Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Bhoora Ram Khilery vs The State Of Rajasthan on 24 November, 2025
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (1 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21567/2025
Bhoora Ram Khilery S/o Sh. Purkha Ram Khilery, Aged About 52
Years, Resident Of V.p. Ramsari, Degana Road, Tilanesh, Nagaur,
Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural.
5. Shri Nemi Chand, Women Crime Investigation Cell,
District Ajmer Through The Superintendent Of Police,
Ajmer, (Under Transfer)
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21085/2025
Bhoora Ram Khilery S/o Purkha Ram Khilery, Aged About 52
Years, V.p. Ramsari, Degana Road, Tilanesh, Nagaur (Raj.).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Principal Secretary,
Home Department, Government Of Rajasthan,
Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director General Of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Inspector General Of Police, Jodhpur Range, Jodhpur.
4. Superintendent Of Police, Jodhpur Rural.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. SS Choudhary
Ms. Vrinda Bhardwaj
Mr. Harish Purohit
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
(Downloaded on 25/11/2025 at 09:11:53 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (2 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
For Respondent(s) : Mr. BL Bhati, AAG
Mr. Deepak Chandak
Mr. Divik Mathur
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
Reportable-
ORDER PRONOUNCED ON ::: 24/11/2025
ORDER RESERVED ON ::: 17/11/2025
BY THE COURT :-
Facts and Grievance of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
21085/2025-
1. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, read with Articles 14, 19 and 21, the
petitioner has assailed the legality, validity and propriety of
the impugned order dated 21.10.2025 passed by respondent
No.2, whereby the petitioner has been placed under
'Awaiting Posting Order (A.P.O.)' and his headquarters have
been fixed at Police Headquarters, Jaipur. The petitioner
submits that the impugned action, in the backdrop of the
applicable provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, is
arbitrary and unsustainable, being contrary to the principles
of natural justice, equity and fair play.
2. The brief facts of present case is that the petitioner, has filed
the present writ petition being aggrieved by the impugned
order dated 21.10.2025 passed by respondent No.2 -
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (3 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the
petitioner has been placed under Awaiting Posting Order
(APO) with his headquarter fixed at Police Headquarters,
Jaipur; that the petitioner, while serving as Dy.
Superintendent of Police, Women Crime Investigation Cell,
Bikaner, was transferred vide order dated 07.10.2024 to
discharge duties as Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh, District
Jodhpur Rural, where he duly joined on 14.10.2024; that
subsequently, certain villagers submitted a complaint dated
17.10.2024 against one Hemant Sharma alleging caste-
based slurs on social media capable of provoking riots, which
the petitioner forwarded to the S.H.O., P.S. Bhopalgarh for
necessary inquiry and legal action; that upon enquiry, the
S.H.O. found that Hemant Sharma, an influential person, had
uploaded objectionable messages and had threatened the
police, leading to initiation of proceedings under Sections
126 and 170 BNSS, 2023 and his custody for maintaining
peace; that despite absence of any complaint, departmental
inquiry or disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner,
respondent No.2 issued the APO order dated 21.10.2025
fixing his headquarter at Jaipur, followed by the relieving
order dated 24.10.2025 issued by respondent No.4; that the
petitioner asserts that the impugned order is unsupported by
any legally sustainable reason and appears to have been
issued only to remove him from Bhopalgarh Circle,
amounting to a punitive action without fault, contrary to Rule
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (4 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
25-A of the Rajasthan Civil Services Rules, 1951, which
mandates fulfilment of specific conditions prior to issuance of
an APO order; that the petitioner relies upon the judgment of
this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10490/2024, Dr.
Mahesh Kumar Panwar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,
wherein vide order dated 09.09.2024, the Court examined
the legal framework governing APO orders; and that the
petitioner contends that the impugned action, being bereft of
reasons and dehors statutory requirements, is illegal and
unsustainable, compelling the petitioner to approach this
Court for appropriate relief.
Facts and Grievance of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
21567/2025-
1. By way of filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India read with Articles 14, 19 and 21, the
petitioner has assailed the impugned order dated 01.11.2025
passed by respondent No.2, whereby the petitioner has been
transferred from Bhopalgarh to the post of Assistant
Commandant, Mewar Bheel Core, Banswara, alleging that
the said action is arbitrary, violative of the Rajasthan Service
Rules, and contrary to the settled principles of natural
justice, equity and fair play.
