Orissa High Court
Afr Sita Devi More & Anr vs The Indian Oil Corporation on 28 October, 2022
ORISSA HIGH COURT: CUTTACK
W.P(C) NO. 15722 OF 2022
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
---------------
AFR Sita Devi More & Anr. ..... Petitioners
-Versus-
The Indian Oil Corporation ..... Opp. Parties
Ltd. through its Chairman,
New Delhi & Ors.
For Petitioners : Ms. Mamta Tripathy,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : M/s. P.K. Rath, A. Behera, S.K.
Behera, P. Nayak, S. Das, S.B.
Rath & S. Mohapatra, Advocates
P R E S E N T:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE B.R.SARANGI
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
Date of hearing : 21.10.2022 : : Date of Judgment : 28 .10.2022
DR. B.R. SARANGI,J. Smt. Sita Devi More, who is the partner of
M/s. MORE TRADERS, Bhadrak, is the petitioner no.1 and
Smt. Sujata Shaw, who is the proprietress of M/s. MEGHA
FUELS, Balasore, is the petitioner no.2. Both M/s. MORE
TRADERS, Bhadrak and M/s. MEGHA FUELS, Balasore are
// 2 //
the dealers/transporters of Indian Oil Corporation Limited
and registered as a Micro & Small Enterprises (MSE). By
way of this writ petition, both the petitioners seek to quash
the action of the opposite parties in denying them
transportation contract despite being L-1 and further to
issue direction to the opposite parties for issuance of Letter
of Acceptance (LOA) in respect of their six numbers of
Tanker Trucks (TT) (12-16 KL) Transportation Contracts,
pursuant to e-Tender No.RCC/ERO/37/2020-21/PT-232
for Road Transporta-tion of Bulk Petroleum Products-
MS/HSD/ Branded Fuels, Ex Location-Balasore Depot
issued by opposite party no.2 (Operation Department)
Odisha State Office, Bhubaneswar.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that
the Marketing Division of opposite party no.1 floated e-
Tender dated 19.03.2022 inviting bids from intending
bidders for Road Transportation of Bulk Petroleum
Products-MS/HSD/Branded Fuels. The petitioners, being
the Micro and Small Enterprises (MSE) owned by women
entrepreneurs, applied for and participated in the bid
process. As per terms and conditions of Notice Inviting
// 3 //
Tender, every applicant (save and except SC & ST where it
is two in number) has to be in possession and offer
minimum of 3 nos. of Tanker Trucks for applying for
transportation contract. In the said notice, the date of end
of clarification was fixed to 26.03.2022, pre-bid meet was
fixed to 27.03.2022, date of submission of tender was fixed
to 13.04.2022 and the date of opening of bid was fixed to
14.04.2022. In compliance of the same, the petitioners were
informed as L1 by opposite party no.1 on 02.06.2022.
Despite L1, they were not issued with LOA and it was
issued to other tenderers on 09.06.2022. On 13.06.2022,
though the authorized representatives of the petitioners
made query, but no satisfactory reply was received.
Therefore, on 17.06.2022, petitioner no.1 wrote letter to
opposite party no.3, but she did not receive any reply.
Hence, this writ petition.
3. Ms. Mamta Tripathy, learned counsel appearing
for the petitioners vehemently contended that MSME
Development Act, 2006 and Public Procurement Policy for
Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs) Orders, 2012 and
2018 mandate reservation of 25% for MSEs sector and 3%
// 4 //
for female MSEs entities/participants. It is contended that
both the petitioners, being only two female MSEs tenderers
and additionally being adjudged as L1, non-issuance of
LOA/contract in their favour is not only contrary to the
procedure of law but flagrant violation of the Constitutional
mandates as well as the MSME Act and the Public
Procurement Policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs)
Orders, 2012 and 2018. It is further contended that in
terms of MSEs quota/reservation for SC/ST candidates as
well as women, if there are no such qualifying applicants,
the same will flow to the General MSEs quota. Despite
being L1, the petitioners have been denied issuance of LOA
for having claimed preferential treatment under the
womens' quota and have not been awarded the contract.
