Madhya Pradesh High Court
Praveen Singh Tomar vs Union Of India on 17 April, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
1 WP.No. 9945 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 17th OF APRIL, 2025
WRIT PETITION No. 9945 of 2021
PRAVEEN SINGH TOMAR
Versus
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Saurabh Bhelsewale - Advocate for petitioner.
Shri Shashank Indapurkar- Advocate for respondent No.2.
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief(s):
7.1 quash and set-aside the impugned order issued by respondent
No.2 vide letter No.D/401/VER dated 20 June 2019.
7.2 Issue writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to allow
the Petitioner to joint the service of Indian Army and to enroll the
name of Petitioner as a member of the Indian Army in the suitable
trade w.e.f. 18.06.2018 with payment of arrears of back wages,
consequential benefits and ante date seniority.
7.3 Issue any other suitable order or direction as may be deemed
just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the facts & circumstances
of the case in the interest of justice.
2. It is submitted by counsel for petitioner that petitioner had applied for
recruitment in Army. However, the candidature of petitioner was cancelled
although he had cleared the physical test and written test. The candidature was
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
cancelled on the ground that during verification, it was found that petitioner had
given a false declaration that no police case was ever registered against him
whereas Crime No.159/2017 at Police Station Nagara, District Morena (M.P.)
for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 34 of IPC was registered
against him and it was pending on the date of recruitment process.
3. During the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded by counsel for
petitioner that aforesaid fact with regard to pendency of criminal case was not
disclosed in his affidavit, however, he tried to persuade this Court that the said
non-disclosure was a bona fide error on the part of petitioner.
4. The moot question for consideration is as to whether the suppression of
material fact by an aspirant for his recruitment in the disciplined uniform force
by itself is serious or not?
5. The Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Chandra Yadav Vs.
Inspector General And Chief Security Commissioner, Railway Protection
Force, Northern Railway, New Delhi And Others reported in (2022) 14 SCC
244 has held as under:
15. Earlier there has been conflict of opinion in the various
decisions of the Division Bench of this Court, the three-Judge
Bench of this Court in the judgment reported in Avtar Singh [Avtar
Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S)
425] , after noticing various decisions of this Court and after
detailed discussions, summarised the conclusions in para 38, the
relevant part is reproduced as under : (SCC pp. 507-508)
"38. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain
and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of the aforesaid
discussion, we summarise our conclusion thus:
38.1. Information given to the employer by a candidate as to
conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case,
whether before or after entering into service must be true and
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
there should be no suppression or false mention of required
information.
38.2. While passing order of termination of services or
cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the
employer may take notice of special circumstances of the
case, if any, while giving such information.
38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the
government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the
employee, at the time of taking the decision.
38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal
had already been recorded before filling of the
application/verification form and such fact later comes to
knowledge of employer, any of the following recourses
appropriate to the case may be adopted:
38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had
been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a
petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an
incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its
discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false
information by condoning the lapse.
38.4.2. Where conviction has been recorded in case which is
not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or
terminate services of the employee.
38.4.3. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case
involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious
nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean
acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the
employer may consider all relevant facts available as to
antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the
continuance of the employee.
38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration
truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to
appoint the candidate.
38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in
character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal
case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of
the case, in its discretion, may appoint the candidate subject
to decision of such case.
38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect
to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will
assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate
order cancelling candidature or terminating services as
appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal
cases were pending may not be proper.
38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the
candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have
adverse impact and the appointing authority would take
decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in
service, holding departmental enquiry would be necessary
before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on
the ground of suppression or submitting false information in
verification form.
38.10. For determining suppression or false information
attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague.
Only such information which was required to be specifically
mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for
but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same
can be considered in an objective manner while addressing
the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot
be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false
information as to a fact which was not even asked for.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or
suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to
him."
