Allahabad High Court
Viraj Bhati And Another vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 12 January, 2023
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD A.F.R. Court No. - 50 Case :- HABEAS CORPUS WRIT PETITION No. - 328 of 2022 Petitioner :- Viraj Bhati And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Om Prakash Rai Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.
1. Hear Sri Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri O.P. Rai and Ashish Rai, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 and learned A.G.A. for the state and perused the material on record.
2. Instant habeas corpus petition has been filed by the petitioner no. 2 Smt. Anu Kumari on behalf of the corpus Viraj Bhati (minor) as well as on her own behalf and has sought following relief in the petition:-
"(i) issue a writ of habeas corpus, directing the respondent no. 3 to produce the corpus/petitioner no. 1/minor boy/son of petitioner no. 2 before this Hon'ble Court who is illegally detained by his grandmother/respondent no. 3 in the parental house of his late father situated at B-16, C-2, Everest Apartment, Shalimar Garden, Extension II, Sahibabad and District-Ghaziabad against the wish by the petitioner no. 1 to petitioner no. 2 on video call happened on 22.4.2022.
(ii) Issue any other suitable order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case for producing the corpus.
(iii) Award the cost of the habeas corpus petition to the petitioners."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners based his submissions on averments made in writ petition and submitted that petitioner no. 1 is minor son of petitioner no. 2, born out of wedlock of petitioner no. 2 and her husband Vivek Bhati. Their marriage was solemnized on 7.3.2014 with the consent of parties as well as with consent of their family members in accordance with Hindu rites and rituals. Petitioner no. 2 resided with her husband in a rented house at Krishna Nagar East, Delhi. Petitioner no. 2 is presently residing in District Bulandshahar along with her father. Birthday of the corpus was celebrated by petitioner no. 2 and respondent no. 3, however, the child is presently detained by respondent no. 3 in parental house of corpus. Father-in-law of the petitioner no. 2 namely Satpal Bhati was a leading Advocate at District Ghaziabad and husband of petitioner no. 2 Vivek Bhati and his younger brother Mr. Varun Bhati were also Advocates, however, father-in-law of petitioner no. 2 died untimely, thus entire family became shocked. Husband of petitioner no. 2 started consuming liquor frequently and this was opposed by petitioner no. 2. He also used to physically assault her and used to make demand of dowry as such she lodged an F.I.R. on 30.3.2021 against her husband and his family members under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506, 307 IPC and ¾ D.P. Act, which is registered as case crime no. 242 of 2021 at P.S. Kotwali Shahar, District Bulandshahar. Unfortunately husband of petitioner no. 2 died in a road accident on 9.4.2021. Petitioner no. 2 became widow due to death of her husband. She is graduate in commerce and started working as Sales Executive in a Company named as Ferns Petals to meet out household expenses and for the welfare of her small child. For enhancing her monthly income, petitioner no. 2 also started online sale of household goods by taking assistance of her retired father, who was in Army. Petitioner no. 2 is apprehending threat to her life from her mother-in-law. She also apprehends threat to life of her minor son, who is co-sharer of landed property of respondent no. 3 and her son Varun Bhati, who is an Advocate. Respondent no. 3 is infirm and old aged lady in whose custody corpus is presently lying due to death of her father-in-law and husband, and family outcome of her in-laws has deteriorated. It is further submitted that petitioner no. 2 is concerned about future and education of her minor son, who is illegally detained by respondent no. 3 and her son Varun Bhati as her son Varun bhati is an Advocate in Ghaziabad. She is fearful of approaching local Court for custody of minor child due to attitude of local lawyers in favour of her brother-in-law and son of respondent no. 3, therefore it is prayed that child may be directed to be produced before the Court and necessary order may be passed regarding transfer of custody of corpus in favour of petitioner no. 2, who is her natural guardian.
