[Cites 9, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri Suresh R S/O D Ramappa vs State Of Karnataka on 17 December, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
W.A.No.100751/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
W.A.NO.100741 OF 2025
C/W
W.A.NO.100751 OF 2025
IN W.A.NO.100741/2025:
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. SUMA PRADEEP YELI W/O PRADEEP YELI
VEERABHADRESWARA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
BASAVESWARA NAGAR, NEAR OXFORD SCHOOL,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577204.
SHIVAMOGGA TQ. AND DIST.
2. SRI. PRADEEP YELI S/O VEERAPPA YELI
VEERABHADRESWARA NILAYA, 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS,
BASAVESWARA NAGAR, NEAR OXFORD SCHOOL,
SHIVAMOGGA CITY-577204.
SHIVAMOGGA TQ. AND DIST.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARNAHALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE)
VISHAL
NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by
AND:
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY 49,
KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
THE PRESIDENT, DISTRICT SAND COMMITTEE,
HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581110.
-2-
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
W.A.No.100751/2025
4. SENIOR GEOLOGIST,
MEMBER SECRETARY, DISTRICT SAND COMMITTEE,
HAVERI, DIST. HAVERI-581110.
5. SRI. MOHANUDDIN S/O KHADARSAB RAHIMANSABANAVAR
AGE. 39 YEARS, CLASS I CONTRACTOR,
R/O 897, MARUTHI NAGAR,
NEAR EIDGAH MAIDAN, BESIDE URDU SCHOOL,
RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581115.
6. SRI. SAJIDALI S/O RAFIQ AHMED MAHALADARA
AGE. 29 YEARS, CLASS II CONTRACTOR,
R/O MARUTHI NAGAR, NEAR EIDGAH MAIDAN,
BESIDE URDU SCHOOL, RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI-581115.
7. SRI. SURESH R S/O D. RAMAPPA
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O TARAGANA HALLI ROAD, HONNALLI,
DIST. DAVANAGERE-570001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6;
SRI. S.V. YAJI, ADVOCATE FOR R7)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 03/11/2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
IN WP NO.105029/2025 & ETC.
IN W.A.NO.100751/2025:
BETWEEN:
SRI. SURESH R S/O D. RAMAPPA
AGE. 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. TARAGANA HALLI ROAD,
HONNALI 577001, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. RAVINDRA KOLLE, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SOURABH HEGDE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY SECRETARY,
-3-
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
W.A.No.100751/2025
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.
2. THE DIRECTOR,
DEPARTMENT OF MINES AND GEOLOGY,
#49, KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
BENGALURU-560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/THE PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT SAND COMMITTEE,
HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110.
4. THE SENIOR GEOLOGIST/MEMBER SECRETARY,
DISTRICT SAND COMMITTEE,
HAVERI DISTRICT, HAVERI-581110.
5. SRI. MOHANUDDIN
S/O KHADARSAB RAHIMANSABANAVAR
AGE. 39 YEARS, CLASS I CONTRACTOR,
R/O. # 897, MARUTHI NAGAR,
NEAR EIDGAH MAIDAN, BESIDE URDU SCHOOL,
RANEBENNUR, HAVERI DISTRICT.
6. SRI. SAJIDALI S/O RAFIQ AHMED MAHALADARA
AGE. 29 YEARS, CLASS II CONTRACTOR,
R/O. MARUTHI NAGAR, NEAR EIDGAH MAIDAH,
BESIDE URDU SCHOOL, RANEBENNUR,
HAVERI DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE FOR R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
03.11.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN
W.P.NO.105029/2025 (GM-TEN) & ETC.
THESE WRIT APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
08.12.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT
THIS DAY, S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
-4-
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
W.A.No.100751/2025
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
In W.A.No.100741/2025, the appellants - non-parties
to the writ petition are before this Court under Section 4 of
the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 (for short, '1961 Act')
questioning the order dated 03.11.2025 in
W.P.No.105029/2025, whereunder, Annexure-A dated
25.02.2025 inviting e-tenders for disposal of River
Thungabhadra Sand Blocks in IV, V and Higher Order
Streams/Rivers is quashed.
