ petition itself is dismissed. Nothing in this order will be construed to be an approval of the terms and conditions of the tender document and in an appropriate challenge, the same may be considered in accordance with law."
In the light of the judgments of the Apex Court in the case of NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA and the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in the case of SUBIR GHOSH holding that only a participant can question the tender, the challenge raised by the petitioners who are not the participants in the subject tender, would thus tumble down. Therefore, the second issue that fell for consideration which concerns locus of the petitioners to challenge the tender process being held against the petitioners, the first issue with
- 16 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16899 WP No. 10568 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024 WP No. 7505 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER regard to tender process would not arise for consideration, as it is trite law, that if a writ petitioner has no locus to raise a challenge to the subject matter, no other ground on merit of the challenge need be considered."
Subsequent to the afore-quoted judgments, the Apex Court again in the case of AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. CENTRE FOR AVIATION POLICY, SAFETY & RESEARCH (CAPSR) & Others reported in SSC Online SC 1334, has held as follows:
"7. Shri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for AAI has assailed the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, inter alia, on the following grounds:
i) that the original writ petitioner before the High Court has no locus standi to maintain the writ petition;
ii) that the terms and conditions invitation to tender, being in the realm of contract, are not open to judicial scrutiny; and
iii) MSME order of 2012 and MSME order of 2018 are not applicable in the facts of the present case (Emphasis supplied)
26. At the outset, it is required to be noted that respondent No. 1 claiming to be a non-profit organisation carrying out research, advisory and advocacy in the field of civil aviation had filed a writ petition challenging the tender conditions in the respective RFPs. It is required to be noted that none of the GHAs who participated in the tender process and/or could have participated in the tender process have challenged the tender conditions. It is required to be noted that the writ
- 17 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16899 WP No. 10568 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024 WP No. 7505 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER petition before the High Court was not in the nature of Public Interest Litigation. In that view of the matter, it is not appreciable how respondent No. 1 original writ petitioner being an NGO would have any locus standi to maintain the writ petition challenging the tender conditions in the respective RFPs. Respondent No. 1 cannot be said to be an" aggrieved party". Therefore, in the present case, the High Court has erred in entertaining the writ petition at the instance of respondent No. 1, challenging the eligibility criteria/tender conditions mentioned in the respective RFPs. The High Court ought to have dismissed the writ petition on the ground of locus standi of respondent No. 1 original writ petitioner to maintain the writ petition.
(Emphasis supplied)
27. Even otherwise, even on merits also, the High Court has erred in quashing and setting aside the eligibility criteria/tender conditions mentioned in the respective RFPS, while exercising the powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As per the settled position of law, the terms and conditions of the Invitation to Tender are within the domain of the tenderer/tender making authority and are not open to judicial scrutiny, unless they are arbitrary, discriminatory or mala fide. As per the settled position of law, the terms of the Invitation to Tender are not open to judicial scrutiny, the same being in the realm of contract. The Government/tenderer/tender making authority must have a free hand in setting the terms of the tender." The Apex Court holds that a person, who has not participated in the tender or who was not eligible to participate in the tender, cannot be considered to be a person aggrieved to knock at the doors of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, except in a public interest petition.
- 18 -
NC: 2025:KHC:16899 WP No. 10568 of 2025 C/W WP No. 33857 of 2024 WP No. 7505 of 2025 AND 1 OTHER
10. The case at hand is also similar. The petitioners did not participate in the tender, but are now wanting to challenge the work orders issued in favor of the successful tenderers on the score that it is in violation of the circular issued by the State that the tender should get complete within 90 days. The delay is explained by the learned Additional Advocate General, as there was a writ petition pending before this Court in which further proceedings of the tender had been interdicted. In that light, finding no locus of the petitioners to raise a challenge to the tender process, these petitions stand rejected.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK/JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 73