wp5986.17 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH
WRIT PETITION NO. 5986 OF 2017
Vikas s/o Pandurang Thakre,
aged about 50 years, r/o
Shastri Layout, Nagpur. ... PETITIONER
Versus
1. The Commissioner,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
2. The Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
through its Commissioner, Civil
Lines, Nagpur.
3. The Municipal Secretary,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
4. The Mayor,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
5. The Additional Commissioner,
Nagpur Municipal Corporation,
Civil Lines, Nagpur.
6. Indian National Congress,
Through Shri Ganesh Patil,
General Secretary, Maharashtra
Pradesh Congress Committee,
office at Tilak Bhawan, Dadar,
Mumbai.
7. Sanjay s/o Madhukar Mahakalkar,
aged about 35 years, occupation -
Business, r/o Mahapalika Bhawan,
97, Ridge Road, Raghuji Nagar,
Nagpur.
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 :::
wp5986.17 2
8. Tanaji s/o Suklal Wanwe,
aged about 55 years, occupation
Business, P.No. 109, r/o Darshan
Colony, Opp. KDK College,
Nandanwan, Nagpur.
9. Kishor s/o Damodar Jichkar,
aged - major, r/o Kinkhede
Layout, P.No. 9, Opp. Hislop
College, Civil Lines, Nagpur -01. ... RESPONDENTS
Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri Shantanu
Khedkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate with J.B. Kasat, Advocate for
respondent Nos. 1 to 5.
Shri S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate with Shri Deogade, Advocate for
respondent No. 7.
Shri F.T. Mirza, Advocate for respondent No. 6.
Shri S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate
for respondent No. 8.
Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Bhangde,
Advocate for respondent No. 9.
.....
CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI &
ARUN D. UPADHYE, JJ.
SEPTEMBER 14, 2017.
ORAL JUDGMENT : (PER B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J.) The petitioner - a candidate claims to be nominated and recommended by Congress Municipal Party as also the original Political Party (Respondent No. 6), has approached this Court, assailing removal of his name as nominee and inclusion ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 3 of name of Respondent No. 9 in his place. The meeting for the purpose of effecting actual nomination, which results in berth on General Body of Nagpur Municipal Corporation, is scheduled tomorrow i.e. on 15.09.2017. It is not in dispute that the largest party in Nagpur Municipal Corporation being Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), has to nominate four persons while respondent No. 6 has to nominate one.
2. Considering the nature of controversy and urgency, we have heard the matter finally by issuing Rule and making it returnable forthwith. Accordingly, we have heard Shri S.P. Dharmadhikari, Senior Advocate with Shri Shantanu Khedkar Advocate for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Mishra, Senior Advocate with Shri Deogade, Advocate for respondent No. 7 as also Shri F.T. Mirza, learned counsel for respondent No. 6, in support of the petition. Shri C.S. Kaptan, Senior Advocate with J.B. Kasat, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 to 5, Shri S.V. Manohar, Senior Advocate with Shri A.A. Naik, Advocate for respondent No. 8 and Shri M.G. Bhangde, Senior Advocate with Shri R.M. Bhangde, Advocate for respondent No. 9, have opposed the petition. ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 4
3. It needs to be noted that the controversy about Leader of Opposition in terms of Section 19-1AA of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as 1949 Act), has been looked into by this Court, practically between the very same parties, while adjudicating Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2017. The judgment has been delivered in the matter on 31.08.2017 and one of us (B.P. Dharmadhikari, J.) is party thereto.