(emphasis in original)
6. Thus, it is clear that in case of deliberate suppression of fact in respect of
pending case will assume significance and employer may pass appropriate
order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person
against whom criminal cases were pending may not be proper. However, in the
case of Umesh Chandra Yadav (supra), a direction for reinstatement was
given because petitioner therein had suffered registration of criminal case
during his juvenility. In the present case, petitioner was seeking his
employment in a uniform, disciplined force. The Supreme Court in the case of
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited And Another Vs. Anil
Kanwariya reported in (2021) 10 SCC 136 has held as under:
8. While considering the aforesaid issues, few decisions of this
Court on appointment obtained by fraud/misrepresentation and/or
appointment obtained by suppression of material facts are required
to be referred to and considered.
8.1 In B. Chinnam Naidu [State of A.P. v. B. Chinnam Naidu,
(2005) 2 SCC 746 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 323] , this Court has
observed that the object of requiring information in the attestation
form and the declaration thereafter by the candidate is to ascertain
and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to
enter into or continue in service. It is further observed that when a
candidate suppresses material information and/or gives false
information, he cannot claim any right for appointment or
continuance in service.
8.2 In Devendra Kumar [Devendra Kumar v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 270] , while
joining the training, the employee was asked to submit an affidavit
giving certain information, particularly, whether he had ever been
involved in any criminal case. The employee submitted an affidavit
stating that he had never been involved in any criminal case. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
employee completed his training satisfactorily and it was at this
time that the employer in pursuance of the process of character
verification came to know that the employee was in fact involved
in a criminal case. It was found that the final report in that case had
been submitted by the prosecution and accepted by the Judicial
Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the same, the employee was
discharged abruptly on the ground that since he was a temporary
government servant, he could be removed from service without
holding an enquiry. The said order was challenged by the employee
by filing a writ petition before a Single Judge of the High Court
which was dismissed [Ishwar Singh v. State of Uttaranchal, 2003
SCC OnLine Utt 95 : (2004) 5 SLR 220] . The Division Bench
upheld [Kuldeep Kumar Gupta v. State Special Appeal No. 15 of
2003, order dated 28-5-2004 (Utt)] that order, which was the
subject-matter of appeal before this Court. Dismissing the appeal,
this Court observed and held that the question is not whether the
employee is suitable for the post. The pendency of a criminal
case/proceeding is different from suppressing the information of
such pendency. The case pending against a person might not
involve moral turpitude but suppressing of this information itself
amounts to moral turpitude. It is further observed that the
information sought by the employer if not disclosed as required,
would definitely amount to suppression of material information and
in that eventuality, the service becomes liable to be terminated,
even if there had been no further trial or the person concerned
stood acquitted/discharged.
8.3. It is further observed by this Court in Devendra
Kumar [Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC
363 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 270] that where an applicant employee
gets an order by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud upon
the competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the
eye of the law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or
temporal." It is further observed and held that dishonesty should
not be permitted to bear the fruit and benefit those persons who
have defrauded or misrepresented themselves and in such
circumstances, the court should not perpetuate the fraud by
entertaining petitions on their behalf.
8.4. The relevant observations in the said decision are in paras 12,
13, 18 and 25, which are as under : (Devendra Kumar
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
case [Devendra Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal, (2013) 9 SCC 363 :
(2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 270] , SCC pp. 368-69 & 371)
"12. So far as the issue of obtaining the appointment by
misrepresentation is concerned, it is no more res integra. The
question is not whether the applicant is suitable for the post.
The pendency of a criminal case/proceeding is different from
suppressing the information of such pendency. The case
pending against a person might not involve moral turpitude
but suppressing of this information itself amounts to moral
turpitude. In fact, the information sought by the employer if
not disclosed as required, would definitely amount to
suppression of material information. In that eventuality, the
service becomes liable to be terminated, even if there had
been no further trial or the person concerned stood
acquitted/discharged.
13. It is a settled proposition of law that where an applicant
gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing
fraud upon the competent authority, such an order cannot be
sustained in the eye of the law. 'Fraud avoids all judicial
acts, ecclesiastical or temporal.' [Vide S.P. Chengalvaraya
Naidu v. Jagannath [S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v.
Jagannath, (1994) 1 SCC 1] .] In Lazarus Estates
Ltd. v. Beasley [Lazarus Estates Ltd. v. Beasley, (1956) 1 QB
702 : (1956) 2 WLR 502 (CA)] the Court observed without
equivocation that : (QB p. 712)
'... No judgment of a court, no order of a Minister can be
allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud, for fraud
unravels everything.'