Therefore, the action of the authorities is arbitrary,
unreasonable and contrary to the provisions of law. It is
further contended that the petitioners are the transporters
of IOCL and their vehicles are still plying under the existing
contract, but they have been illegally and arbitrarily denied
for issuance of LOA. It is also contended that if the
statutes/orders/provisions made to enhance and ensure
women's participation and pursuant to the same, the
// 5 //
petitioners participated and also found L1, non-issuance of
LOA in their favour cannot sustain in the eye of law, as it is
hit by the mandates of Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. It is further contended that rejection
of their tenders has to be adjudicated by this Court, in view
of Clause-22 of the tender documents, wherein it has been
stated that the Court of jurisdiction till the placement of
LOA is High Court of Kolkata and thereafter the High Court
of Cuttack during the contract period. Therefore, it is
contended that since a part of cause of action arises within
the jurisdiction of this Court, it has jurisdiction to entertain
this writ petition and rejection of their tender by not issuing
LOA in their favour cannot sustain in the eye of law and,
therefore, seeks for interference of this Court. To
substantiate her contentions, she has relied upon the
judgment of the apex Court in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L.
Yamul, (1996) 3 SCC 253 and also the judgments cited by
learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
4. Mr. P.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the
opposite parties contended that the petitioners have
approached this Court to quash the action of the opposite
// 6 //
parties for non-issuance of LOA amounting to deemed
rejection of their bids under MSEs Women category with a
direction to grant transportation contract in their favour. It
is further contended that the opposite parties, while
ranking the bidders, has strictly abided by the Micro and
Small Enterprises Act, 2012 and 2018. It is also contended
that the IOCL has already issued LOAs in favour of all the
selected bidders, which includes seven MSE general and 2
MSE SC and because of the tie between the two petitioners,
allocation under MSE women category is lying vacant. In
view of pleadings made at paragraphs-16 & 23 of the writ
petition, the petitioners have asserted to avail reverse
selection criteria to be considered as MSE General in place
of MSE woman category, for which they have applied for. It
is further contended that the petitioners have chosen
themselves to apply under MSE Women category and
accordingly as per bid declaration under MSE Women
category, the opposite parties evaluated their bids. It is
further contended that with reference to reservation and
evaluation criteria, the petitioners have been given
opportunity to raise their queries in Pre-Bid Minutes and,
as such, they have not raised any queries. It is contended
// 7 //
that if the petitioners had applied under MSEs Women
category, their claim under MSE General category
subsequently is in violation of Clause-1.13(e) of the Tender
Conditions. Therefore, it is contended that on the basis of
undertaking furnished by the petitioners their case having
been considered under MSE Women Category, by way of
subsequent deviation their case cannot be considered
under MSE General Category. In view of such position, no
illegality or irregularity has been committed by the opposite
parties by not issuing LOA in favour of the petitioners and
thereby seeks for dismissal of the writ petition. To
substantiate his contentions, he has relied upon the
judgments of the apex Court in Silppi Constructions
Contractors v. Union of India, (2020) 16 SCC 489;
Agmatel India Private Limited v. Resoursys Telecom,
(2022) 5 SCC 362; Afcons Infrastructure Limited v.
Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, (2016) 16 SCC
818 and Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation
v. Anoj Kumar Agarwala, (2020) 17 SCC 577.
5. This Court heard Ms. Mamta Tripathy, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. P.K. Rath,
// 8 //
learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties in hybrid
mode. Pleadings having been exchanged between the
parties, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties
this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of
admission.
6. For just and proper adjudication of the case,
relevant clauses of the Notice Inviting Tender are extracted
below:-
"1.5 RESERVATION CRITERIA:
The provision of reservation shall be 15% (fifteen percent) &
71/2% (seven and a half percent) for Scheduled Castes (SC)
and Scheduled Tribes (ST) respectively on all India basis as
per Govt. of India directives. The SC/ST tenderers shall
not be eligible for any price preference or relaxation of any
standards other than whatever mentioned in the tender
document.