2. The brief facts of present case is that the petitioner, has
approached this Court in the second round of litigation
challenging the correctness, validity and propriety of the
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (5 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
impugned order dated 01.11.2025 passed by respondent
No.2, Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby
the petitioner has been transferred from Bhopalgarh to the
post of Assistant Commandant, Mewar Bheel Core,
Banswara. The relevant factual background is that the
petitioner, while serving as Dy. Superintendent of Police,
Women Crime Investigation Cell, Bikaner, was transferred
vide order dated 07.10.2024 to discharge duties as Circle
Officer, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural (Annex.1), where
he joined on 14.10.2024 by submitting his joining report
(Annex.2). On 17.10.2024, certain villagers submitted a
written complaint alleging that one Hemant Sharma had
uploaded caste-based slurs on social media (Annex.3), upon
which the petitioner forwarded the complaint to the S.H.O.,
Police Station Bhopalgarh for necessary enquiry and action
(Annex.4). The S.H.O., after enquiry, called Hemant Sharma,
and upon alleged threats extended to police personnel,
initiated proceedings under Sections 126 and 170 BNSS,
2023, taking him into custody to maintain peace (Annex.5).
Thereafter, an order dated 21.10.2025 was issued by
respondent No.2 placing the petitioner under Awaiting
Posting Order (APO) with headquarters at Police
Headquarters, Jaipur (Annex.6), followed by a relieving order
dated 24.10.2025 issued by respondent No.4,
Superintendent of Police, Jodhpur Rural (Annex.7). According
to the petitioner, the APO order was issued without any
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (6 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
complaint, enquiry or disciplinary proceedings against him
and without recording reasons, and reference is placed upon
the judgment in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.10490/2024, Dr.
Mahesh Kumar Panwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., decided
on 09.09.2024 (Annex.8), dealing with the conditions for
issuance of APO orders under Rule 25-A of the Rajasthan
Civil Services Rules, 1951. In compliance with Annex.6, the
petitioner joined at Police Headquarters, Jaipur on
27.10.2025 (Annex.9). The petitioner then challenged the
APO order (Annex.6) and relieving order (Annex.7) before
this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.21085/2025,
wherein vide order dated 29.10.2025, the co-ordinate bench
of this Court stayed the effect and operation of both orders
(Annex.10). Meanwhile, the petitioner was deployed for duty
at the Pushkar Fair at Ajmer vide order dated 29.10.2025
(Annex.11), the copy of which was submitted by him through
counsel and through the S.P., Ajmer, on 30.10.2025 and
01.11.2025 respectively (Annex.12). Subsequently, on
01.11.2025, the respondent department issued a transfer
order transferring the petitioner from Bhopalgarh to
Banswara on the post of Assistant Commandant, Mewar
Bheel Core (Annex.13), wherein the petitioner's name
appears at Serial No.50. The petitioner contends that the
above transfer was issued in continuation of the earlier
orders and without recording reasons, despite the fact that
he was no longer posted at Bhopalgarh in view of the APO
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (7 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
order, and alleges lack of application of mind. Being
aggrieved by the impugned order dated 01.11.2025
(Annex.13), the petitioner has preferred the present writ
petition.
3. Heard learned counsels present for the parties and gone
through the materials available on record.
4. This Court finds that the core issue arising in S.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 21085/2025 and S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.
21567/2025 pertains to the legality and propriety of (i) the
impugned APO order dated 21.10.2025 and the
consequential relieving order dated 24.10.2025, and (ii) the
subsequent transfer order dated 01.11.2025 transferring the
petitioner from Bhopalgarh to Mewar Bheel Core, Banswara.
The petitions being interlinked factually and legally, they are
being examined conjointly.
5. It is not in dispute that on 29.10.2025, the co-ordinate
bench of this Court passed an interim order staying the
operation of the APO order dated 21.10.2025 as well as the
relieving order dated 24.10.2025. Once such interdiction was
issued by the Court, it was incumbent upon the respondents
to scrupulously honour the interim protection and ensure
that the petitioner was permitted to continue as Circle
Officer, Bhopalgarh, where he was admittedly serving prior to
the impugned APO order. The State-respondents cannot be
heard to contend that they were unaware of the order
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (8 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
passed on 29.10.202. In such circumstances, the obligation
was upon the respondents to restore and allow the petitioner
to function at Bhopalgarh soon after stay on APO and
relieving order. Their failure to do so reflects a posture
inconsistent with administrative fairness and respect for
judicial orders and therefore deprecated by this Court.