4. Per contra, learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the private respondents objected the prayer made by the petitioner no. 2 in writ petition. It is further argued that actual date of birth of petitioner no. 1 is 15.3.2015 and not 15.3.2016 as stated in writ petition. This fact can be verified from birth certificate issued from Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad and Ambey Hospital, a copy of birth certificate has been filed as Annexure CA-2 with counter affidavit. Custody of child was initially with his late father and after his death, it passes on respondent no. 3 (grandmother of corpus) and his uncle Varun Bhati. Petitioner no. 2 did not come to take forward the custody of corpus at the time of death of her husband and at that time respondent no. 3 and her son were only person who looked after petitioner no. 1. In fact she was never interested in custody of her child for a period of almost two years and the child is lying along with his grandmother and uncle. As the child is lying in custody of his grandmother and uncle, he cannot be said to be lying in illegal custody and present habeas corpus is not maintainable as such and appropriate remedy is available to the petitioner no. 2 to approach the statutory forum available under law seeking custody of the child. The petitioner no. 2 is presently not employed in Company named as Ferns Petals as she was terminated on 30.8.2021 and a certificate has been issued in this regard by Sri Gaurav Jain, partner of said firm, which is filed along with counter affidavit. The child is being imparted quality education by respondent no. 3 and his uncle Varun Bhati and is obtaining outstanding colour in his studies. Uncle of child Varun Bhati earns sufficiently and he is an Income-tax payee and is able to meet out academic and other expenses of child. Petitioner no. 1 is not willing to reside with his mother and is happily residing with his grandmother and uncle. He is aged around 7 years and is deeply attached with his grandmother and uncle.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a case decided by this Court in Master Advait Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and five others, 2021 0 Supreme (All) 216, wherein matter of custody of minor child between his parents was occupied the centre stage of controversy. The child's misfortune, circumstanced as he is, is the fallout of an estrangement of his parents, who did not seem to have got along in matrimony. Both were highly educated and employed in a reputed companies. Both sides levelled a number of allegations against each other in their pleadings which were impleaded with virtues claimed for themselves and demonizing the other party including in-laws on both sides. This Court considered the provisions of Section 6-a of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, wherein it is provided that natural guardian of a Hindu, minor, in respect of minor's persons as well as in respect of minor's property (excluding his or her undivided interest in combined family property), are- (a) in the case of a boy or an unmarried girl- the father, and after him, the mother: provided that the custody of a minor who has not completed the age of five years shall ordinarily be with the mother. This Court observed in paragraph nos. 44, 49, 51 as under:-
44. The provision lays down the Rule that notwithstanding the father being the natural guardian, the custody of a minor, who has not completed the age of five years, ought ordinarily be with the mother. This rule echoes experience of mankind that mothers are best suited to take care of very young children. Since, however, welfare of a child is of paramount consideration, the proviso to Section 6(a) of the Act of 1956, makes a remarkable prescription by employing the word ''ordinarily' to qualify the rule. The word ''ordinarily' gives full play to the Court's assessment in a given case to find out where the welfare of the minor would be best secured. It must be remarked here before moving ahead that even the natural guardianship of a minor under Section 6(a) of the Act of 1956 is now no longer preferentially held by the father. The mother and the father are at par as natural guardians of the minor, in view of the holding of the Supreme Court in Githa Hariharan (Ms) and another vs. Reserve Bank of India and another, (1999) 2 SCC 228. The dispute here is about custody and not about guardianship, which is hardly disputed for both parents.
49. In the opinion of this Court, there is a strong presumption about a child's welfare to be better secured in the mother's hand, which can be dispelled only by cogent and glaring evidence about the mother's lack of fitness to discharge her maternal obligations, as already remarked. There is no such circumstance or evidence brought to this Court's notice that may render Preeti unfit to take care of her minor son. This Court is fortified in the view that we take by the decision of the Supreme Court in Roxann Sharma vs. Arun Sharma, (2015) 8 SCC 318, where it has been held:
"13. The HMG Act postulates that the custody of an infant or a tender aged child should be given to his/her mother unless the father discloses cogent reasons that are indicative of and presage the likelihood of the welfare and interest of the child being undermined or jeopardised if the custody is retained by the mother. Section 6(a) of the HMG Act, therefore, preserves the right of the father to be the guardian of the property of the minor child but not the guardian of his person whilst the child is less than five years old. It carves out the exception of interim custody, in contradistinction of guardianship, and then specifies that custody should be given to the mother so long as the child is below five years in age. We must immediately clarify that this section or for that matter any other provision including those contained in the G and W Act, does not disqualify the mother to custody of the child even after the latter's crossing the age of five years."