Category 12-16 KL Capacity TTs 18-40KL Capacity
TTs
In line with "Public Procurement policy for Micro and Small
Enterprises (MSEs) order 2012 & Amendment order 2018",
25% of the total quantity shall be earmarked for
procurement from MSEs. Out of the above 25 percent, a sub-
target of 16% (i.e., 16% out of 25%, which is 4%) is earmarked
for Micro and Small Enterprises owned by the Scheduled
Caste or the Scheduled Tribe entrepreneurs and a sub-target
of 3% is earmarked for Micro and Small Enterprises owned by
women entrepreneurs.
MSEs owned by Women Entrepreneur shall mean:
i. In case of proprietary MSE, proprietor shall be women.
// 9 //
ii. In case of partnership MSE, the Women partners shall
be holding at least 51% shares in the enterprise.
iii. In case of Private Limited Companies, at least 51%
shares shall be held by Women promoters.
Note: For Women owned MSE, the bidder shall submit suitable
documentary evidence as per above
1.6 EARNEST MONEY DEPOSIT (EMD):
The detailed procedure for payment opf EMD online
is given in the tender document.
Sr. Category Amount
1 Tenderers participating Rs. 5000/- per TT
with ready built TT i.e, offered
along with RC & PESO
licence
2 General category Tenderers Rs. 100,000/- per TT
participating with Purchase offered
Invoice containing Chasis
No.
3 SC/ST Tenderers Rs. 5000/- per TT
participating with ready offered
built TT or Purchase Invoice
of Chasis or with Booking
Slip
4 MSE tenderers including EMD exempted for
MSE-General & MSE-SC/ST MSE tenderers having
valid registration
certificate
Tenders without EMD as prescribed above are liable to be
rejected.
Example: In case a general category tenderer is
participating/offering 3 ready built TTs (having RTO
registration & PESO licence) and 1 nos. TTS with Purchase
Invoice of the chassis, then the EMD payable shall be Rs.
1,15,000/-.
1.11 EVALUATION OF TENDERS:
xxx xxx xxx
RANKING IN LOT SYSTEM:
// 10 //
i. LOT-1 - TTs offered in NIT ratio:-Tenderers offering
highest number of TTs in LOT-1 will be ranked in the
top. In case of more than one tenderers are in the
same position in LOT-1, further ranking among them
shall be based on the average age of their fleet
(considering only TTs of LOT-1). Newest age fleet
shall be preferred. In case the average age is also
the same, then allocation will be divided
proportionately among such tenderers.
ii. LOT-2 - All the TTs (having RTO Registration &
PESO licence) falling outside the ratio mentioned
above will be segregated into LOT-2, where TTs will
be ranked based on age of TT Capacity cluster
wise (e.g 12-16 KI and 18 -40KL, etc irrespective
of the tenderer. In case the age of TT Capacity
cluster wise (e.g 12-16 KI and 18 -40KL, etc is also
the same, then allocation will be divided
proportionately among such tenderers.
These shall be considered, in case of shortfall of TTs
after exhausting TTs in LOT-1.
iii. LOT-3 - TTs offered on Purchase Invoice of
Chassis and Booking Slip - These shall be
considered, in case of shortfall of TTs after
exhausting TTs in LOT-1 & LOT-2. List of offered
TTs in LOT-3 shall be maintained tenderer and
Capacity cluster wise. Then the ratio of offered
TTs capacity Category wise by all tenderers
shall be calculated. (Priority to be given with
more numbers of Tank offered with same Ratio
mentioned for the location). Accordingly, selection
will be done with higher ratio getting priority. In
case the Ratio is also same then allocation to
be done based on the ne west age of the
purchase of Invoice / Booking slip.
xxx xxx xxx
h) MSE Reservation: In line with "Public Procurement
policy for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSEs)
order 2012 & Amendment order 2018", 25 % of the
total quantity shall be earmarked for procurement from
MSEs, with a sub target of 16% (i.e. 16% of 25% which
is 4 %) shall be further earmarked for procurement
from MSEs owned by Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled
Tribe Entrepreneurs and a sub target of 3% shall be
further earmarked for procurement from MSEs
owned by women Entrepreneurs. Provided that, in the event
of failure of such Micro and Small Enterprises to
participate in tender process or meet tender
equirements and L-1 price, 4% sub-target for procurement
// 11 //
earmarked for Micro and Small Enterprises owned
by Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe entrepreneurs
and 3% sub-target for procurement earmarked for
Micro and Small Enterprises owned by women
entrepreneurs shall be met from other Micro and Small
Enterprises.