6. The situation becomes further compounded by the issuance
of transfer order dated 01.11.2025, which places the
petitioner from the post of Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh to
Assistant Commandant, Mewar Bheel Core, Banswara. This
subsequent order, ex facie, proceeds on the erroneous
assumption that the petitioner continued to hold the post of
Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh on 01.11.2025, whereas, in fact,
the respondents had already placed him under APO on
21.10.2025 and directed him to mark his attendance at
Police Headquarters, Jaipur. Once the order dated
21.10.2025 was passed and thereafter stayed by co-ordinate
bench of this Court on 29.10.2025, the respondents were
obligated to comply with the Court's directive by sending him
back to Bhopalgarh but admittedly that was not done. In
utter disrespect of order of this court, the interim order was
not adhered to; rather, in clear defiance, the petitioner was
compelled to discharge duties under the instructions of
officers at PHQ, pursuant to which he continued to function
as directed to, i.e. to see the law and order situation in
Puskar Mela.
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (9 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
7. It further deserves to be noted that had the respondents
complied with the interim order dated 29.10.2025 and
restored the petitioner to the post of Circle Officer,
Bhopalgarh prior to passing the impugned transfer order
dated 01.11.2025, no impropriety could have been attributed
to the issuance of such a transfer order or to the recital
therein reflecting the petitioner's posting "from Circle Officer,
Bhopalgarh to Banswara". However, the factual position is to
the contrary. On one hand, the respondents failed to honour
and implement the Court's order dated 29.10.2025 by not
permitting the petitioner to resume charge as Circle Officer,
Bhopalgarh; and on the other hand, the impugned transfer
order dated 01.11.2025 proceeds on the premise that the
petitioner was functioning as Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh which
in fact he was not doing. The record unequivocally reflects
that the petitioner was never re-posted back to Bhopalgarh
pursuant to the interim protection, nor was he allowed to
join there at any point of time. Consequently, unless the
petitioner was first restored to Bhopalgarh in compliance
with the Court's order dated 29.10.2025 and had actually
assumed charge there, the recital transferring him "from
Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh to Banswara" is fundamentally
flawed.
8. As a matter of fact, on the date of the transfer order, i.e.
01.11.2025, the petitioner continued to remain at Police
Headquarters, Jaipur in APO status, having already joined
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (10 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
there on 27.10.2025. In such circumstances, if at all any
transfer was to be made, the correct nomenclature ought to
have been "from APO at Police Headquarters, Jaipur to
Banswara". The recital indicating transfer from Bhopalgarh is
therefore factually and legally unsustainable and manifesting
total non application of mind by the authorities and at the
same time demonstrating their obstinacy to displace the
petitioner from Bhopalgarh, in the hang-haste of which, they
forgot where actually the incumbant was working.
9. Administrative orders issued without due circumspection,
and in disregard of judicial directions, undermine the sanctity
of the rule of law. The manner in which the orders dated
21.10.2025, 24.10.2025 and 01.11.2025 have been issued
and handled by the respondents calls for the Court's serious
concern. Judicial orders are not mere formalities; they
command compliance. Any deliberate or negligent deviation
amounts to defilement and dishonour of the authority of this
Court and cannot be countenanced.