2. In W.A.No.100751/2025, respondent No.5 before
the learned single judge in W.P.No.105029/2025 is before
this Court under Section 4 of the 1961 Act, questioning the
same order which is under challenge in the above-stated
Writ Appeal.
3. In W.A.No.100741/2025, along with the Writ
Appeal, I.A.No.1/2025 is filed under Section 151 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking leave to prosecute
the appeal. I.A.No.4/2025 is filed under Order XLI Rule 27
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
of CPC seeking leave to produce documents in support of
their appeal. Both the I.As would be considered during the
course of this order.
4. The parties would be referred to as per their
ranking in the writ petition before the learned Single Judge
and the appellants in W.A.No.100741/2025 would be
referred to as non-parties.
5. Brief facts of the case are that, a tender notice
dated 25.02.2025 (Annexure-A) was issued by the
respondent No.4, Senior Geologist and Member Secretary,
District Sand Committee, Havari, inviting e-tenders from
the Person/Company/Firm registered under the e-
procurement for disposal of River Thungabhadra Sand
Blocks in IV, V and Higher Order Streams/Rivers. The non-
parties submitted their tender for Block Nos.V and II
respectively; whereas, the petitioners in both the writ
appeals applied for Block Nos.IV and V. 01.04.2025 was the
date fixed for opening of technical bids on the e-
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
procurement portal and 09.04.2025 was the date fixed for
opening of financial bids of technically qualified bidders.
6. It is stated that since all the
tenderers/participants had quoted identical or same price,
the tender inviting authority decided to allot or dispose of
the Sand Blocks by drawl of lottery. Accordingly, notice
dated 05.06.2025 was issued to all the participants fixing
the date of drawal of lottery on 13.06.2025, which was
postponed to 16.07.2025. It is stated that in the lottery, all
the tenderers who had technically qualified were put into
lots and lottery was drawn. In the lottery, the non-parties
were successful and accordingly provisional acceptance
letter dated 23.07.2025, Document No.5 and 6 were issued
to the non-parties. Respondent No.5 who was successful
bidder in respect of Block No.VI, who was also not made
party in the writ petition, got himself impleaded by Order
dated 18.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge.
7. On 23.07.2025, the petitioner filed writ petition
before this Court with the following prayers:
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
"1. Issue a writ of mandamus declaring all the process
of tender in pursuance of the tender notification
dated 25.02.2025 vide Annexure-A after expiry of
validity period as illegal and arbitrary, in the
interest of justice and equity.
2. Issue a direction to the 3rd and 4th respondent to
call for the fresh tender for Sandy Quarry Lease in
terms of Karnataka Transparency in Public
Procurement (KTTP) Act, 1999 and allied rules, in
the interest of justice and equity."
8. The learned Single Judge, on hearing the parties
to the writ petition, accepting the contention of the
petitioner, held that the validity period of 90 days of the
tender has expired and as the draw of lottery to award
contract has been drawn subsequent to expiry of 90 days,
quashed the tender notification dated 25.02.2025
(Annexure-A) with a direction to the respondents to re-
notify the tender, if they so desire, in accordance with law.
9. Questioning the said order of the learned Single
Judge, the non-parties as well as respondent No.5 before
the learned Single Judge are before this Court, urging
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
several grounds including mainly that non-parties who were
successful tenderers for Block Nos.V and II respectively
were not made parties and that they were necessary parties
to the writ petition, since, by communication dated
23.07.2025, provisional acceptance of Block Nos.V and II
respectively, were communicated.
10. Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ashok
Harnahalli for learned Counsel Sri.Anil Kale for non-parties
in W.A.No.100741/2025, learned Senior Counsel
Sri.Ravindra Kolle for learned counsel Sri.Sourab Hegde for
respondent No.5 in W.P.No.100751/2025. Learned counsel
Sri.Sunil Desai for petitioner and learned Additional
Government Advocate Sri.Sharad V. Magadum for official
respondents. Perused both the writ appeal papers.
11. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ashok Harnahalli
appearing on behalf of learned Counsel Sri.Anil Kale for non-
parties/appellants would submit that the non-parties were
successful bidders for Block Nos.V and II respectively. The
provisional acceptance was communicated under letter dated
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
23.07.2025 (Document Nos.5 and 6 to I.A for production of
documents). It is submitted that, since the bid of the non-
parties was provisionally accepted, they were necessary and
proper parties to the writ petition. Since the provisional
acceptance in pursuance to the tender process under the
notification dated 25.02.2025 is quashed, without hearing
the non-parties, the same would be in violation of principles
of natural justice. It is submitted that no order adverse to a
person could be passed without hearing such a person. As
the allotment of Block Nos.V and II in favour of the non-
parties was taken away by the learned Single Judges' order,
it is submitted that learned Single Judge's order requires
interference. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, the
petitioner was aware of the allotment of Block Nos.V and II
in favour of the non-parties. Though he was aware of the
allotment of Block Nos.V and II to the non-parties,
deliberately he did not make them as parties to the writ
petition. Attention of this Court is invited to the averments
made in paragraph (6) of the writ petition, wherein the
petitioner has stated that, as per the process held on
- 10 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
16.07.2025, Smt.Suma Pradeep Yeli (appellant No.1) and
Sri.JafarBogalay were selected in lottery and LOA/LOI were
issued to them on 22.07.2025. If that is the averments of
the petitioner in the writ petition, learned Single Judge could
not have entertained the writ petition without those persons
being made the parties and without hearing them.
12. Learned Senior Counsel Sri.Ashok Harnahalli in
W.A.No.100741/2025 and learned Senior Counsel
Sri.Ravindra Kolle have contended that learned Single Judge
is not right in coming to the conclusion that as per Rule 22
of the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Rules
2000, (for short, '2000 Rules') the tender deemed to have
become invalid. It is submitted that Rule 22 is not
mandatory and they submit that Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 22 of
2000 Rules would state that evaluation of tender and award
of contract shall be completed, as far as possible within the
period for which tenders are held valid. They emphasize the
words "as far as possible".
- 11 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
13. Learned Senior counsels would also contend that
since the tenders are invited, as could be seen from the
tender documents, in terms of Rule 31U of the Karnataka
Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1994 (for short, '1994
Rules'), the 2000 Rules would have no application. Learned
Senior Counsels would also contend that the bid of the
petitioner was rejected and the same was communicated on
22.07.2025, which the petitioner could not challenge.
Moreover, they submit that the petitioner after participating
in the lottery, could not turn around and challenge the
same. Thus, both the learned Senior Counsels would pray
for allowing the writ appeals by setting aside the impugned
order passed by the learned Single Judge under challenge.
14. Per contra, learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai for
petitioner would submit that except the Tender Inviting
Authority and Tender Accepting Authority, none others are
necessary parties to the proceedings. Learned counsel
would invite attention of this Court to Sub-Rule (3) of Rule
22 of 2000 Rules to submit that it is a deeming provision
- 12 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
and on expiry of a tender period i.e., 90 days, in the instant
case it becomes invalid and the fresh tender shall have to
be called for. It is submitted that, in terms of Sub-Rule (3)
of Rule 22 of 2000 Rules, learned Single Judge has declared
the tender as invalid in view of expiry of 90 days as on the
date of drawing of lottery and consequently has directed
calling for fresh tenders. Thus, he submits that there is no
error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Single
Judge. Learned counsel Sri.Sunil Desai would submit that
the Karnataka Transparency in E-Procurement Act, 1999
(for short, '1999 Act'), as well as 2000 Rules would be
applicable to the award of Sand Blocks brought under Rule
31U of 1994 Rules. Since Rule 22 of 2000 Rules is
applicable, learned Single Judge rightly placed reliance on
the circular issued and allowed the writ petition. Thus, it is
prayed to dismiss the writ appeals.
15. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties and on perusal of the entire writ appeal papers,
the following points would arise for our consideration:
- 13 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
a) Whether the non-parties were necessary and
proper parties to the writ petition before the
learned single judge?
b) If non-parties were necessary and proper
parties, what order would follow?
16. In view of the finding that non-parties are
necessary and proper parties to the writ proceedings,
I.A.No.1/2025 filed seeking permission to prosecute the appeal
needs to be allowed and accordingly, I.A.No.1/2025 is allowed
and non-parties are permitted to prosecute the appeal.