***
18. The ratio laid down by this Court in various cases is that
dishonesty should not be permitted to bear the fruit and
benefit those persons who have frauded or misrepresented
themselves. In such circumstances the court should not
perpetuate the fraud by entertaining petitions on their behalf.
In Union of India v. M. Bhaskaran [Union of India v. M.
Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 162]
this Court, after placing reliance upon and approving its
earlier judgment in Vizianagaram Social Welfare Residential
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
School Society v. M. Tripura Sundari Devi [Vizianagaram
Social Welfare Residential School Society v. M. Tripura
Sundari Devi, (1990) 3 SCC 655 : 1990 SCC (L&S) 520] ,
observed as under : (M. Bhaskaran case [Union of
India v. M. Bhaskaran, 1995 Supp (4) SCC 100 : 1996 SCC
(L&S) 162] , SCC p. 104, para 6)
If by committing fraud any employment is obtained, the
same cannot be permitted to be countenanced by a court of
law as the employment secured by fraud renders it voidable
at the option of the employer.
***
25. More so, if the initial action is not in consonance with
law, the subsequent conduct of party cannot sanctify the
same. Sublato fundamento cadit opus -- a foundation being
removed, the superstructure falls. A person having done
wrong cannot take advantage of his own wrong and plead bar
of any law to frustrate the lawful trial by a competent court.
In such a case the legal maxim nullus commodum caprere
potest de injuria sua propria applies. The persons violating
the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot
be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation. (Vide Union of
India v. Madan Lal Yadav [Union of India v. Madan Lal
Yadav, (1996) 4 SCC 127 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 592] and Lily
Thomas v. Union of India [Lily Thomas v. Union of India,
(2000) 6 SCC 224 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1056] .) Nor can a
person claim any right arising out of his own wrongdoing
(jus ex injuria non oritur)."
(Emphasis in original)
8.5. In Jainendra Singh [Jainendra Singh v. State of U.P., (2012)
8 SCC 748 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 754] , this Court summarised
the principles to be considered in a case where the appointment is
obtained by misrepresentation and/or suppression of facts by
candidates/appointees as under : (SCC pp. 761-62, para 29)
"29.1. Fraudulently obtained orders of appointment could be
legitimately treated as voidable at the option of the
employer or could be recalled by the employer and in such
cases merely because the respondent employee has
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
continued in service for a number of years, on the basis of
such fraudulently obtained employment, cannot get any
equity in his favour or any estoppel against the employer.
29.2. Verification of the character and antecedents is one of
the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate
is suitable to the post under the State and on account of his
antecedents the appointing authority if finds it not desirable
to appoint a person to a disciplined force can it be said to be
unwarranted.
29.3. When appointment was procured by a person on the
basis of forged documents, it would amount to
misrepresentation and fraud on the employer and, therefore,
it would create no equity in his favour or any estoppel
against the employer while resorting to termination without
holding any inquiry.
29.4. A candidate having suppressed material information
and/or giving false information cannot claim right to
continue in service and the employer, having regard to the
nature of employment as well as other aspects, has the
discretion to terminate his services.
29.5. The purpose of calling for information regarding
involvement in any criminal case or detention or conviction
is for the purpose of verification of the
character/antecedents at the time of recruitment and
suppression of such material information will have a clear
bearing on the character and antecedents of the candidate in
relation to his continuity in service.
29.6. The person who suppressed the material information
and/or gives false information cannot claim any right for
appointment or continuity in service.
29.7. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in
uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and,
therefore, any deliberate statement or omission regarding a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
vital information can be seriously viewed and the ultimate
decision of the appointing authority cannot be faulted.
29.8. An employee on probation can be discharged from
service or may be refused employment on the ground of
suppression of material information or making false
statement relating to his involvement in the criminal case,
conviction or detention, even if ultimately he was acquitted
of the said case, inasmuch as such a situation would make a
person undesirable or unsuitable for the post.
29.9. An employee in the uniformed service presupposes a
higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to
uphold the law and on the contrary such a service born in
deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated.