10. It also emerges from the record that on 06.11.2025,
the department issued another communication showing
compliance of the co-ordinate bench of this court's order
dated 29.10.2025 whereby the petitioner was relieved to join
back as C.O. Bhopalgarh; it would be worthwhile to
reproduce the order dated 06.11.2025, which reads as
under:-
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (11 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
।। कार्यालय महानिदे शक पुलिस, राजस्थान, जयपुर ।।
क्रमां क- पीएचक्यू -ए/इस्ट-1/टीपी-4/2025/3230 दिनां क-06-11-2025
आदे श
कार्यालय के समसंख्यक आदे श क्रमां क 3152 दिनां क 21-10-2025
द्वारा श्री भूराराम खिलेरी, आरपीएस, वृत्ताधिकारी भोपालगढ, जिला जोधपुर ग्रामीण को
प्रशासकीय आधार पर अग्रिम आदे शों तक 'पदस्थापन आदे श की प्रतिक्षा में रखा गया है ।
इस संबंध में श्री भूराराम खिलेरी, आरपीएस, वृत्ताधिकारी भोपालगढ़, जिला
जोधपुर ग्रामीण द्वारा माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय, जोधपुर राजस्थान में दायर रिट
याचिका में माननीय राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय, जोधपुर के आदे श दिनां क 29-10-
2025 द्वारा आदे श कमां क 3152 दिनां क 21-10-2025 को स्थगन किया गया है ।
अतः माननीय उच्च न्यायालय के आदे श दिनां क 29-10-2025 की पालना में
श्री भूलाराम खिलेरी, आरपीएस अपनी आगामी उपस्थिति वृत्ताधिकारी भोपालगढ, जिला
जोधपुर ग्रामीण के पद पर दें गे।
यह महानिदे शक पुलिस, राजस्थान जयपुर से अनुमोदित है ।
ई०ओ०बी० नं० 2.33/2025
11. The order dated 06.11.2025 came to be issued by the
P.H.Q., containing instructions for the petitioner's rejoining as
Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh, and a plain reading of the same
depicts yet another instance of administrative inconsistency.
The respondent authority ought to have passed such an
order immediately after the interim order staying the APO
order was passed by the coordinate Bench. The said order,
on a plain reading, appears to have been issued belatedly in
an attempt to rectify the earlier error, perhaps upon noticing
that this Court had taken cognizance of the non-compliance
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (12 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
with the second interim order passed on 06.11.2025 in S.B.
Civil Writ Petition No. 21567/2025, wherein the transfer
order dated 01.11.2025 was under challenge. On
06.11.2025, this Court passed a detailed interim order in the
said writ petition, noting grave incongruence in the transfer
order, and this court feels that the subsequent action of the
respondents appears to be artfully aligned in the light of that
judicial interdiction. However, such corrective action ought to
have been taken on 30.10.2025 or 31.10.2025 itself, in
faithful compliance with the interim order dated 29.10.2025
passed in the earlier writ petition.
12. The interim order dated 06.11.2025 passed by this
court in above writ petition would be apt to reproduce herein
for ready reference-
"1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Shri B.L. Bhati, learned AAG, seeks some time to file a reply.
3. Heard on stay application.
4. The petitioner was serving as Circle Officer, Circle Bhopalgarh,
District Jodhpur Rural and vide order dated 21.10.2025 (Annexure-
6) he was kept under "Awaiting Posting Order"(APO) and directed to
immediately mark his presence at Police Headquarter Jaipur,
Rajasthan. Consequent thereto, vide order dated 24.10.2025
(Annexure-7), the petitioner was relieved from the post of Circle
Officer, Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural and instructed to report
at Police Headquarters, Jaipur.
5. The said orders were assailed before Coordinate Bench of this
Court, and the Bench, vide order dated 29.10.2025, was pleased to
stay the effect and operation of the orders dated 21.10.2025 and
24.10.2025. However, as a matter of fact, prior to the passing of
the interim order, the petitioner had already reported before the
Additional Director General of Police (Personnel), Rajasthan, Jaipur,
and as per Annexure-9 dated 27.10.2025, had joined the said
office.
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (13 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
6. Pursuant thereto, he was assigned duty to render his services
during the Pushkar Mela at Pushkar, District Ajmer, under the
control and supervision of the Police Headquarters, Jaipur, and
continues to discharge his duties there till date.
7. Despite the subsistence of the interim protection granted by the
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 29.10.2025, the
stay order has apparently been rendered inconsequential in its
effect, as the petitioner continues to remain under the
administrative and functional control of the Police Headquarters,
Jaipur, instead of being restored to his previous posting at
Bhopalgarh, which would have been the natural consequence of
honoring the stay order.
8. Subsequently, by order dated 01.11.2025 (Annexure-13),
wherein the petitioner's name appears at Serial No.50, he has been
shown as transferred from "Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural" to
"Mewar Bhil Core, Banswara". The said recital erroneously records
the petitioner's "from place" as Bhopalgarh, District Jodhpur Rural,
whereas, as per the respondents' own showing, the petitioner's
present posting and working control lie with the Police
Headquarters, Jaipur. Thus, the mention of "Bhopalgarh, District
Jodhpur Rural" as the existing station in the transfer order dated
01.11.2025 is ex facie erroneous and contrary to the factual and
administrative position obtaining on record.