17. I.A.No.4/2025 is filed seeking permission to
produce documents by the appellants. Since the appellants
were non-parties to the writ proceedings, they had no
opportunity to produce the documents. Moreover, the
documents produced along with I.A.No.4/2025 would be
absolutely necessary to decide the lis between the parties.
The documents produced are notices and provisional
acceptance communications which would indicate that the
- 14 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
non-parties were successful bidders in respect of Block
Nos.V and II respectively. Hence, I.A.No.4/2025 is allowed
and the non-parties are permitted to produce the
documents produced along with application.
18. It is settled position of law and the Hon'ble Apex
Court has made it amply clear that, a necessary party is
one without whom, no order can be made effectively. A
proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can
be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete
and final decision on the question involved in the
proceeding. A party who has interest in the subject matter
of the lis would become necessary and proper party to the
proceedings (RAMESH HIRACHAND KUNDANMAL VS.
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY
AND OTHERS1 and SARVINDER SINGH VS. DALIP
SINGH AND OTHERS2).
(1992) 2 SCC 524
(1996) 5 SCC 539
- 15 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
19. In the case on hand, under Notification dated
25.02.2025 (Annexure-A), tenders were invited for disposal of
River Thungabhadra Sand Blocks in IV, V and Higher Order
Streams/Rivers by the fourth respondent - Senior Geologist.
In pursuance to the said notification, petitioner/respondent
No.5 as well as non-parties have participated in the tender
process. All the tenderers who participated in the tender
process are stated to have quoted identical or same price. In
the said situation, Clause 14.5 of the Sand Tender Document,
2025 provides for choosing successful bidder by lottery to be
conducted by District Sand Committee. As all the tenderers
had quoted identical or same price, the Tender Inviting
Authority decided to choose the successful bidder by lottery
and accordingly, intimation was sent to the bidders intimating
that lottery would be conducted on 16.07.2025. In the
lottery, respondent No.5 as well as the non-parties have
succeeded and accordingly by letter dated 23.07.2025
provisional acceptance was communicated to the non-parties.
The non-parties/appellants were awarded Block Nos.V and II
respectively.
- 16 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
20. On the same day i.e., on 23.07.2025, the
petitioner filed writ petition before this Court seeking for a
writ of mandamus to declare the process of tender in
pursuance to the tender notification dated 25.02.2025
(Annexure-A), after expiry of validity period as illegal and
arbitrary and for a direction to call for fresh tender. At
paragraph No.(6) of the writ petition, the petitioner made a
specific averment that, as per the process held on
16.07.2025, Smt.Suma Pradeep Yeli (one of the non-party)
and Sri.JafarBogalay were selected in lottery and LOA/LOI
were issued to them on 22.07.2025. However, the
petitioner failed to make them party to the writ petition.
21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in ABHISHEK GUPTA
VS. DINESH KUMAR AND OTHERS3 has reiterated the
principle that non joinder of proper or necessary parties is
fatal to the cause of justice and against principles of natural
justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court made it clear that, in an
intra-Court appeal, where the Court is of the opinion that
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2739
- 17 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
necessary party has not been made a party before the
learned Single Judge, the appropriate course would be to
either remand the matter or decide the matter on merits.
Paragraphs 16 to 19 of the ABHISHEK GUPTA (supra) is
reproduced hereunder:
"16. In the circumstances before us, the bar
created by Rule 5 must yield to the foundational
principles of natural justice, namely, the right to be
heard and the right to a fair hearing. It is trite law
that the principle of non-joinder, though originating
from the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, applies with
equal force to writ proceedings. An order passed in
writ jurisdiction without impleading an affected or
necessary party is liable to be invalidated on that
ground alone. Since the courts exist to administer
justice, the rigours of Rule 5 would not apply and
stand relaxed in a case of the present nature where
the order under challenge is one, passed by a Single
Judge on a petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution, adversely affecting the rights of a
party who was not a party-respondent before the
Single Judge.
17. In our further considered opinion, the
law laid down by this Court in Smt. Jatan Kanwar
Golcha v. Golcha Properties (P) Ltd.6 and State of
Punjab v. Amar Singh7 that an appeal could be
- 18 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
preferred with an application for leave to appeal,
provided the non-party appellant demonstrates that
either the order under challenge is prejudicial to his
interest or adversely affects him or is binding on
him, would be applicable.