4. Shri Dharmadhikari, learned Senior Advocate, in this backdrop submits that till 20.05.2017, when Respondent No. 4 - Mayor, recognized Respondent No. 8 as a Leader of Opposition, Respondent No. 7 - Sanjay was practically the Leader of Opposition from 04.03.2017 onwards for the purposes of Section 19-1AA of the 1949 Act as also Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (Qualifications and Appointment of Nominated Councillors), Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 2012 Rules). The process for filling- in nominated posts was initiated on 02.05.2017 and Respondent No. 7 - Sanjay was accordingly invited for meeting ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 5 and deliberations on 04.05.2017. Because of these deliberations, nomination form has been filled in by present petitioner in prescribed formate on 18.05.2017 and that is recommended and supported by respondent No. 7. He contends that 18.05.2017 was the last date for submission of nomination papers and hence any change in situation thereafter, cannot affect this nomination paper as also recommendation since the situation had become irreversible after 18.05.2017. He is relying upon the language employed in Rule 5 of 2012 Rules to urge that consultation with the Leader of Opposition on that date i.e. 18.05.2017 is mandatory for all purposes and Respondent No. 7 happens to be such Leader of Opposition. He as also Shri Mishra, learned Senior Advocate have taken us through the order of Divisional Commissioner dated 19.05.2017 to urge that status of Respondent No. 7 - Sanjay as a Leader, representing the Congress Municipal Party, has been taken away prospectively on that day and as such on last day prescribed for nomination, Sanjay alone needed to be consulted and recommendation by him, therefore, needed to be acted upon. The language of Rule 5 of 2012 Rules is read out ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 6 and our attention is invited to Section 31-A of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, (hereinafter referred to as Provincial Act) to contend that Scheme in both is pari materia. The Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Kiran Ramchandra Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported at 2013 (2) Mh. L.J. 433, in paras 17, 21 & 24 is read out to demonstrate the mandate and sanction of such recommendation. They contend that nomination form filled in by Respondent No. 9 on last date is not recommended by the Leader of Opposition or even by the Group Leader (the leader of Congress Municipal Party), hence that form cannot be processed for filling in one seat available to Respondent No. 6 in the process of nomination.
5. Shri Mirza, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 6 has supported the arguments of Shri Dharmadhikari and Shri Mishra, learned Senior Advocates.
6. Shri Kaptan, Shri Bhangde and Shri Manohar, learned Senior Advocates have relied upon the observations in the judgment dated 31.08.2017 in Writ Petition No. 3110 of ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 7 2017 to urge that Respondent No. 7 - Sanjay was displaced on 16.05.2017 itself as Group leader and, therefore, thereafter he ceases to be the Leader of Opposition for the purposes of Section 19-1AA of 1949 Rules. They urge that as per Scheme of Rule 3(4) read with Rule 5 of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members Disqualification Rules, 1987, the change which has already taken place is required to be reported within one month and its entry is to be taken in relevant registers after due verification. However, this procedure or mechanism does not bring that change into effect after its entry is taken in the register. They, therefore, contend that the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner recognizing Respondent No. 8 as a Leader of Congress Municipal Party takes effect from 16.05.2017 itself and hence on 18.05.2017, Respondent No. 7 - Sanjay was not a leader of that party as also Leader of Opposition.
7. Our attention is drawn to language employed in Rule 5 of 2012 Rules to urge that there consultation envisaged is not only with Leader of House or Leader of Opposition but also with the leader of each recognized or registered party. ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 8 Thus, on that day i.e. on 18.05.2017, Respondent No. 8 alone was the Leader of registered Congress Municipal Party and hence consultation with him and filing of nomination form by Respondent No. 9 with his recommendation, therefore, cannot be faulted with.
8. In addition, they argue that the provisions of Section 31-A of the Maharashtra Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949, cannot be read as pari materia with Rule 5 of 2012 Rules. According to them, the Scheme of both these provisions is materially different and hence the judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kiran Ramchandra Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (supra), cannot be looked into as a binding precedent in present facts.
9. To substantiate the contention that the change takes effect from the date on which it occurs and not from the date on which its cognizance is taken by the Divisional Commissioner, the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Ganesh Mahadeorao Thawre vs. Central Hindu Military Education Society, Nashik & Anr., reported at 2007 (6) Mh. L.J. ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 9 589 and the judgment of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Vijay K. Mehta & Anr. vs. Chaur K. Mehta & Ors., reported at 2008 (5) Mh. L.J. 853, have been relied upon.
10. Inviting attention to the facts of the case, they submit that here, because of then pending dispute regarding status of Respondent No. 7 - Sanjay and Respondent No. 8 - Tanaji, as Group Leader, on 19.05.2017, a conscience decision was taken and process of recommendation was postponed awaiting its adjudication by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2017. For that purpose, the proceedings recorded on 01.06.2017 are pressed into service.