9. Thus ,the plea of the petitioner that his present deployment is
with the Police Headquarters, Jaipur, where he continues to work
under the direct control of the Director General of Police, and that
the description of his existing posting as "Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh"
in Annexure-13 dated 01.11.2025 is merely perfunctory and
incorrect, appears to carry substantial force.
10. Shri B.L. Bhati, learned AAG, is directed to satisfy this Court as
to how the petitioner's present posting can be shown as Circle
Officer, Bhopalgarh, when admittedly he had been relieved from
that post on 24.10.2025 and has since been functioning under the
Police Headquarters, Jaipur.
11. List the matter on 12.11.2025.
12. Till the next date, the effect and operation of the order dated
01.11.2025 (Annexure-13) shall remain stayed qua the interest of
the petitioner."
13. This Court is conscious that transfer is primarily an
administrative function falling within the domain of the
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (14 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
competent authority, guided by considerations of
administrative exigency and subject-matter expertise, and
ordinarily the Court does not interfere with such decisions.
However, the rule of law and requirements of administrative
propriety constitute overriding considerations. The contours
of judicial review in matters of transfer are narrow yet well-
defined. As consistently held by Hon'ble Apex Court,
including in Abani Kanta Ray v. State of Orissa, 1995
Supp (4) SCC 169, a transfer being an incident of service,
is ordinarily immune from judicial scrutiny unless shown to
be vitiated by mala fides, actuated by extraneous
considerations, founded on infraction of statutory or
administrative norms, or demonstrative of patent
arbitrariness. Courts intervene not to question administrative
wisdom but to prevent abuse of power and ensure fairness,
legality, and adherence to prescribed norms. The
jurisprudence on the subject, as also discussed in
contemporary analyses, underscores that judicial review
becomes imperative where the transfer order is passed in
disregard of binding judicial directions, without application of
mind to material facts, or in colourable exercise of power.
The present interference is, therefore, not with the
administrative wisdom underlying the transfer, but with the
manner in which the respondents acted in disregard of the
subsisting judicial order dated 29.10.2025, and in issuing
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (15 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
subsequent orders without due application of mind as to the
petitioner's actual posting status.
14. This Court is constrained to note that such practices not
only display administrative arbitrariness but also create
uncertainty in the functioning of field officers. Orders
pertaining to transfers and postings, especially of officers
engaged in policing and public order, cannot be issued in
such a casual or precipitous manner. The authority issuing
such orders must act with due deliberation, sensitivity, and
in strict adherence to law. The conduct of the respondents, in
the present case, demonstrates the contrary.
15. In view of the above analysis, this Court finds that the
APO order dated 21.10.2025, the relieving order dated
24.10.2025, and the transfer order dated 01.11.2025 are
unsustainable in law and liable to be set aside to the extent
it concerns the petitioner, whose name is on Sr. No. 50.
16. Consequently, the instant writ petitions are disposed of
and it is ordered that the impugned order dated 21.10.2025,
24.10.2025, and 01.11.2025 are set aside to the extent it
concerns the petitioner. The petitioner shall be permitted to
continue at the post of Circle Officer, Bhopalgarh, where he
was working prior to the issuance of the impugned orders. It
is, however, made clear that in case administrative exigency
so requires, the competent authority shall be at liberty to
pass a fresh transfer order strictly in accordance with law,
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
[2025:RJ-JD:50216] (16 of 16) [CW-21567/2025]
rules, and established principles governing transfers. Nothing
in this order shall preclude the respondents from exercising
such lawful authority in future.
17. With respect to Respondent No.5, Shri Nemichand, it is
noted that he stands transferred from Ajmer to District
Jodhpur Rural vide order dated 01.11.2025 at Sr. No. 49 of
the order impugned and definitely he would be in a dilemma
where to go if the petitioner doesn't leave his place of
posting. Such an officer cannot be kept in a state of
administrative limbo or oscillation. The respondents shall,
therefore, ensure that the relieving of Shri Nemichand and
the finalisation of his place of posting are completed, and
appropriate fresh order to that effect is issued forthwith. The
administrative machinery is expected to function with clarity,
coherence, and promptness, and such situations of
uncertainty must be avoided.
18. Stay petitions and all pending applications (if any) are
disposed of.
(FARJAND ALI),J
312-Mamta/-
(Uploaded on 24/11/2025 at 04:58:26 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