51. I had occasion to consider the question about the right of a mother to the custody of her young child, particularly, in the context of Section 6(a) of the Act of 1956 in Master Atharva (Minor) and another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and 7 others, 2020 (143) ALR 332, where it was held:
"9. A reading of the terms of the proviso to Section shows that quite apart from the question of natural guardianship, the custody of a minor, who has not completed the age of five years, is to be ordinarily with the mother. The only niche, therefore, so far as the statue goes, is the word "ordinary". The word "ordinary" signifies that as a matter of rule, children up to the age of five years are to be left with their mothers, but there could be exceptions as well. Those exceptions could be where the mother is demonstrably leading an immoral life or may have remarried, where in her new home, the child from her earlier alliance has no place, or where the mother is convicted of a heinous offence etc. In the present case, no such circumstance has been indicated, much less pleaded and proved so as to place the mother in that exceptional category where she may be deprived of the custody of her young child, who is still well below the age of five years.
10. It must also be remarked that even after the child turns five, it is not that the mother becomes disentitled. She still would be the best person to tender a child and groom him into an adult. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Roxann Sharma v. Arun Sharma, (2015) 8 SCC 318, where it has been held:
"13. The HMG Act postulates that the custody of an infant or a tender aged child should be given to his/her mother unless the father discloses cogent reasons that are indicative of and presage the likelihood of the welfare and interest of the child being undermined or jeopardised if the custody is retained by the mother. Section 6(a) of the HMG Act, therefore, preserves the right of the father to be the guardian of the property of the minor child but not the guardian of his person whilst the child is less than five years old. It carves out the exception of interim custody, in contradistinction of guardianship, and then specifies that custody should be given to the mother so long as the child is below five years in age. We must immediately clarify that this section or for that matter any other provision including those contained in the G and W Act, does not disqualify the mother to custody of the child even after the latter's crossing the age of five years."
6. In Master Advait (supra), this Court ordered that Master Advait Sharma shall be delivered by his father into custody of his mother within a week of pronouncement of this judgment, failing which C.J.M., Ghaziabad shall cause the minor to be delivered into custody of his mother, Smt. Preeti Rai at Ghaziabad through agency of the police. However the father will have visitation rights of the child being one of his natural guardian and corresponding obligations will lie upon the mother to facilitate the visitation.
7. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Perry Kansagra Vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753 and Ashish Ranjan Vs. Anupma Tandon and Anr., (2010) 14 SCC 274 held that in case of custody of child paramount consideration remains welfare and interest of the child.
8. In the present case, the dispute regarding custody of minor is lying between his mother on one hand and his grand mother and uncle on the other hand. The child is lying in custody of his grandmother and the petition has been approached by his uncle Varun Bhati. Father of corpus died on 8.4.2021. This is a case of respondent no. 3 that after death of her person Vivek Bhati, custody of petitioner no. 1 passage on her being his grandmother and also to his uncle Varun Bhati and they are well equipped to take care of all essential needs of the child whereas petitioner no. 2 claims custody of child being his mother. From perusal of record, it appears that her private job was for stipulated period and presently she is not in the employment of G.H. Enterprises (Ferns Petals). She has stated that she earns sufficiently by engaging herself in other part time jobs. The corpus (minor) is aged about six to seven years as per his date of birth recorded as 15.3.2015. Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act provides that natural guardian of a Hindu minor, in respect of minor's person as well as in respect of minor's property are-
(a) in the case of a boy or unmarried girl and father, and after him, mother: provided that the custody of a minor, who has not completed age of five years, was ordinarily be with the mother.
(b)...
(c)...
Explanation:- In this Section the expression "father" and "mother" do not include a step-father and step-mother.