18. Also, the maxim ubi jus, ibi
remedium cannot be ignored. A party suffering an
adverse order in judicial proceedings where he is
not noticed, because he was not a party, cannot be
left without a remedy. Although he can apply for a
review, the scope of a review is much narrow than
an appeal and would not provide a remedy as
effective as an appeal.
19. For the foregoing reasons, we hold that
where an allegation of non-joinder of a necessary
party is raised in an intra-court appeal, the High
Court, if satisfied that such allegation has merit,
should either remand the matter to the Single Judge
or decide it on the merits. Such an approach while
not militating against the object and purpose of Rule
5 would, at the same time, accord with the
maxim ubi jus, ibi remedium."
22. Admittedly, the non-parties were beneficiaries
being awarded Block Nos.V and II in the process of lottery.
When the petitioner sought prayer to declare all the process
- 19 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
of tender in pursuance to tender notification dated
25.02.2025 and subsequent issuance of provisional
acceptance by communication dated 23.07.2025 to be
arbitrary and illegal, the petitioner ought to have made the
non-parties as parties in whose favour the Sand Blocks
have been awarded. The persons in whose favour the Sand
Blocks were awarded and communications were issued were
necessary and proper parties to the writ proceedings. By
virtue of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the
benefit accrued i.e., the award of Sand Blocks in favour of
non-parties is taken away without hearing or providing
opportunity to them to present their case before the learned
Single Judge. The entire exercise by the learned Single
Judge is in violation of principles of natural justice. The
principles of natural justice demands hearing a party before
any adverse order is passed against such person. Only on
the ground that the non-parties were necessary parties and
as they had no opportunity of hearing before the learned
Single Judge, the order impugned herein passed by the
learned Single Judge requires to be set aside.
- 20 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
23. Learned senior counsels urged several grounds on
merits of the subject matter of the writ petition i.e., with
regard to applicability of 2000 Rules to the tender
notification issued under Rule 31U of 1994 Rules. Further, it
is also contended that Rule 22 of 2000 Rules is not
mandatory since it uses the word "as far as possible" and
also the contention that the petitioner having participated in
the tender process could not have turned around and
challenged the tender process when he was unsuccessful.
Those contentions are to be considered by the learned Single
Judge on giving an opportunity to both the parties. If those
contentions are considered for the first time at the appellate
stage, the parties would be deprived of opportunity to appeal
and as such we do not wish to go into all those contentions
while remitting the matter to the learned Single Judge.
24. I.A.No.6/2025 is filed on 02.12.2025 seeking
stay of the re-notified tender notification. It is stated that in
pursuance to the direction of the learned Single Judge,
tender has been re-notified in the local newspaper dated
- 21 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
29.11.2025 and to stay the said re-notified tender as
prayed for.
25. For the reasons recorded above, the following:
ORDER
a) W.A.No.100741/2025 is allowed.
b) Impugned order dated 03.11.2025 in
W.P.No.105029/2025 on the file of the
learned Single Judge is set aside and the
matter is remitted back to the learned
Single Judge for fresh disposal in
accordance with law, by impleading the
non-parties as party-respondents to the
writ petition.
c) The petitioners in W.P.No.105029/2025
are directed to implead the non-parties as
party-respondents to the writ proceedings.
d) Consequent to setting aside of the order
dated 03.11.2025 in W.P.No.105029/2025,
W.A.No.100751/2025 would not survive
for consideration on the grounds urged by
the appellant/respondent No.5 therein.
However, it is for the appellant/respondent
- 22 -
W.A.No.100741/2025 c/w
No.5 to participate in the remitted writ
proceedings.
e) The respondents are directed not to
proceed with fresh tender notification
published in newspaper dated 29.11.2025
in view of setting aside the order of the
learned Single Judge.
f) All the contentions on merits urged before
this Court are kept open and nothing is
expressed on the merits of the lis.
g) Whatever interim order is operating in WP
No.105029/2025 shall continue. However,
it is open for the respondents to file an
application for vacating interim order.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
NC.
CT-VP
