[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Bilwa Patri Basaveshwar vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 February, 2026

Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur

Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur

                                                 -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263
                                                        WP No. 200529 of 2026


                      HC-KAR




                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                        KALABURAGI BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                              BEFORE
                           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                           WRIT PETITION NO.200529 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.    SRI. BILWA PATRI BASAVESHWAR
                            (TRUST) SEVA SAMITI (R) HATTIGUDDA,
                            REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,
                            KARIBASAVANAGOUDA S/O PAREDDEPPA JINURU,
                            AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                            R/O HATTIGUDDA, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
                            DIST. RAICHUR-584128.

                      2.    SHARANABASAVA S/O MOKAPPA,
                            AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                            R/O HATTIGUDDA, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
                            DIST. RAICHUR-584128

                      3.    CHANNAMALLIKARJUN
Digitally signed by
NIJAMUDDIN                  S/O DEVAPPA, AGE: 50 YEARS,
JAMKHANDI                   OCC: AGRICULTURE,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF                    R/O HATTIGUDDA, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
KARNATAKA                   DIST. RAICHUR-584128.

                      4.    TIMMANNA S/O HUSSAINAPPA,
                            AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                            R/O HATTIGUDDA, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
                            DIST. RAICHUR-584128.

                      5.    MOUNESH CHALUVADI S/O FAKIRAPPA,
                            AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
                            R/O HATTIGUDDA, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
                            DIST. RAICHUR-584128
                           -2-
                                      NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263
                                  WP No. 200529 of 2026


HC-KAR




6.   HANUMANT S/O DURAGAPPA,
     AGE: 54 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O HATTIGUDDA, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
     DIST. RAICHUR-584128.

7.   SHIDRAMAYYA S/O PARAYYA,
     AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O HATTIGUDDA, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
     DIST. RAICHUR-584128.

8.   CHANNABASAVA
     S/O PAMPANAGOUDA,
     AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O HATTIGUDDA, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
     DIST. RAICHUR-584128.

9.   VIRUPAKSHI S/O MAHANTAPPA,
     AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
     R/O HATTIGUDDA, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
     DIST. RAICHUR-584128.

10. VIRUPAKSHIGOUDA
    S/O BODANAGOUDA,
    AGE: 46 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
    R/O HATTIGUDDA, TQ. SINDHANOOR,
    DIST. RAICHUR-584128.

                                           ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
     REVENUE DEPARTMENT,
     VIDHAN SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

2.   THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
     RAICHUR-584101.

3.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
                            -3-
                                        NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263
                                     WP No. 200529 of 2026


HC-KAR




     RAICHUR-584101

4.   THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
     OF POLICE, SINDHANUR DIVISION,
     RAICHUR-584101.

5.   THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR,
     SINDHANUR RURAL, TQ. SINDHANUR,
     DIST. RAICHUR-584128.

6.   THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
     TURVIHAL P.S., TQ. SINDHANUR,
     DIST. RAICHUR-584128.

7.   THE TAHASILDAR SINDHANUR,
     TQ. SINDHANUR, DIST. RAICHUR-584128.

                                            ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MALHARAO, AAG A/W
    SRI. MALLIKARJUN SAHUKAR, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO QUASH THE
IMPUGNED ORDER BEARING NO. PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/JA.J.f/07/2026 DATED
02-02-2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-F PASSED BY THE 2ND
RESPONDENT, B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS      WITH   DIRECTION    TO   RESPONDENTS,
ALLOW/PERMIT THE PETITIONERS AND DEVOTEES TO
CONDUCT FAIR OF SRI. BILWA PATRI BASAVESHWAR TEMPLE
FROM 04-02-2026 TO 16-02-2026 IN THE HATTIGUDDA
VILLAGE: OF SINDHANUR TQ.

    THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
                                    -4-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263
                                          WP No. 200529 of 2026


HC-KAR




                            ORAL ORDER

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. Learned Additional Government Advocate is

directed to take notice for respondents.