The above provision will be subject to MSEs quoting price
within price band (L-1+15%); i.e. L-1 plus 15% and
bringing down their price to L-1 in a situation where the L-
1 price is from someone other than an MSEs. In case of
more than one such MSEs, the supply shall be shared
proportionately from the MSE bidders.
In case the L-1 tenderer is an MSE bidder, the ranking
criteria as elaborated for General category shall
prevail amongst the MSE tenderers and allocation will
be done upto the location's requirement.
In case MSE tenderer do not accept to match the L-1
rate, the unfulfilled quota under MSE will be met
from General Category and no carry forward will
be done for any other tenders.
xxx xxx xxx
e) Further, tenderer shall give an undertaking on
their letter head that the content of the bidding
document has not been altered or modified.
Any change in bid document or conditional bid
is liable to be summarily rejected.
'How to submit On-line Bids / Offers electronically
against E-tendering?
Vendors / Tenderers are advised to read the following
instructions for participating in the electronic tenders
directly through internet:
xxx xxx xxx
iii) No bid can be modified after the dead line for
submission of bids.
H). RESERVATION -- MSE Tenderers:
Selection of vendor [1 No; i.e. L-1 (for 100% Qty.)] will
be based on "lowest financial outgo of the Corporation
over the period of contract"; and also as described below;
under (B-1), (B-2) and (C).
// 12 //
(B-1) In line with "Public Procurement policy for Micro and Small
Enterprises (MSEs) order 2012 and Amendment order
2018", 25% of the total quantity shall be earmarked for
procurement from MSEs, and out of the above 25 percent, a
sub-target of 16 per cent (i.e. 16 percent out of 25 percent,
which is 4%) is earmarked for Micro and Small Enterprises
owned by the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe
entrepreneurs and a sub-target of 3% is earmarked for
Micro and Small Enterprises owned by women. Provided
that, in the event of failure of such Micro and Small
Enterprises to participate in tender process or meet
tender requirements and L-1 price, 4% sub-target for
procurement earmarked for Micro and Small Enterprises
owned by Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
entrepreneurs and 3 % sub-target for procurement
earmarked for Micro and Small Enterprises owned by
women shall be met from other Micro and Small Enterprises.
(B-2) The above provision will be subject to MSEs quoting
price within price band (L-1+15%); i.e. L-1 plus 15%
and bringing down their price to L-1 in a situation
where the L-1 price is from someone other than an
MSEs. In case of more than one such MSEs, the supply
shall be shared proportionately from the MSEs party. In
case the L-1 tenderer is MSE party, then the ranking as
detailed in tender shall prevail and NOT
proportionately shared among tenderers within L1+15%.
Necessary certificate issued by Authorized body
under the Ministry of Micro, Small & Medium
Enterprises shall be valid as on the date of closing of
the tender. All the technical specifications/techno
commercial terms and conditions and the pre
qualification criteria are also to be fulfilled by the
MSEs. Tenderer submitting the tender under MSE
category shall produce a certificate from the competent
authority to show that the tenderer is registered as
MSE rendering transport services. The tenderer
submitting the tender under MSE shall satisfy that they
have valid certificate from the competent authority before
claiming the benefit under MSE act.
In the event of failure of such Micro and Small
Enterprises to participate in tender process or meet
tender requirements and match L-1 price, the unfulfilled
quota under MSE will be met from General Category
and no carry forward will be done for any other
tenders."
