Karnataka High Court
M/S. S. P. Enterprises vs State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2024
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 20.03.2024
Pronounced on : 26.03.2024
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No.7324 OF 2024 (GM-TEN)
BETWEEN:
M/S. S.P.ENTERPRISES
A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN
HAVING OFFICE AT NO.2916
SY. NO.53, 53/6 & 53/8
MAGADI MAIN ROAD
KAVERIPURA
KAMAKSHIPALYA
BENGALURU - 560 079
REPRSENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI S.R.RENUKESHWARASWAMY
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI UDAYA HOLLA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI B.VACHAN, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRIES
VIDHAN SOUDHA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
REPRSENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2
2. M/S. KARNATAKA SOAPS AND DETERGENTS LIMITED
NO.27, INDUSTRIAL SUBURB
BENGALURU-PUNE HIGHWAY
RAJAINAGAR
BENGALURU 560 055.
A COMPANY INCORPORATED
UNDER COMPANIES ACT, 1956
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING DIRECTOR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI GANGADHAR GURUMATH, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SMT MANJULA D., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-2;
SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR
IMPLEADING APPLICANTS ON I.A.NO.1/2024)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE
ORDER DTD 29.02.2024 REJECTING THE TECHNICAL BID OF THE
PETITONER FOR TENDERS BEARING NOS.
1. (SL.NO.139) KSDL/2023-2024/IND0100 AND (SL.NO.140)
KSDL/2023.24/IND0102 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-J1.
2. (SL.NO.141)KSDL/2023.2024/0101 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-J2.
3. (SL.NO.92)KSDL/2023.2024/IND0108,(SL.NO.94)KSDL/2023.
2024/IND0110,(SL.NO.95).KSDL/2023.24/IND0111AND
(SL.NO.96) . KSDL/2023.2024/IND0112 PRODUCED AT
ANNEXURE-J3.
4. (SL.NO.113)KSDL/2023.2024/IND0107,(SL.NO.117) KSDL /
2023.2024/IND0114,(SL.NO.118). KSDL / 2023.2024 /
IND0115, (SL.NO.119) KSDL/2023.2024/IND0116 PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-J4 AND ETC.,
3
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 20.03.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner, which is a partnership concern, is before this Court calling in question an order dated 29-02-2024 which rejects the technical bid of the petitioner for tenders as found in the prayer. A consequent direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus is also sought to consider the bids of the petitioner afresh without insisting upon EMD along with other bids for the procurement year 2023-24.
2. Heard Sri Udaya Holla, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri K.S.Harish, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1, Sri Gangadhar Gurumath, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2/Company and Sri P. Prasanna Kumar, learned counsel appearing for impleading applicants on I.A.No.1 of 2024.
3. The facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
4The petitioner, a proprietorship concern claims to be a Micro, Small and Medium Enterprise ('MSME') registered on 03-02-2021.
The petitioner was treated as a small enterprise by the 2nd respondent/Karnataka Soaps and Detergents Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company' for short). The bids submitted by the petitioner were accepted without insisting upon earnest money deposit for the year 2023. The petitioner then emerges as the successful tenderer for the previous year. For the current year, the notice inviting tender is issued by the Company in the month of December, 2023 for supply of chemicals and perfumery raw materials. The specification in the tender was that companies which were small enterprises are exempted from payment of earnest money deposit. The petitioner at the time of registration was a small enterprise but due to increase in turn over, it became a medium enterprise after the year 2021-22. It is the submission that in the notification issued by the competent authority it is stated that in the event of enterprise gets transformed from micro or small enterprise to medium enterprise, it would be entitled to certain continued benefits for a period of three years from the said date of change. The petitioner claims to have exercised its right of not 5 furnishing any EMD on the score that it continues to get the benefit of small enterprise. Technical bid of the petitioner is rejected without divulging any ground. Therefore, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court, on noticing on the web portal that the technical bid of the petitioner had been rejected. This Court granted an interim order of status quo to be maintained, which is in operation till date.
4. The learned senior counsel Sri Udaya Holla representing the petitioner would contend that the petitioner is entitled to claim exemption from payment of EMD on the score that it continues to get the benefit of being a small enterprise. The tender document clearly indicated that such tenderers need not furnish EMD if they are small or micro enterprises. The learned senior counsel would submit that in terms of law, the petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of being a small enterprise and the rejection is erroneous.
He, therefore, seeks a direction to the respondents to assess its tender as well.