3. This petition is filed seeking the following

reliefs:

"a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the impugned order bearing no. PÀAzÁAiÀÄ/JA.J.f/07/2026 dated 02-02-2026 vide Annexure-F passed by the 2nd respondent,

b) issue a writ in the nature of mandamus with direction to respondents, allow/permit the petitioners and devotees to conduct fair of Sri. Bilwa Patri Basaveshwar Temple from 04-02-2026 to 16-02-

2026 in the Hattigudda village: of Sindhanur tq.

c)Pass such other orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case and allow this writ petition"

4. Petitioner No.1 is a registered trust namely Sri

Bilwa Patri Basaveshwar (Trust) Seva Samiti (R),

Hattigudda, Taluk: Sindhanoor, District: Raichur. It is

contended that Sri Bilwa Patri Basaveshwar temple is 300

to 400 years old temple, having the deity of Lord

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

Basaveshwar (Nandi). Said deity is worshipped by

devotees of Hattigudda and surrounding villages

irrespective of their caste. The devotees have belief in the

deity and every year in the month of Shivaratri, they carry

out several religious activities, so also mass weddings in

the premises of the temple. The petitioner/trust along with

its devotees conduct the Mahashivaratri Festival every

year, which is scheduled on 16.02.2026, where several

functions and religious activities are conducted, such as

preaching purana and other religious activities including

conducting mass weddings in the temple. The religious

activities ought to have commenced on 05.02.2026 and

several mass weddings are arranged and fixed during this

period.

5. This being the state of affairs, petitioner/trust

made a representation to the authorities seeking

permission to hold religious activities from 04.02.2026 to

16.02.2026 in the temple premises. Respondent Nos.5 and

6 after considering their representation, accorded

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

permission on 28.01.2026 for conducting religious function

from 04.02.2026 to 16.02.2026 with certain conditions. In

obedience of the said permission, petitioner No.1 executed

a bond for compliance of conditions to respondent No.6.

After receiving the said permission, which was accorded on

28.01.2026, the petitioners, along with all the devotees,

made preparations for conducting religious activities from

04.02.2026 in the temple premises by printing wedding

invitation cards for participation of mass wedding in the

temple and other religious activities. It is further

contended that suddenly respondent No.2 has passed the

impugned order on 02.02.2026, under Section 35 of the

Police Act, 1963 prohibiting the general public and

petitioners to conduct the fair from 04.02.2026 to

16.02.2026 in Hattigudda Village, with regard to the eve

of the fair of Sri Bilwa Patri Basaveshwar temple. It is this

order of the respondent No.2 which is questioned before

this Court, on several grounds, inter-alia contending that

the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 is

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

arbitrarily, illegal and violative of Articles 25 and 26 of the

Constitution of India. It is also contended that there is

absolutely no circumstance to pass a prohibitory order, as

there is no breach of public peace or tranquility in the

village. It is further contended that respondent No.2 has

relied upon Crime No.188/2025 and Crime No.189/2025

registered on 19.11.2025. These crime numbers were

registered for different reasons and cannot be a ground to

pass prohibitory order under Section 35 of the Karnataka

Police Act. It is a flimsy reason, only with an intent to

prohibit the petitioners from conducting religious activities

of the temple, that such an order is passed. It is

contended that the same is violative of Articles 14, 19, 25

and 26 of the Constitution of India. If at all there is any

apprehension of the police with regard to law and order,

they can monitor the situation and if anybody is creating

such a scene, they can well be prohibited personally, but

they cannot stop the entire event organized by the

petitioners of religious activities. On these grounds, he

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

seeks to quash the impugned order and grant a writ of

mandamus with a direction to the respondent authorities

to allow the petitioners to conduct the fair of Sri Bilwa

Patri Basaveshwar Temple. It is also contented that earlier

permission was granted on 28.01.2026 and due to the

interference of respondent No.2, 8 days have already

passed by, which has caused infringement of the personal

rights of the movement and following a religious practice

as contemplated under Articles 14, 19, 25 and 26 of the

Constitution of India.

6. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing

on behalf of the respondent-State contends that at the

intervention of the Court, as per order passed dated

06.02.2026, directing to conduct a meeting with the

petitioners and the respondents to amicably resolve the

issue and to come out with a proposal, where the religious

activities could be conducted and along with it how the law

and order situation could be maintained by way of mutual

consent from the villagers, the stakeholders, the devotees,

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

including the police, was conducted and accordingly, the

report is submitted.