11. Without prejudice, it is also submitted that the process of consultation and recommendation envisaged in Rule 5 of 2012 Rules, is not a one time exercise but it is a continuous one and after nomination forms are scrutinized and list of validly nominated candidates emerge only, the final recommendation upon consultation can be made. It is, therefore, contended that as in present matter actual scrutiny was to take place on ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 10 19.05.2017, which was then postponed, the exercise envisaged in Rule 5 (1) was not over and after adjudication by this Court on 31.08.2017, that exercise has been accomplished. It is, therefore, submitted that the status of Respondent No. 7 on 18.05.2017, as argued, was not relevant at all.
12. Shri Dharmadhikari and Shri Mishra, learned Senior Advocates, submit that the Divisional Commissioner has passed order against Respondent No. 7 - Sanjay on 19.05.2017 and Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2017 was filed on 24.05.2017. Thus, on the date of scrutiny i.e. on 19.05.2017, the matter was not subjudice. They also rely upon the language of Section 19-1AA of the 1949 Act, to urge that it mandates dual requirement and the Corporator must not only be a leader of a group but also recognized as the leader of such group i.e. the largest group in opposition. Respondent No. 8 did not enjoy that status either on 18.05.2017 or then on 19.05.2017 and hence the nomination form supported/ recommended by Respondent No. 8 i.e. nomination of respondent No. 9, cannot be recommended by Respondent No. 1 - Municipal Commissioner as a candidate ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 11 sponsored by respondent No. 6.
13. The perusal of judgment delivered by this Court on 31.08.2017 in Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2017 shows a finding in paragraph 49 that change in group leader of Congress Municipal Party occurred on 16.05.2017. There Rule 2(b)(b-1)
(i) defining "Leader" in relation to Municipal party has been looked into and in the background of facts, after perusing resolution dated 16.05.2017 passed by 16 Corporators out of total 29 Corporators, the change recorded on 16.05.2017 is held to be proved.
14. A perusal of Rule 3(4) of 1987 Rules show that after a change takes places in any information already furnished by the Leader of Municipal Party, it is to be reported at the earliest and in any case within 30 days from its occurrence. The said change is then to be incorporated in the register of information maintained by the Divisional Commissioner in terms of Rule 5. The express language of Rule 3(4), therefore, shows that after change takes place, its ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 12 intimation is required to be given. The entry in the register, therefore, is in recognition of such change which has already taken place in past. No provision in 1987 Rules stipulates that such a change does not come into force till it is so recorded.
15. In this backdrop, when the order dated 19.05.2017 passed by the Divisional Commissioner is looked into, discussion therein shows process of verification undertaken to find out whether change has taken place on 16.05.2017. It appears that because of some dispute about genuineness of signatures, physical verification of signatures was undertaken and after that, said order has been passed. The order mentions that recognition given to Respondent No. 7 - Sanjay as Group Leader is cancelled with immediate effect and it also thereafter stipulates that election of Respondent No. 8 - Tanaji as a Group Leader is given approval on 19.05.2017. Thus, two clauses (in vernacular) cannot be read to mean that approval has been given with effect from 19.05.2017. On the contrary, clause 2 therein specifically mentions that election of Respondent No. 8 is approved on 19.05.2017. Thus, that election which has ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 13 taken place on 16.05.2017 has been given approval on 19.05.2017. This observation of the Divisional Commissioner, therefore, again does not show that respondent No. 8 - Tanaji got the status as a Leader of Congress Municipal Party on 19.05.2017 for the first time.
16. The change which has taken place in terms of Rule 3(4), intimated before 18.05.2017, has been accepted and entered in the register after due verification. We, therefore, find no substance in the contention that respondent No. 7 - Sanjay functioned as a Leader of Congress Municipal Party on 18.05.2017 or then functioned as Leader of Opposition in terms of Section 19-1AA of 1949 Act, till 19.05.2017. He ceased to possess both on 16.05.2017.
17. In view of this finding, we do not find it necessary to look into the judgments in the case of Ganesh s/o Mahadeorao Thawre vs. Central Hindu Military Education Society, Nashik & Anr. (supra) and Vijay K. Mehta & Anr. vs. Charu K. Mehta & Ors., (supra), which deal with the provisions ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 14 of Bombay Public Trust Act and change brought about in terms of Section 22 thereof.