65. Per-contra, the learned senior counsel Sri Gangadhar Gurumath representing the 2nd respondent/Company would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is blowing hot and cold. It has in fact furnished EMD long after the opening of the financial bid. Therefore, it is not its case that the petitioner was a small enterprise or is a micro enterprise. It is a medium enterprise which is not eligible to seek exemption of EMD.
He would contend that the application should be clearly filled up as to whether it is claiming exemption or not. It is not for the Tender Scrutiny Committee to scrutinize why someone has not claimed exemption and how a tenderer has claimed exemption. The petitioner does not answer unequivocally along with the supporting documents on this issue and the petitioner has admittedly changed from being micro enterprise or a small enterprise to a medium enterprise in the year 2021 itself. In all, he would submit that this Court would not interfere with the tender process, unless the decision making is arbitrary. Both the learned senior counsel for the petitioner and the 2nd respondent/company have placed reliance upon several judgments of the Apex Court, which would bear consideration qua their relevance in the course of the order.
76. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned senior counsel and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. A notice inviting tender is issued by the 2nd respondent/Company for supply of various raw materials used in the manufacture of aromatic substance on 14-12-2023. Certain clauses of the tender are required to be noticed. The submission of earnest money deposit is dealt under Clause 13 and reads as follows:
".... .... ....
13. Earnest Money Deposit
13.1 Pursuant to ITT Clause 7, the Tenderer shall furnish, as part of its tender, earnest money deposit in the amount as specified in Section V - Schedule of Requirements.
13.2 The earnest money deposit is required to protect the Purchaser against the risk of Tenderer's conduct which would warrant the security's forfeiture, pursuant to ITB Clause 13.7.
13.3 The earnest money deposit shall be denominated in Indian Rupees an shall:
a. At the tenderer's option, be in the form of digital transfer to the e-procurement portal account either a certified check, pay order, letter of credit, a demand draft, or a bank 8 guarantee from a Nationalised/ Scheduled Bank located in India or specified small savings instruments.
b. The bank guarantee be substantially in accordance with the form of earnest money deposit included in Section VIII or other form approved by the Purchaser prior to tender submission;
c. Be payable promptly upon written demand by the Purchaser in case any of the conditions listed in ITT Clause 13.7 are invoked.
d. Be submitted in its original form; copies will not be accepted; and e. Remain valid for a period of 45 days beyond the original validity period of tenders, or beyond any period of extension subsequently requested under ITT Clause 14.2."
Preliminary examination of the tender so submitted is dealt with under Clause-22. Clauses 22.3 and 22.4 assume relevance and are extracted hereunder for the purpose of quick reference. They read as follows:
".... .... ....
22.3 The Purchaser may waive any minor informality or non-conformity or irregularity in a tender which does not constitute a material deviation, provided such a waiver does not prejudice or affect the relative ranking of any Tenderer.
22.4 Prior to the detailed evaluation, pursuant to ITT Clause 23, the Purchaser will determine the substantial responsiveness of each tender to the tender documents. For purposes of these Clauses, a 9 substantially responsive tender is one which conforms to all the terms and conditions of the tender documents without material deviations. Deviations from or objections or reservations to critical provisions such as those concerning Performance Security (GCC Clause 6). Warranty (GCC Clause 14), Force Majeure (GCC Clause 24), Limitation of liability (GCC Clause
28), Applicable law (GCC Clause 30), and Taxes & Duties (GCC Clause 32) will be deemed to be a material deviation. The Purchaser's determination of a tender's responsiveness is to be based on the contents of the tender itself without recourse to extrinsic evidence."
Finally at the end of the tender document a note is appended, which reads as follows:
"Note: MSE's are exempted from payment of EMD as per relevant Government Order."
(Emphasis added) The note depicts that MSE's are exempted from payment of EMD.
MSE means a micro and small enterprise and not a medium enterprise.
8. It is an admitted fact that the genesis of the petitioner is as, a small enterprise and soon its turn over crosses the threshold limit for a company to be considered as micro or small enterprise. It gets into a higher bracket in 2022-23 and becomes a medium enterprise. A medium enterprise admittedly cannot have benefit of 10 exemption from payment of EMD. The petitioner submits an application pursuant to the tender. In the column 'MSE Registered NSIC Information' the petitioner says 'Yes'. It reads as follows:
"MSE Registered NSIC Information.
MSE Certificate Yes.
Registered with NSIC
MSE Registration UDYAM-KR-03-0046813
Number.
Uploaded document. SPE-Udyam Registration
Ceritficate.pdf."
Condition No.5 deals with payment of EMD. It reads as follows:
"Criterion EMD Payments through e-Payment Description mode shall be made as one single transaction and payments made in part are liable for rejection.