7. Learned Additional Government Advocate has

placed a memo along with the report for having conducted

the meeting on 09.02.2026. In the meeting held the

following points are enumerated, which read as under:

"1. ¥ÀÅgÁt PÁAiÀÄðPÀª æ ÀÄUÀ¼£ À ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ:-11-02-2026 jAzÀ 15-02- 2026 gÀªg À U ÀÉ ÀÉ 5 ¢£ÀU¼À À PÁ® ¸ÁAiÀÄAPÁ® 05:30 UÀAmÉUÉÀ ¥ÁægAÀ ©ü¹ gÁwæ 8:30 UÀAmÉ M¼ÀUÁV ªÀÄÄPÁÛAiÀÄUÉÆ½¸À®Ä ºÁUÀÆ ¥ÀÅgÁt PÁAiÀÄðPÀª æ ÀÄPÀÌÉ DUÀ«Ä¸ÀÄªÀ J¯Áè ¸ÀªÀÄÆzÁAiÀÄzÀªÀjUÀÉ ¨sÁUÀªÀ»¸À®Ä ªÀÄÄPÀÛªÁzÀ CªÀPÁ±À ¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ ¸ÀÆa¸À¯Á¬ÄvÀÄ.

2. ¢£ÁAPÀ:- 16-02-2026 gÀAzÀÄ GZÁÑAiÀÄ, zsÁ«ÄðPÀ UÉÆÃ¶Ö ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gÀxÉÆÃvÀìªPÀ ÀÌÉ C£ÀÄªÀÄw¸ÀÄvÁÛ J®è ¸ÀªÀÄÄzÁAiÀÄzÀªj À UÀÆ zsÁ«ÄðPÀ PÁAiÀÄðPÀª æ ÀÄzÀ°è ¨sÁVAiÀiÁUÀ®Ä ªÀÄÄPÀÛ CªÀPÁ±À PÀ°à¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ læ¸ïÖ £Àªj À UÀÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ.

3. AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ jÃwAiÀÄ C£À¢Pü ÀÈvÀ ¨Áå£Àgï §AnAUï zsÀé¤ªÀzsð À PÀU½ À UÀÉ CªÀPÁ±À«gÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

4. eÁvÀAæÉ iÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ C»vÀPg À À WÀl£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀqAÉ iÀÄzÀAvÉ ¸ÀA§Azs¥À ÀlÖªj À AzÀ ±ÁAw ªÀÄÄZÀ½ Ñ PÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄÄªÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ vÀº²À Ã¯ÁÝgg À ÀÄ, DgÀPÀëPÀ ªÀÈvÀÛ ¤jÃPÀPë g À ÀÄ ¹Azs£À Æ À gÀÄ, gÀªg À ÀÄ ªÀÄÄAeÁUÀÈvÀ æ ÀÄªÁV (preventive action Report-PAR) ¨ÁAqï NªÀgï PÀª ªÀiÁr¹PÉÆ¼ÀîvÀPÀÌzÀÄÝ.

5. ¥ÉÇÃ°¸ï G¥Á¢üÃPÀPë g À ÀÄ ¹Azs£ À ÀÆgÀÄ gÀªg À ÀÄ eÁvÀAæÉ iÀÄ£ÀÄß ¸ÀÄUÀªÀÄ, ¸ÀÄgÀPÀëvÉ ºÁUÀÆ ±ÁAwAiÀÄÄvÀªÁV DZÀj¸ÀÄªÀ ¤nÖ£À°è PÀlÄÖ¤nÖ£À ¥ÉÇÃ°¸ï §AzÉÆÃ§¸ïÛ £ÀÄß ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîªAÀ vÉ ¸ÀÆa¹zÉ."

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

8. Coming to the present facts on hand, the

petitioners based on the permission granted earlier were

supposed to conduct the program from 04.02.2026.