29.10. The authorities entrusted with the responsibility of
appointing Constables, are under duty to verify the
antecedents of a candidate to find out whether he is suitable
for the post of a Constable and so long as the candidate has
not been acquitted in the criminal case, he cannot be held to
be suitable for appointment to the post of Constable."
8.6. In Daya Shankar Yadav [Daya Shankar Yadav v. Union of
India, (2010) 14 SCC 103 : (2011) 2 SCC (L&S) 439] , this Court
had an occasion to consider the purpose of seeking the information
with respect to antecedents. It is observed and held that the
purpose of seeking the information with respect to antecedents is
to ascertain the character and antecedents of the candidate so as to
assess his suitability for the post. It is further observed that when
an employee or a prospective employee declares in a verification
form, answers to the queries relating to character and antecedents,
the verification thereof can lead to any of the following
consequences : (SCC pp. 110-11, para 15)
"15. ... (a) If the declarant has answered the questions in the
affirmative and furnished the details of any criminal case
(wherein he was convicted or acquitted by giving benefit of
doubt for want of evidence), the employer may refuse to offer
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
him employment (or if already employed on probation,
discharge him from service), if he is found to be unfit having
regard to the nature and gravity of the offence/crime in which
he was involved.
(b) On the other hand, if the employer finds that the criminal
case disclosed by the declarant related to offences which were
technical, or of a nature that would not affect the declarant's
fitness for employment, or where the declarant had been
honourably acquitted and exonerated, the employer may
ignore the fact that the declarant had been prosecuted in a
criminal case and proceed to appoint him or continue him in
employment.
(c) Where the declarant has answered the questions in the
negative and on verification it is found that the answers were
false, the employer may refuse to employ the declarant (or
discharge him, if already employed), even if the declarant had
been cleared of the charges or is acquitted. This is because
when there is suppression or non-disclosure of material
information bearing on his character, that itself becomes a
reason for not employing the declarant.
(d) Where the attestation form or verification form does not
contain proper or adequate queries requiring the declarant to
disclose his involvement in any criminal proceedings, or
where the candidate was unaware of initiation of criminal
proceedings when he gave the declarations in the verification
roll/attestation form, then the candidate cannot be found fault
with, for not furnishing the relevant information. But if the
employer by other means (say police verification or
complaints, etc.) learns about the involvement of the
declarant, the employer can have recourse to courses (a) or
(b) above."
Thereafter, it is observed and held that an employee can be
discharged from service or a prospective employee may be refused
employment on the ground of suppression of material information
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
or making false statement in reply to queries relating to
prosecution or conviction for a criminal offence (even if he was
ultimately acquitted in the criminal case).
8.7. In Abhijit Singh Pawar [State of M.P. v. Abhijit Singh
Pawar, (2018) 18 SCC 733 : (2019) 3 SCC (Cri) 431 : (2019) 2
SCC (L&S) 420] , when the employee participated in the
selection process, he tendered an affidavit disclosing the pending
criminal case against him. The affidavit was filed on 22-12-2012.
According to the disclosure, a case registered in the year 2006
was pending on the date when the affidavit was tendered.
However, within four days of filing such an affidavit, a
compromise was entered into between the original complainant
and the employee and an application for compounding the offence
was filed under Section 320 CrPC. The employee came to be
discharged in view of the deed of compromise. That thereafter the
employee was selected in the examination and was called for
medical examination. However, around the same time, his
character verification was also undertaken and after due
consideration of the character verification report, his candidature
was rejected. The employee filed a writ petition before the High
Court challenging rejection of his candidature. The learned Single
Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed [Abhijit
Singh Pawar v. State of M.P., WP No. 9412 of 2013, order dated
31-7-2014 (MP)] the said writ petition. The judgment and order
passed by the learned Single Judge directing the State to appoint
the employee came to be confirmed [State of M.P. v. Abhijit
Singh Pawar, 2015 SCC OnLine MP 7517] by the Division
Bench which led to appeal before this Court. After considering a
catena of decisions on the point including the decision of this
Court in AvtarSingh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8
SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] , this Court upheld the order
of the State rejecting the candidature of the employee by
observing that as held in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of
India, (2016) 8 SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] , even in
cases where a truthful disclosure about a concluded case was
made, the employer would still have a right to consider
antecedents of the candidate and could not be compelled to
appoint such candidate.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
8.8. After reproducing and/or reconsidering para 38.5 of the
decision in Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8
SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] , in para 13, this Court
observed and held as under : (Abhijit Singh Pawar case [State of
M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar, (2018) 18 SCC 733 : (2019) 3 SCC
(Cri) 431 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 420] , SCC p. 742)
"13. In Avtar Singh [Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8
SCC 471 : (2016) 2 SCC (L&S) 425] , though this Court
was principally concerned with the question as to non-
disclosure or wrong disclosure of information, it was
observed in para 38.5 that even in cases where a truthful
disclosure about a concluded case was made, the employer
would still have a right to consider antecedents of the
candidate and could not be compelled to appoint such
candidate."