18. The judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kiran Ramchandra Suryavanshi vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (supra), considers Section 31-A of the 1949 Act. There, the emphasis is on effecting actual nomination which results in berth of a Councillor on Subject Committees by the Corporation. Sub-section (2) mandates that Corporation has in the process, to take into account the relative strength of recognized parties after consulting the Leader of House, the Leader of Opposition and the Leader of each such party or group, which form its part. The proviso thereto clarifies that the Corporation is not prohibited from nominating on Committee any member not belonging to any such party or group. It is this language and scheme which has been looked into in paragraphs 21 and 24. This section does not envisage any recommendation by the Municipal Commissioner.
19. The proviso as is appearing in sub-section (2) of Section 31-A of the 1949 Act, or any provision on those lines is ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 15 missing in the Scheme of Rule 5 of the 2012 Rules. The proviso to sub-rule (2) shows that if recommendation of Municipal Commissioner is not to be acted upon by the Municipal Corporation, it has to record the reasons therefor. In sub-rule (1), the process of nomination, as such, has been looked into and it is difficult to confine it only to stage of submission of nomination form. For the purposes of convenience, we reproduce the said Rule 5 of 2012 Rules below :
"5. Nomination of Councillors. - (1) For the purpose of nomination of Councillors, the Commissioner shall, after consulting the leader of the House, leader of opposition and leader of each recognized or registered party or group in the Corporation, and after taking into account the relative strength of such parties and groups recommend the names of suitable persons to the Corporation for being nominated as a nominated Councillor. The names of such persons recommended shall not exceed the number of Councillors to be nominated in accordance with rule 3. (2) The Corporation shall, after considering the recommendation by the Commissioner, nominate the Councillors:::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 16
Provided that, if the Corporation decides not to accept the recommendation of the Commissioner with respect to a person so recommended, it shall record the reasons therefor.
Provided further, that every endeavor shall be made to ensure that one Councillor each possessing any of the qualifications referred to in clause (a) to
(g) of rule 4 has been nominated."
20. It is apparent that initially, the relative strength of such parties and thereafter number of seats becoming available to them needs to be ascertained for the purposes of nomination. Thereafter the Leader of House, Leader of opposition and leader of each recognized or registered party or group in the Corporation is required to be consulted for recommending the names of suitable persons to Corporation for their selection as a nominated Councillor. Thus, this process is before exercise of actual nomination i.e. appointment of such recommended persons as a Councillor is to be considered by General Body. This consideration by General Body is under sub-rule (2). In present facts, this exercise under sub-rule (2) is scheduled on 15.09.2017. The recommendation is by the Municipal ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 17 Commissioner after consulting various Leaders of parties.
21. The names of suitable persons can be effectively recommended to Corporation for being nominated, if the nomination forms submitted by them are accepted or found to be valid. It is apparent that if such form, for any reason whatsoever, is rejected at the stage of scrutiny, there cannot be recommendation of such name by the Municipal Commissioner. General Body of Corporation cannot consider a person where nomination paper is rejected, for nomination.
22. In present facts, the stage of scrutiny of nomination papers was admittedly scheduled on 19.05.2017 at 11.00 AM. The General Body proceedings of meeting dated 01.06.2017 of Respondent No. 2 - Corporation show a statement that dispute about Group leader of Congress Municipal Party was then pending before this Court and hence the decision about one person to be nominated by that Municipal Party was to be taken after adjudication by the High Court. The proceedings record that recommendation in this respect was to be made to ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 18 General Body after adjudication by the High Court. Writ Petition was filed on 24.05.2017 i.e. after date scheduled for scrutiny and the fact that the exercise of verification of signatures was undertaken on 17.05.2017 itself, is not in dispute.
23. It is equally important to understand parameters of scrutiny of the nomination paper to be filed by a person named therefor. Qualifications expected of such a designate are seen in clauses (a) to (g) of the 2012 Rules. These clauses coupled with Rule 5 cast an obligation upon the Municipal Commissioner to associate such designate with the political party naming him and to look into any dispute in relation thereto, if more than one claims are received for same seat on behalf of a political party. Precisely this has happened in present matter. Proviso to Rule 5(2) also necessitates an effort to choose between the "qualifications" possessed by such designates. If more than one designate with same qualifications is available, the Municipal Commissioner may be required to recommend only one of them or then, request the Corporation ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 19 to choose only one out of them. While considering these multiple factors having bearing on each other, he has also to keep the relative strength of parties and number of seats falling to its share for nomination. Thus, the recommendation with all these attributes or properties is possible by the Municipal Commissioner only after the scrutiny of the nomination papers is over and final list of valid designates emerges. If any legal dispute about status of a political party or group is pending in competent court and it has impact on power to nominate, obviously the Municipal Commissioner can not proceed with the scrutiny of the papers till the dispute is resolved.