Accordingly, they put up a pamphlet and other details,

fixed arrangements of weddings and other religious

activities, as permission was granted on 28.01.2026,

based on which the petitioners had prepared certain

calendar of events over a period spanning from

04.02.2026 to 16.02.2026 to conduct activities all being

religious in nature, including preachings of propagation of

the religious activities, puranas and Bhakti geetas etc.,

related to religious activities of Sri Bilwa Patri

Basaveshwar deity. Such being the case, the apprehension

of the respondents by reducing the time from 05.30 p.m.

to 08.30 p.m. of the Purana Pravachana i.e. preaching and

teachings of the lord, is not accepted by learned counsel

for the petitioners, as he contends that such restrictions

cannot be ordered by the respondent authorities unless

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

there is some apprehension, which is not narrated or

stated in the memo. It is seen that vide the earlier order

dated 28.01.2026, the permission was duly granted by

respondent Nos.5 and 6. Subsequently, the permission has

been withdrawn by respondent No.2, which is politically

motivated and only passed the impugned order to prevent

the petitioners to perform the religious activities, which is

in blatant violation of the Articles enshrined in the

Constitution of India. It is relevant to extract the

fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution

under Article 19, which reads as under:

"19. Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc. (1) All citizens shall have the right-

(a) to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) to assemble peaceably and without arms;

(c) to form associations or unions [or co-operative societies];

(d) to move freely throughout the territory of India;

(e) to reside and settle in any part of the territory of India; [and]

[***]

- 12 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

(g) to practise any profession, or to carry on any occupation, trade or business."

9. It is also relevant to rely upon the Articles 25

and 26, which read as under:

"25. Freedom of conscience and free profession, practice and propagation of religion.-(1) Subject to public order, morality and health and to the other provisions of this Part, all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practise and propagate religion.

(2) Nothing in this article shall affect the operation of any existing law or prevent the State from making any law-

(a) regulating or restricting any economic, financial, political or other secular activity which may be associated with religious practice;

(b) providing for social welfare and reform or the throwing open of Hindu religious institutions of a public character to all classes and sections of Hindus.

26. Freedom to manage religious affairs.-

Subject to public order, morality and health, every religious denomination or any section thereof shall have the right-

(a) to establish and maintain institutions for religious and charitable purposes;

(b) to manage its own affairs in matters of religion;

(d) to administer such property in accordance with law"

- 13 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

10. The Constitution of India, as per the

fundamental rights guaranteed and enshrined, has

provided a right to freedom of speech and expression, to

assemble peacefully, without arms, to form associations or

unions, to move freely throughout the territory of India, to

reside in and settle in any part of the India, to practice any

profession, carry on occupation, trade or business. Article

25 clearly specifies with regard to free profession, practice

and propagation of religion and the freedom of conscience.

Therefore, any citizen of this country is entitled to practice

or propagate his religion and also religious activities

associated with his religion. Article 26 deals with freedom

to manage religious affairs. Therefore, when such articles

are enshrined in the Constitution of India, it is a

fundamental right of every citizen to practice and profess

the religion of his choice and in the manner he wants,

unless there is a breach of morality or public order and

tranquility and peace. Article 25 has been considered in

several catena of judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court. In

- 14 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

the Judgment rendered by the 7 Judges Bench of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Commissioner,

Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras v. Sri

Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt

reported in AIR 1954 SC 282, it was held that what has

been guaranteed was freedom not only to entertain such

religious beliefs as may be approved by one's judgment

and conscience but also to exhibit his belief in such

outward acts as he thinks proper. It is also held that

religion is a matter of faith with individuals or

communities. In the case of Ratilal Panachand Gandhi v

the State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1954 SC 388,

(Five Judges Bench), it was reiterated that every person

has a fundamental right to exhibit his belief and ideas in

such overt acts as are enjoined or sanctioned by his

religion. In the case of Sardar Syedna Taher Saifuddin

Saheb v. State of Bombay, reported in AIR 1962 SC

853, Shirur Mutt (supra) view was upheld and held that

what constitute an essential part of religion or religious

- 15 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

practice has to be decided by the Courts with reference to

the doctrine of particular religion and include practices

which are regarded by the community as a part of its

religion. This again was followed by another judgment of

five Judges bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

E. R. J. Swami v. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in AIR

1972 SC 1586.

11. Coming back to the present case on hand,

initially the petitioners were granted permission and

thereafter respondent No.2 revokes it and imposes

prohibitive orders for conducting any such religious

events. The Karnataka Police Act, 1963 permits the police

to regulate the public assemblies and processions. It is no

doubt true that the respondent-police can prohibit the

assembly if there is apprehension of disturbances, threat

to public peace, morality, tranquility, and breach of any

terms and conditions. There cannot be an arbitrary order

of stopping or restricting the freedom of movement or

conducting religious activities or religious ceremonies

- 16 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

during religious festivals. Such restrictions should be borne

out from the records with proper and cogent reasoning.