// 13 //
7. On the basis of the above clauses of the tender
documents, the petitioners placed their bids by making
necessary application under 'MSE-Women' Category, which
comprises a sub-target of 3% out of 25% total reservation
provided of total quantity required. The quota in the
present tender floated for total of 52 nos. (39+13), which
works out to 1 TT for MSE Woman. Although the
petitioners came out successful, they were ranked in
similar position as per their declared TT capacity cluster-
wise under LOT-2, in which case it was impossible under
the tender condition to award the bid by issuance of LOA to
both petitioners placed on the same rank in LOT-2 by
dividing the allocation proportionately. Thus, the quota was
kept unfulfilled as per the tender conditions. The evaluation
of the tender following the ranking in Lot System is
mechanized to conduct the bidding process in a fair and
transparent manner. Reason being, the petitioners were
given opportunity to raise three (3) TTs in the Pre-Bid
query. As per clause-1.4.3 of the tender documents, the
minimum requirement of TTs is only for qualification
criteria, however, IOCL may award the work to tenderer for
lesser no. of TTs to meet the total requirement of TTs.
// 14 //
Therefore, having chosen not to do so and participated in
the tender process, the same cannot be permitted to
challenge the bid conditions/clauses which might not suit
them and/or convenient to them.
8. It appears that much reliance has been placed
with regard to reservation policy laid under the MSME
Development Act, 2006 and the Public Procurement Policy
for Micro and Small Enterprises (MSES) Act, 2012 and
2018. The same has been duly adhered to in view of fact
that the tender under clause 1.5 of NIT provides reservation
of 25% of total quantity for procurement to MSEs, out of
which sub-target of 3% is reserved for MSE owned by
woman besides sub-target of 16% of 25%, which is 4%
earmarked for MSE owned by ST/SC. The contentions that
the petitioners are the L1 and the LOA should be issued in
their favour cannot have any justification in view of fact
that even though they came out L1 in no way entitled them
for awarding of the contract as L1 tenderers still required to
clear the ranking in LOT system of evaluation under
clause-1.11 of NIT. As the petitioners could not qualify
LOT-1 Ranking System, acceptable TTs available in LOT-2
// 15 //
under MSE-Women category was more than the NIT
requirements, allocation was to be done from LOT-2 only.
Therefore, the petitioners having applied under the MSME-
Women category could not have been considered under the
General Category in absence of any directive to that effect
under the NIT. Consequentially, the opposite parties had no
authority to change the rules of the game by surpassing the
rank in LOT evaluation, much after the commencement of
the bidding process or during the time of evaluation.
Evidently, the bids of ST/SC/MSE tenderers were to be
ranked separately as per clause 1.11(f) of NIT, giving them
the complete benefit of reservation putting them outside the
competitive bidding arena of General Category.
9. Therefore, there is no iota of doubt to the extent
that the petitioners had applied under MSE-Women
Category and participated in the said category being aware
of the evaluation process for the said category under
clause-1.11(a)(i) of NIT along with a separate ranking under
clause 1.11(f) of NIT. Having done so, the petitioners should
not have questioned the tender terms at this stage, when
those did not suit them favourably or were not found
// 16 //
convenient to them. It is of relevance to mention, the
evaluation procedure laid by the tender terms and
conditions being followed scrupulously, the petitioners
cannot agitate, when the decision taken by authorities is
manifestly in consonance with the language of the tender
documents and subserving the purpose for which the
tender is floated. As such, exercise of power conferred
under judicial review cannot be interfered with.
10. The applications submitted by the petitioners,
which are placed on record as Annexures-C/1 and E/1 to
the counter affidavit, reveal that the petitioners had applied
under the MSEs Women Category. But, subsequently, they
made an effort to be considered under the MSE General
Category even though the principle of reservation derived
from Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India does not
apply to the commercial transactions/tenders merely
because tender issuing authority is the State.
11. Reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioners
on Ritesh R. Sah (supra), wherein reservation in the
matter of selection for admission to the MBBS course was
the subject-matter of consideration and, therefore, the
// 17 //
principle laid down therein has no application to the
present case, as because the tender is a commercial
transaction and, as such, the authorities are guided by the
terms and conditions of the tender documents itself. If the
tender documents do not specify that any reserved category
would go to general category, the claim made by the
petitioners cannot be admissible. As such, the opposite
parties have allowed the reservation policy in obedience to
statutory mandate provided in MSEs owned by women.