Compliance Yes
Remarks"
The questionnaire is EMD payments through e-payment mode shall be made as one single transaction and payments made in part are liable for rejection. The petitioner says that it is complied, presumably that the EMD payment had been made. But, the admitted fact remains that the petitioner did not make EMD payment, but only indicated compliance in the application. The scrutiny for technical bid takes place. Scrutiny results in rejection, 11 as the petitioner had indicated that EMD was paid, but in fact it had not been paid. The petitioner pays EMD not along with the document but only when it is orally informed that its tender is rejected on the said ground. The EMD comes to be paid long after the rejection. It is then challenging the rejection, the petitioner is before this Court.
9. The issue is, whether this Court would tear down micro nuances of a tender and hold the rejection of petitioner's technical bid as invalid in the midstream of a tender?
10. The reason for rejection of the petitioner's technical bid is the petitioner's own conduct of not filling up the application in an appropriate manner. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the 2nd respondent/Company that everything is computerized.
Whatever information is available will be scrutinized and if the said information is incorrect, the application comes to be rejected. The entire process takes place through artificial intelligence. The learned senior counsel would further emphasize that the petitioner 12 admittedly is not a micro or small enterprise. It is a medium enterprise and medium enterprise is not exempt from deposit of EMD. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon a notification of Government that even after the enterprise goes from micro or small to become a medium, it is entitled to claim non-tax benefits for a period of three years. The notification reads as follows:
"MINISTRY OF MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM ENTERPRISE NOTIFICATION New Delhi, the 18th October, 2022 S.O. 4926(E).--ln exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) read with sub-section (9) of section 7 and sub-section (2) read with sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (27 of 2006), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises number S.O. 2119(E), dated the 26th June, 2020, published in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part-II, Section 3, Sub-section (ii), namely:-
In the said notification, for sub-paragraph (5) of paragraph 8, the following sub-paragraph shall be substituted namely:-
"(5) In case of an upward change in terms of investment in plant and machinery or equipment or turnover or both, and consequent re-
classification, an enterprise shall continue to avail of all non-tax benefits of the category (micro or small or medium) it was in before the re-classification, for a period of three years from the date of such upward change".
[F.No.P-05/1/2022-GEN] 13 SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH, Addl. Secy.
and Development Commissioner (MSME)."
(Emphasis added) The notification mandates that in case of upward change from micro or small to medium enterprise it shall continue to avail all non-tax benefits. Whether EMD classifies to be a non-tax benefit is necessary to be noticed. The learned counsel representing the impleading applicant, to assist the Court, has placed on record a judgment rendered by the High Court of Gauhati in JUMBO PACKAGING v. NUMALIGARH REFINERY LIMITED1 wherein the High Court has held as follows:
".... .... ....
32. The notification dated 1.11.2013 speaks of enjoyment of all non-tax benefit by the graduated enterprises in its original category for the period of 3 years from the date of graduation within the scope of section 9 of the Act of 2006. The non-tax benefit includes various supports provided by the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises such as market development assistance, funds for designer IPR, quality credit guarantee, etc. The Market Development Assistance (MDA) Scheme offers funding for participation in the industrial fairs and trade, delegation to hold the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Overseas Market. The said benefit cannot be held to include allowing the respondent No. 3 to participate in a tender specifically meant for the Micro and Small 1 2017 SCC OnLine Gau 1144 14 Enterprises for purchase of reserved items as per appendix of Order, 2012.
... ... ...
36. The classification of 'Micro' and 'Small' Enterprises are the creation of the statute, i.e., the Act of 2006. Similar is the situation with that of the "Medium Enterprises". The said statute determines the conditions and circumstances under which the status of "Micro and Small" Enterprises can be terminated. The respondent No. 3 graduated to "Medium Enterprises" meaning thereby its original status of "Small Enterprises" had terminated as per the condition laid down by the statute. The capacity to participate in the tender process is an incident flowing from the status. The NIT is meant specifically for participation fulfills the status of "Micro" and "Small" Enterprises and as such the respondent No. 3 being not a Micro-Small Enterprise has no capacity to participate in the tender process there being no relaxation clause as aforesaid. The items proposed to be purchased are reserved and the statute mandates that these are to be purchased only from the "Micro and Small Enterprises". In such a situation the act of respondent No. 1 in purchasing items from the respondent No. 3 is clearly in violation of the statutory provisions and definitely against the public interest. The act of allowing the respondent No. 3 to participate would deprive similarly situated persons who owing to non-mentioning of the relaxation clause as aforesaid might not have participated in the tender process."