9. Hon'ble Apex Court in Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India, AIR 1999 SC 1149, observed that in the phrase " the father" and after him, " the mother", the word' after need not necessarily mean after the lifetime of father. In the context in which it appears in Section 6(a) it means ''in the absence of', the word ''absence' therein referring to the father's absence from the care of minor's property or person for any reason whatsoever. If the father is wholly indifferent to the matters of minor or if by virtue of mutual understanding between the parents, the mother is put exclusively in charge of the minor or if the father is physically unable to take care of minor for any reason whatsoever, the father can be considered to be absent and mother being a recognized natural guardian can act validly on behalf of the minor as the guardian.
10. In the case of Rosy Jacob v. Jacob Chakramakkal, AIR 1973 SC 2090, Hon'ble Apex Court held that controlling consideration governing the custody of children is the welfare of children and not the right of the parents.
11. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on judgement of Hon'ble Apex Court in Tejaswini Gaud and others vs. Shekhar Jagdish Prasad Tewari and others reported in (2019) 7 SCC 42, wherein, also matter of custody of minor child between the father of minor girl and his sister-in-law (sister of his deceased wife) was involved; High Court of Bombay held that respondent no. 1 father only surviving parent of child, is entitled to the custody of child and the child needs love, care and affection of father, taking into account that respondent no. 1 was hospitalized for serious ailment and in those circumstances, the appellant, his brother and sister-in-law have looked after child and in the interest of justice it is just and proper that custody of child is handed over back to the first respondent (father of the child). However, the High Court observed that efforts put in hands of the appellant, in taking care of child has to be recognized and so High Court granted appellant no. 2 and 3 access to the child. The above order of the High court was challenged before the Apex Court by private respondent in whose custody child was lying but same was disposed by the Apex Court and impugned judgement of High Court was affirmed subject to certain conditions and observations. However, Hon'ble Apex Court had observed in paragraph Nos. 13, 14, 18, 19, 20, 22, 25, 52, which are as under:-
"13. Writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative process for securing the liberty of the subject by affording an effective means of immediate release from an illegal or improper detention. The writ also extends its influence to restore the custody of a minor to his guardian when wrongfully deprived of it. The detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody is treated as equivalent to illegal detention for the purpose of granting writ, directing custody of the minor child. For restoration of the custody of a minor from a person who according to the personal 3 Gohar Begum v. Suggi @ Nazma Begam and others AIR 1960 SC 93 4 Smt. Manju Malini Sheshachalam D/o Mr. R. Sheshachalam v. Vijay Thirugnanam S/o Thivugnanam & Others 2018 SCC Online Kar 621 law, is not his legal or natural guardian, in appropriate cases, the writ court has jurisdiction.
14. In Gohar Begum3 where the mother had, under the personal law, the legal right to the custody of her illegitimate minor child, the writ was issued. In Gohar Begum3, the Supreme Court dealt with a petition for habeas corpus for recovery of an illegitimate female child. Gohar alleged that Kaniz Begum, Gohar's mother's sister was allegedly detaining Gohar's infant female child illegally. The Supreme Court took note of the position under the Mohammedan Law that the mother of an illegitimate female child is entitled to its custody and refusal to restore the custody of the child to the mother would result in illegal custody of the child. The Supreme Court held that Kaniz having no legal right to the custody of the child and her refusal to make over the child to the mother resulted in an illegal detention of the child within the meaning of Section 491 Cr.P.C. of the old Code. The Supreme Court held that the fact that Gohar had a right under the Guardians and Wards Act is no justification for denying her right under Section 491 Cr.P.C. The Supreme Court observed that Gohar Begum, being the natural guardian, is entitled to maintain the writ petition and held as under:-
"7. On these undisputed facts the position in law is perfectly clear. Under the Mohammedan law which applies to this case, the appellant is entitled to the custody of Anjum who is her illegitimate daughter, no matter who the father of Anjum is. The respondent has no legal right whatsoever to the custody of the child. Her refusal to make over the child to the appellant therefore resulted in an illegal detention of the child within the meaning of Section 491. This position is clearly recognised in the English cases concerning writs of habeas corpus for the production of infants. In Queen v. Clarke (1857) 7 EL & BL 186: 119, ER 1217 Lord Campbell, C.J., said at p. 193:
"But with respect to a child under guardianship for nurture, the child is supposed to be unlawfully imprisoned when unlawfully detained from the custody of the guardian; and when delivered to him, the child is supposed to be set at liberty." The courts in our country have consistently taken the same view. For this purpose the Indian cases hereinafter cited may be referred to. The terms of Section 491 would clearly be applicable to the case and the appellant entitled to the order she asked.