24. The facts apparent from the judgment dated 31.08.2017 in Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2017 show that on 17.05.2017, one of the Corporators did not remain present for verification of his signature and hence, the Municipal Authorities at their level, had postponed that exercise to 20.05.2017. These facts, therefore, were within the knowledge of Respondent No. 1 and other officers on 19.05.2017 i.e. date of scrutiny of nomination paper. The petitioners have not ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 20 brought on record anything to demonstrate that the nomination papers submitted by the petitioner or by respondent No. 9 were actually scrutinized on 19.05.2017. In this situation, in the absence of any challenge to proceedings recorded on 01.06.2017, it is apparent that the Municipal Commissioner could not have and did not recommend anybody as representative of respondent No. 6 till 01.06.2017. Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2017 pending on 01.06.2017 has been decided on 31.08.2017. It is not the case of the petitioner that scrutiny was over before 31.08.2017.
25. The material on record shows that respondent No. 7
- Sanjay ceased to be a leader of Congress Municipal Party on 16.05.2017. With the result, he also could not have continued as leader of Opposition under Section 19-1AA of 1949 Act. The respective arguments advanced by the parties on said section show that "dual requirement" mandated therein is not in dispute. Respondent No. 8 - Tanaji became leader of Congress Municipal Party on 16.05.2017, however, he was not then recognized as a leader of Opposition in terms of said section by ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 21 the Mayor. All this controversy has been looked into while adjudicating Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2017. However, Rule 5 does not contemplate consultation only with the leader of Opposition. It envisages and requires consultation also with the leader of each recognized or registered party or group in the Corporation. On 18.05.2017, Respondent No. 8 happened to be the leader of Congress Municipal Party. He had supported and recommended respondent No. 9 for nomination. Though on 18.05.2017 validity of this act was in dispute, developments later show that the said act cannot be faulted with. On the contrary, it is apparent that on that day, respondent No. 7 - Sanjay was not the leader of Congress Municipal Party and also not, therefore, the leader of Opposition. In this situation, there was no scope and occasion for consulting him in terms of Rule 5 of 2012 Rules. Hence, act of nominating a person i.e. petitioner, by respondent No. 7 does not confer any legal right upon the petitioner.
26. Moreover, the final list of valid designates of respondent No. 6 or of Congress Municipal Party emerged in ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 22 present facts only on or after 31.08.2017 when the exercise dated 20.05.2017 of respondent No. 4 - Mayor, recognizing respondent No. 8 - Tanaji as leader of opposition, was upheld by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3110 of 2017. Thus, after said step of respondent No. 4 - Mayor, respondent No. 8 - Tanaji becomes Leader of opposition on 20.05.2017. Hence, in present facts when the scrutiny of nominations was resumed after 31.08.2017, respondent No. 8 - Tanaji was also possessing that status. The petitioner, recommended by respondent No. 7
- Sanjay, was aware that scrutiny did not take place on the scheduled date. He and respondent No. 7 are also aware of the proceedings of the general body meeting of the Corporation dated 01.06.2017. They have not challenged omission to scrutinize or then proceedings dated 01.06.2017. It, therefore, follows that after 31.08.2017, when respondent No. 1 - Commissioner resumed the exercise of scrutiny, he is legally justified in effecting recommendation after consulting respondent No. 8 - Tanaji. On that date, only Tanaji was the leader of opposition and entitled to be consulted. Hence, even on this count, the grievance made in the petition is without any ::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 ::: wp5986.17 23 merit.
27. In view of this discussion, the contention that after 18.05.2017 situation had become irreversible, is misconceived and cannot be accepted. We, therefore, find no case made out warranting intervention. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule discharged. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
JUDGE JUDGE
*******
*GS.
::: Uploaded on - 18/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 19/09/2017 01:20:30 :::