(Emphasis supplied) The Court holds that non-tax benefit would not mean the exemption from payment of EMD. I am in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Gauhati, claim of non-tax benefit cannot stretch to exemption of EMD. A Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in M/s S.B. TRANSPORT COMPANY v. CONTAINER 15 CORPORATION OF INDIA2 holds that payment of EMD has some consequence without which the tender itself could not be presented before the Tender Inviting Committee. The Court holds as follows:
".... .... ....
27. With regard to the decision of this court in Pes Installations Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Ms. Acharya submitted that that was also a case where the facts were entirely different from the present case. In that case what had happened was that the bid submission date was being changed from time to time as a result of which the petitioner therein had to alter the validity dates of the bank guarantee which was to be submitted in lieu of the EMD. After the 9th change in the bid submission date, the petitioner therein had furnished the bank guarantee whose validity was short by 7 days. It was not a case where no EMD had been furnished at all and in any event in that case immediately after submission of the EMD which was short by 7 days, the said error was immediately rectified even prior to the scrutiny, evaluation and consideration of the bid of the various bidders. It is in those circumstance and, particularly, in view of clause 28 of the tender conditions therein, that the Division Bench held that the deviation was not a material deviation of an essential condition. It was submitted that in the present case the requirement of furnishing the EMD was an essential condition which had not been complied with by T.N. Singh and, therefore, there was nothing wrong in the cancellation by CONCOR.
28. Having considered the facts of the case and the arguments submitted by the learned counsel for the parties, in our view, the requirement of submitting the EMD was an essential condition of the tender. This is clearly discernible from the mandatory language used in the Instruction to Tenderers as also in the tender conditions. We have already pointed out clause 5 of Chapter 1 of the tender conditions which clearly 2 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11919 16 stipulated that if at any stage during the evaluation of the technical bid, the EMD was found to be invalid, the respective bidder's bid would be summarily rejected. Furthermore, in clause 2.3 of Chapter 2 of the tender conditions it was categorically provided that documents submitted without EMD 'will be summarily rejected'. Clause 7 of Chapter 1 of the tender conditions also stipulates that if the EMD is found invalid at any stage during the evaluation of the e-bid, the respective bidder's bid would be summarily rejected. All these stipulations have been provided without any relaxation or any other condition which would enable us to take a view that the requirement of furnishing the EMD was not an essential condition of the tender. Therefore, this much is clear that the requirement of furnishing the EMD was an essential condition of the tender. It is also an admitted position that T.N. Singh had not furnished the EMD on the ground that it had an MSME registration. We have also noted the submission made by the learned counsel for CONCOR that this was an online bidding process in which the bidder was specifically required to indicate as to whether it was exempt as a micro or small enterprise or whether it was applying under the general category. T.N. Singh had exercised the option indicating that it was bidding as a micro/small enterprise. Admittedly, T.N. Singh was neither. Therefore, T.N. Singh was required to submit the earnest money deposit which it failed to do. In our view since the requirement of earnest money deposit was an essential condition and T.N. Singh had not complied with the same, he was not eligible to proceed to the next page, that is, of consideration of pre-qualification bid and/or to the further stage of consideration of the financial bids. We agree with the submission made by Ms. Acharya that the decisions in G.J. Fernandez (supra), Poddar Steel Corporation (supra) and Pes Installations Pvt. Ltd. (supra) were on entirely different sets of facts and circumstances. There is no dispute with the principles of law laid down in those decisions but the factual matrix of the present case is entirely distinct and different from those obtaining in the said cases. It is clear that there can be two types of conditions - essential and ancillary. If an ancillary condition is deviated from, then there may be scope for consideration of a particular bid. But if an essential condition which does not permitting any 17 deviation, is not complied with, then the bid is to be rejected summarily and cannot be considered at all. The consequence of this discussion is that T.N. Singh was not entitled to proceed to the next stage beyond the consideration of the EMD and, therefore, there is no question of T.N. Singh being regarded as the L-1 bidder or the successful bidder and in that respect the decision of CONCOR in cancelling the Letter of Intent cannot be faulted.
29. This takes us to the consideration of writ petition filed on behalf of S.B. Transport Company. In view of our decision that T.N. Singh was ineligible and that the cancellation of the Letter of Intent by virtue of the letter dated 21.08.2015 was valid, the next point for consideration is what is to be done with regard to the subject tender. In this regard, we feel that the approach adopted by this court in Inderjit Mehta (supra) could very well be adopted in the present case also. Since T.N. Singh's bid was not to be considered at all, the tender process would have to be considered as if T.N. Singh had not participated in the same. That being the case, the bid of the S.B. Transport Company would become L-1. CONCOR would have to be treat S.B. Transport Company as L-1 and proceed with the tender process there from. We may also note that Ms. Maninder Acharya on instructions from Shamal Singh, Proprietor, S.B. Transport Company and who is present in court also stated that, so that there is no loss to the public exchequer, they are willing to match the quote made by T.N. Singh. That being the case CONCOR shall consider the bid of S.B. Transport Company as L-1 at the reduced rate equivalent to that which had been offered by T.N. Singh and to award the contract to S.B. Transport Company provided that they comply with all other conditions and formalities."