8. We therefore think that the learned Judges of the High Court were clearly wrong in their view that the child Anjum was not being illegally or improperly detained. The learned Judges have not given any reason in support of their view and we are clear in our mind that view is unsustainable in law. ........
10. We further see no reason why the appellant should have been asked to proceed under the Guardian and Wards Act for recovering the custody of the child. She had of course the right to do so. But she had also a clear right to an order for the custody of the child under Section 491 of the Code. The fact that she had a right under the Guardians and Wards Act is no justification for denying her the right under Section 491. That is well established as will appear from the cases hereinafter cited." (Underlining added)
18. Habeas corpus proceedings is not to justify or examine the legality of the custody. Habeas corpus proceedings is a medium through which the custody of the child is addressed to the discretion of the court. Habeas corpus is a prerogative writ which is an extraordinary remedy and the writ is issued where in the circumstances of the particular case, ordinary remedy provided by the law is either not available or is ineffective; otherwise a writ will not be issued. In child custody matters, the power of the High Court in granting the writ is qualified only in cases where the detention of a minor by a person who is not entitled to his legal custody. In view of the pronouncement on the issue in question by the Supreme Court and the High Courts, in our view, in child custody matters, the writ of habeas corpus is maintainable where it is proved that the detention of a minor child by a parent or others was illegal and without any authority of law.
19. In child custody matters, the ordinary remedy lies only under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act or the Guardians and Wards Act as the case may be. In cases arising out of the proceedings under the Guardians and Wards Act, the jurisdiction of the court is determined by whether the minor ordinarily resides within the area on which the court exercises such jurisdiction. There are significant differences between the enquiry under the Guardians and Wards Act and the exercise of powers by a writ court which is of summary in nature. What is important is the welfare of the child. In the writ court, rights are determined only on the basis of affidavits. Where the court is of the view that a detailed enquiry is required, the court may decline to exercise the extraordinary jurisdiction and direct the parties to approach the civil court. It is only in exceptional cases, the rights of the parties to the custody of the minor will be determined in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction on a petition for habeas corpus.
20. In the present case, the appellants are the sisters and brother of the mother Zelam who do not have any authority of law to have the custody of the minor child. Whereas as per Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, the first respondent- father is a natural guardian of the minor child and is having the legal right to claim the custody of the child. The entitlement of father to the custody of child is not disputed and the child being a minor aged 1½ years cannot express its intelligent preferences. Hence, in our considered view, in the facts and circumstances of this case, the father, being the natural guardian, was justified in invoking the extraordinary remedy seeking custody of the child under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
22. After referring to various judgments and considering the principles for issuance of writ of habeas corpus concerning the minor child brought to India in violation of the order of the foreign court, in Nithya Anand7, it was held as under:-
6 Ruchi Majoo v. Sanjeev Majoo (2011) 6 SCC 479 7 Nithya Anand Raghavan v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2017) 8 SCC 454 "46. The High Court while dealing with the petition for issuance of a writ of habeas corpus concerning a minor child, in a given case, may direct return of the child or decline to change the custody of the child keeping in mind all the attending facts and circumstances including the settled legal position referred to above. Once again, we may hasten to add that the decision of the court, in each case, must depend on the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case brought before it whilst considering the welfare of the child which is of paramount consideration. The order of the foreign court must yield to the welfare of the child. Further, the remedy of writ of habeas corpus cannot be used for mere enforcement of the directions given by the foreign court against a person within its jurisdiction and convert that jurisdiction into that of an executing court. Indubitably, the writ petitioner can take recourse to such other remedy as may be permissible in law for enforcement of the order passed by the foreign court or to resort to any other proceedings as may be permissible in law before the Indian Court for the custody of the child, if so advised."