8.9. In the said decision, this Court also considered the conduct
on the part of the employee in getting discharge on the basis of
the compromise which was obtained within a period of four days
of filing the affidavit/disclosure. In para 14, it is observed and
held as under : (Abhijit Singh Pawar case [State of
M.P. v. Abhijit Singh Pawar, (2018) 18 SCC 733 : (2019) 3 SCC
(Cri) 431 : (2019) 2 SCC (L&S) 420] , SCC p. 743)
"14. In the present case, as on the date when the respondent
had applied, a criminal case was pending against him.
Compromise was entered into only after an affidavit
disclosing such pendency was filed. On the issue of
compounding of offences and the effect of acquittal under
Section 320(8) CrPC, the law declared by this Court
in Mehar Singh [State v. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685 :
(2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 910] ,
specially in paras 34 and 35 completely concludes the issue.
Even after the disclosure is made by a candidate, the
employer would be well within his rights to consider the
antecedents and the suitability of the candidate. While so
considering, the employer can certainly take into account
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
the job profile for which the selection is undertaken, the
severity of the charges levelled against the candidate and
whether the acquittal in question was an honourable
acquittal or was merely on the ground of benefit of doubt or
as a result of composition."
14. The issue/question may be considered from another angle,
from the employer's point of view. The question is not about
whether an employee was involved in a dispute of trivial nature
and whether he has been subsequently acquitted or not. The
question is about the credibility and/or trustworthiness of such
an employee who at the initial stage of the employment i.e.
while submitting the declaration/verification and/or applying for
a post made false declaration and/or not disclosing and/or
suppressing material fact of having involved in a criminal case.
If the correct facts would have been disclosed, the employer
might not have appointed him. Then the question is of TRUST.
Therefore, in such a situation, where the employer feels that an
employee who at the initial stage itself has made a false
statement and/or not disclosed the material facts and/or
suppressed the material facts and therefore he cannot be
continued in service because such an employee cannot be relied
upon even in future, the employer cannot be forced to continue
such an employee. The choice/option whether to continue or not
to continue such an employee always must be given to the
employer. At the cost of repetition, it is observed and as
observed hereinabove in catena of decision such an employee
cannot claim the appointment and/or continue to be in service as
a matter of right.
7. Army is a disciplined force in uniform and concealment of fact at the
very beginning by itself is a serious lapse on the part of petitioner. However, it
is for the employer to decide as to whether nature of allegations made against
the aspirant can be ignored or not because a person who is guilty of suppression
of material information has no unfettered right to seek appointment. The
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:8569
responsibility of an Army personnel is of responsible character bearing
intrinsically the safety of country and personal liberty of the citizens.
8. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that not
only a criminal case was already pending against petitioner but the said fact
was also suppressed by him in his affidavit and even during the course of
arguments counsel for petitioner could not give any satisfactory answer to the
question as to why the aforesaid fact was not disclosed. It is submitted by
counsel for respondent No.2 that, it was not the only mischief which was
played by petitioner but it was also found that he had interpolated the Roll
Number.
9. Be that whatever it may be.
10. Since the candidature of petitioner has been cancelled on the ground of
non-disclosure of factum of pendency of criminal case and the said ground has
been found to be justified, no further deliberations are required with regard to
further conduct of petitioner.
11. Accordingly, petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
pd