(Emphasis supplied) These are all in the realm of consideration of the tender documents by the Tender Scrutiny Committee. This Court would not sit in the 18 seat of Tender Scrutiny Committee and go on interfering at every stage of tender. The petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Section 16 of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurements Act, 1999 once the work order is issued to the successful tenderer, notwithstanding its rejection of the technical bid. If any indulgence is shown in the teeth of the aforesaid facts, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of TATA MOTORS LIMITED V. BRIHAN MUMBAI ELECTRIC SUPPLY & TRANSPORT UNDERTAKING (BEST) AND OTHERS3 wherein the Apex Court holds as follows:
"49. It is not in dispute that the first and the foremost requirement of the Tender was the prescribed operating range of the single decker buses which would operate for around and average of 200 Kms in a single charge in "actual conditions"
with 80% SoC without any interruption. Then materials on record would indicate that the TATA Motors in its bid deviated from this requirement and had informed BEST that it could carry the operating range in the "standard test conditions"
which was not in accordance with the Tender conditions. The High Court has rightly observed in its impugned judgment that the bid of the TATA Motors failed to comply with the said clause. TATA Motors deviated from the material and the essential term of the Tender. It may not be out of place to state at this stage that it is only TATA Motors who deviated from the condition referred to above. However, we are of the view that the High Court having once declared TATA Motors as "non-responsive" and having stood disqualified from the Tender process should not have entered into the fray of investigating into the decision of BEST to declare EVEY as the 3 2023 SCC OnLine SC 671 19 eligible bidder. We are saying so because the High Court was not exercising its writ jurisdiction in public interest. The High Court looked into a petition filed by a party trying to assert its own rights. As held by this Court in Raunaq International Ltd. (supra), that grant of judicial relief at the instance of a party which does not fulfil the requisite criteria is something which could be termed as misplaced. In Raunaq International Ltd. (supra), this Court observed as under:
"27. In the present case, however, the relaxation was permissible under the terms of the tender. The relaxation which the Board has granted to M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. is on valid principles looking to the expertise of the tenderer and his past experience although it does not exactly tally with the prescribed criteria. What is more relevant, M/s. I.V.R. Construction Ltd. who have challenged this award of tender themselves do not fulfil the requisite criteria. They do not possess the prescribed experience qualification. Therefore, any judicial relief at the instance of a party which does not fulfil the requisite criteria seems to be misplaced. Even if the criteria can be relaxed both for M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. and M/s. I.V.R. Construction Ltd., it is clear that the offer of M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. is lower and it is on this ground that the Board has accepted the offer of M/s. Raunaq International Ltd. We fail to see how the award of tender can be stayed at the instance of a party which does not fulfil the requisite criteria itself and whose offer is higher than the offer which has been accepted. It is also obvious that by stopping the performance of the contract so awarded, there is a major detriment to the public because the construction of two thermal power units, each of 210 MW, is held up on account of this dispute. Shortages of power have become notorious. They also seriously affect industrial development and the resulting job opportunities for a large number of people. In the present case, there is no overwhelming public interest in stopping the project. There is no allegation whatsoever of any mala fides or collateral reasons for granting the contract to M/s. Raunaq International Ltd."
(Emphasis supplied)
50. We take notice of the fact that Annexure Y was originally required to be submitted by the "Successful Bidder"
20after the evaluation of the bid and the same did not figure in the list of documents and annexures to be included in the technical submissions, as provided under Clause 5.1.1 of Schedule II of the Tender. Further the format provided for Annexure Y in the Tender documents in its heading states that the "Successful Bidders shall upload a Letter of Undertaking on their letter head as below". Therefore, we are of the view that the restriction on revision of documents under Clause 16 of Schedule I, which states, "No addition/correction, submission of documents will be allowed after opening of technical bid," is only limited to the documents necessary to be included in the technical bid and would not be applicable to any such document which does not form a part of the technical bid."
11. Therefore, leaving open the remedy available to the petitioner, the petition stands rejected. Interim order, if any subsisting, stands dissolved.
Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2024 also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE bkp CT:MJ