25. Welfare of the minor child is the paramount consideration:- The court while deciding the child custody cases is not bound by the mere legal right of the parent or guardian. Though the provisions of the special statutes govern the rights of the parents or guardians, but the welfare of the minor is the supreme consideration in cases concerning custody of the minor child. The paramount consideration for the court ought to be child interest and welfare of the child.
52. In our judgment, the law relating to custody of a child is fairly well settled and it is this: in deciding a difficult and complex question as to the custody of a minor, a court of law should keep in mind the relevant statutes and the rights flowing therefrom. But such cases cannot be decided solely by interpreting legal provisions. It is a human problem and is required to be solved with human touch. A court while dealing with custody cases, is neither bound by statutes nor by strict rules of evidence or procedure nor by precedents. In selecting proper guardian of a minor, the paramount consideration should be the welfare and well-being of the child. In selecting a guardian, the court is exercising parens patriae jurisdiction and is expected, nay bound, to give due weight to a child's ordinary comfort, contentment, health, education, intellectual development and favourable surroundings. But over and above physical comforts, moral and ethical values cannot be ignored. They are equally, or we may say, even more important, essential and indispensable considerations. If the minor is old enough to form an intelligent preference or judgment, the court must consider such preference as well, though the final decision should rest with the court as to what is conducive to the welfare of the minor."
12. On the basis of observations of Hon'ble Apex Court, which has binding force and facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that above judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court may act as a guiding force for this Court in present case and no pedantic approach can be taken by the court while deciding the custody of the child. In present case petitioner no. 2, who is mother of child, has neither abandoned nor deprived him of his right to maternal love and affection. She is natural guardian of the child due to death of his father. Respondent no. 3 and her surviving son Varun Bhati undoubtedly have taken care of the child since death of his father and fact of their care and concerned of the child cannot be lost side.
13. However, only due to this fact that the mother, who is petitioner no. 2, cannot be denied the custody of her child being her natural guardian under law and privacy over custody of child has been claimed by her rightly above any other person in absence of his father. A mother is always mother whether earning sufficiently or not and it cannot be presumed that after termination of her employment in Ferns Petals, she will not be able to nourish and take care of needs of the child. She has superior right of custody over her son than his grandmother and uncle in absence of anything adverse on the part of the mother except the fact that she is not employed in any regular job. However, till the child, who is stated to be between six to seven years of age at present, gets acquainted with everything and will be in company of his mother i.e. petitioner no. 2, respondent no. 3 and her son Varun Bhati shall have access to him in the form of visitation rights for a period of one year of this order.
14. Keeping in view the fact that petitioner no. 2 is resident of Bulandshahar and the respondent no. 3 and her son are settled in Ghaziabad, it is directed that respondent no. 3 and her surviving son (uncle of the child), will have visitation rights to the corpus Viraj Bhati (petitioner no. 1) for a period of one year at the place of petitioner no. 2, twice in a month on a Sunday between 11:00 am to 5:00 pm, subject to prior arrangement made with petitioner no. 2 telephonically. Petitioner no. 2 will facilitate the meeting between the child and his grandmother and uncle accordingly and will not create any impediment therein. Accordingly this Habeas Corpus Writ Petition is allowed.
15. Therefore, it is directed that respondent no. 3 shall handover custody of petitioner no. 1 to petitioner no. 2 (mother of the corpus) within 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, at the residence of petitioner no. 2. Keeping in view the interest of child, both the parties shall cooperate with each other to ensure direction of this Court.
16. It is further directed that in case respondent no. 3 or her family members adopt any procrastinating approach in handing over custody of child to petitioner no. 2 (mother) or refused to transfer the custody of child, matter would be reported by petitioner no. 2 to S.S.P., Ghaziabad and C.J.M., Ghaziabad, who shall ensure compliance of this order and shall ensure the custody of child to petitioner no. 2 on production of a copy of this order before them.
Order Date :- 12.1.2023 A.P. Pandey