12. In the present case on hand, except for citing

two crime numbers having registered in the village, no

reasons are assigned by the respondent No.2 for passing

the impugned order. This Court made an attempt to see

that the petitioners, the devotees, the villagers, the police

authorities and the respondents could come to an amicable

settlement, whereby peace and tranquility could be

adhered to, by the imposition of certain conditions by the

respondents. But it is seen that the respondents have

restricted the time limit from 05.30 p.m. to 08.30 p.m.,

further restricting the dates of the religious ceremonies

from 11.02.2026 to 15.02.2026. It is also contended by

learned counsel for the petitioners that the villagers are

told that no activities could be conducted beyond 8:30

p.m., in the joint meeting and hence, they are not

agreeable to the same.

- 17 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

13. Having perused the order of the respondent

No.2, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason for

having passed such an order, as the reasons made out for

prohibiting the petitioners to conduct religious activities

does not stem out from any cogent material or reason to

apprehend any public peace and tranquility being

disturbed, merely because of a crime being registered and

stray sentence of rival group/sect being enemical to each

other may cause law and order situation.

14. It is apparently seen that the Karnataka Police

Act has the necessary mechanism to curtail any such

unruly trouble mongers and also the Karnataka Police

Manual contains the relevant provisions to apprehend

persons, who are creating breach of public peace and

tranquility. Under such circumstances, the respondent-

State would be at liberty to apprehend any person or any

individual, who creates any breach of public peace and

tranquility and creates any threat to the society, including

the performance of the religious activities by the

- 18 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

petitioners, during the period, when they are intending to

do.

15. In view of the fact that the prohibitive orders

were passed and the religious activities have not

commenced from the day it was to commence i.e. from

04.02.2026 till today i.e., 10.02.2026, this Court is of the

opinion that such order passed by the respondent No.2

would not be sustainable and the same requires to be

quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order dated 02.02.2026 is

hereby quashed.

iii. A writ of mandamus is issued with a

direction to the respondents to permit the devotees,

petitioner-Trust namely Sri Bilwa Patri Basaveshwar

(Trust) Seva Samiti (R), Hattigudda and the members

- 19 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

to continue their religious activities as per the

brochure printed and produced at Annexure-C.

iv. The respondents shall not prohibit the

petitioners from conducting the religious activities

from today i.e., 10.02.2026, in accordance to the

pamphlet at Annexure-C, till 16.02.2026 in the

Hattigudda village, Tq.Sindhanoor, Dist. Raichur.

v. However, this Court deems it appropriate to

frame the following guidelines for adherence and

maintaining proper public peace, tranquility and

order:

(a) The petitioners shall perform the poojas, purana pravachane and other religious activities, as per the calendar of events published at Annexure-C. However, the petitioners shall not make any loudspeaker announcements or activities in the loudspeakers post 09.00 p.m. beyond certain prescribed decibel and stop all activities through public announcements and

- 20 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

loudspeakers at 09.00 p.m. Other religious activities could be carried on till 10.30 p.m. and close the religious activities and other activities by 10.30 p.m. on each day till 16.02.2026.

(b) The respondent-police are at liberty to monitor the events of the petitioners, while performing of their religious functions and activities.

(c) Respondents are also at liberty to apprehend any persons involved in untoward activities causing a law and order situation in the village or in the neighbourhood.

(d) It is made clear that the petitioners shall not carry any of the arms or ammunition and any weapons which are barred under the Arms Act, without there being proper permission from the concerned authorities.

vi. In view of the peace meeting arrived

between the petitioners and the respondent-State

and other stakeholders, the parties who have signed

the peace meeting are cautioned not to create any

- 21 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:1263

HC-KAR

untoward incident and law and order situation, during

the religious activities commencing from 10.02.2026

to 16.02.2026.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/-