Therefore, even if the petitioners have been shown as L-1,
no right has been accrued in their favour to issue LOA as
the quota meant for MSEs women being 1 (one) it cannot
be given to 3 (three). Therefore, if the determination has
been made following the conditions stipulated in the tender
documents, in that case the petitioners' claim for issuance
of LOA being L-1 against the reserved category of MSEs
cannot sustain in the eye of law.
12. In Silppi Constructions Contractors (supra),
the apex Court held that the authority floating the tender is
the best judge of its requirements and, therefore, the
Court's interference should be minimal. The authority
// 18 //
which floats the contract or tender, and has authored the
tender documents is the best judge as to how the
documents have to be interpreted. If two interpretations are
possible then the interpretation of the author must be
accepted. The courts will only interfere to prevent
arbitrariness, irrationality, bias, mala fides or perversity.
With this approach in mind we shall deal with the present
case.
13. In Agmatel India Private Limited (supra), the
apex Court in paragraph-26 of the judgment held as
follows:
"The above-mentioned statements of law make it
amply clear that the author of the tender
document is taken to be the best person to
understand and appreciate its requirements; and
if its interpretation is manifestly in consonance
with the language of the tender document or
subserving the purchase of the tender, the Court
would prefer to keep restraint. Further to that,
the technical evaluation or comparison by the
Court is impermissible; and even if the
interpretation given to the tender document by
the person inviting offers is not as such
acceptable to the constitutional court, that, by
itself, would not be a reason for interfering with
the interpretation given".
14. In Afcons Infrastructure Limited (supra),
the apex Court in paragraph-15 held as follows:
"We may add that the owner or the employer of
a project, having authored the tender documents,
// 19 //
is the best person to understand and appreciate
its requirements and interpret its documents. The
constitutional courts must defer to this
understanding and appreciation of the tender
documents, unless there is mala fide or
perversity in the understanding or appreciation
or in the application of the terms of the tender
conditions. It is possible that the owner or
employer of a project may give an interpretation
to the tender documents that is not acceptable to
the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not
a reason for interfering with the interpretation
given".
15. In Vidarbha Irrigation Development
Corporation (supra), the apex court in paragraph-16 of
the judgment held as follows:
"It is clear even on a reading of this judgment
that the words used in the tender document
cannot be ignored or treated as redundant or
superfluous-they must be given meaning and
their necessary significance. Given the fact that
in the present case, an essential tender condition
which had to be strictly complied with was not
so complied with, the appellant would have no
power to condone lack of such strict compliance.
Any such condonation, as has been done in the
present case, would amount to perversity in the
understanding or appreciation of the terms of the
tender conditions, which must be interfered with
by a constitutional court".
16. In view of the above propositions of law laid
down by the apex Court, it is made clear that the
authority floating the tender is the best judge of its
requirements. Therefore, the Court's interference should
be minimal. More so, the authority which floats the
contract or tender and has authored the tender
// 20 //
documents is the best judge as to how the documents
have to be interpreted. Since tender issuing authority is
the best judge as to how the documents are to be
interpreted, if two interpretations are possible then the
interpretation of the author must be accepted. It is also
clarified that if its interpretation is manifestly in
consonance with the language of the tender documents
or subserving the purpose of the tender, the Court would
prefer to keep restraint. A caution has also been given
that the Constitutional Courts must defer to the
understanding and appreciation of the tender
documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the
understanding or appreciation or in the application of
the terms of the tender conditions.
17. The counter affidavit filed by the opposite
parties is clear to the extent that on the basis of tender
documents since the petitioners had applied for MSEs-
Women Category and 3% reservation has been made for
such category out of total reservation of 25%, in that
case even though the petitioners are L1, no LOA can be
issued in their favour. As such, the opposite parties are
// 21 //
well justified in not issuing LOA in favour of the
petitioners even though they are L1 in the bid itself.
Consequentially, this Court does not find any illegality or
irregularity or arbitrariness or mala fide in the action of
the opposite parties so as to warrant interference of this
Court.
18. For all the above reasons, the writ petition
merits no consideration and the same is hereby
dismissed. But there shall be no order as to costs.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
G. SATAPATHY, J. I agree.
(G. SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 28th October, 2022, Alok
