M/S. Sri Vijaya Scientifics vs State Of Telangana And Another
2021 Latest Caselaw 2789 Tel

          THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE K.LAKSHMAN

               WRIT PETITION No.10490 OF 2021

ORDER:

This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to declare the

inaction of the 2nd respondent in not releasing the amount due to the

petitioner towards Invoice Nos.296 and 297, dated 12.11.2020 and

13.11.2020 respectively which pertain to the Purchase Order dated

12.11.2020 towards supply of two lakh COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test

Kits, (for short, 'RAT kits') despite receiving and using the same, as

illegal and for a consequential direction to the 2nd respondent to

release the said amount to the petitioner as sought for.

2. Heard Sri Vedula Srinivas, learned Senior Counsel

representing Smt. Vedula Chitralekha, learned counsel for the

petitioner, Sri P.Kishore Rao, learned Standing Counsel appearing for

the 2nd respondent and learned Asst.Govt.Pleader for Medical, Health

and Family Welfare appearing for the 1st respondent. Perused the

record.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITONER:-

3. The petitioner herein, a proprietary concern is engaged in

distribution of medical equipments and consumables to the 2nd

respondent herein and also to similar bodies in various States

throughout the country. The petitioner herein is also a distributor of

products of M/s Mylab Discovery Solutions Private Limited (for short,

'Mylab') and the said company which is a start up MSME company

claims to be the first company to get ICMR approval for Covid-19

Testing kits and the said kits have been distributed to several State

Government Organizations at Jammu and Kashmir, Delhi, Uttar

Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh KL,J Wp_10490_2021

including the 2nd respondent herein. The petitioner being a distributor

of those products has been contributing to the cause of fighting

against the pandemic.

4. The 2nd respondent had called for tenders vide short Tender

Notice No.4C2.2/TSMSIDC/EQU/2020-21, dated 01.10.2020 for

supply of Lab Reagents and Consumables and also for the

procurement and supply of items like COVID-19 Rapid Antigen

Testing Kits, (COVID-19 Rapid Kits) - Antibody Testing Kits, 1gG

ELISA Test Kit, CLIA SARS - CoV-2 1gG Antibody Assay at cost per

test, to all Government Hospitals/Government Medical Colleges for

testing and treating Corona Virus in Telangana State.

5. The petitioner herein submitted its tender for supply of

COVID-19 RAT Kits and there were some more tenderers. The

tenderers had physically demonstrated the kits and also the manner

of using it in front of Technical Team of the 2nd respondent and only

after the due evaluation and approval by the Technical Team, the

tender of the petitioner was accepted and the petitioner was issued

with two Purchase Orders, dated 12.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 for

supply of two lakh Test Kits and three lakh Test Kits respectively. The

value of the said supplies are Rs.5,48,80,000/- and Rs.8,23,20,000/-

respectively. The Purchase Orders contain various terms and

conditions relating to the execution of the supply of Kits.

6. The petitioner had successfully supplied the kits under the

above-mentioned Purchase Orders and the entire supplies were

received and utilized by the 2nd respondent by way of distribution to

the Government Hospitals and Government Medical Colleges etc. The

petitioner had raised invoices as against the above-mentioned

supplies vide Invoice No.297, dated 13.11.2020 and Invoice No.296,

dated 12.11.2020.

KL,J Wp_10490_2021

7. On having received certain oral complaints pertaining to the

quality of the kits supplied by the petitioner and which were

manufactured by Mylab, the Technical Head of the said Manufacturer

had personally demonstrated the kit before the Director of Public

Health, Government of Telangana on 03.12.2020 and discussed the

issue highlighted by the Technicians. The Director was fully satisfied

after the practical demonstration of the manner of using the Test Kits

was observed that the issue does not lie with the quality of the Test

Kits supplied by the petitioner but not following the protocol of the

Test Kits. The Technicians were adding more quantity of buffer than

the required quantity of two drops, which resulted in inaccurate

results. As being demonstrated to the Director of Health, the Test Kits

supplied by the petitioner and manufactured by Mylab, were approved

by the ICMR after successful evaluation of three batches. Even the

batch supplied to the 2nd respondent was given Certificate of Analysis

by the Quality Assurance Department. Various accredited labs have

also given third party performance full evaluation report.

8. The petitioner has been paid the value of supplies in respect

of the Purchase Order dated 13.11.2020 relating to supply of three

lakh Test Kits, whereas it has not been paid the amount pertaining to

the supply made under the Purchase Order dated 12.11.2020 for two

lakh Test Kits. On enquiries, the petitioner came to know that the

same has been withheld due to certain complaints received at the field

level relating to the quality of the Test Kits. The 2nd respondent had

examined those complaints and also received a demonstration by the

Technical Head of Mylab and got satisfied with use of the kits. The

petitioner reliably came to know that the authorities of the 2nd

respondent were also satisfied with the quality and working of the Kits

and that the Technicians were not properly using the same and they KL,J Wp_10490_2021

required training sessions. He also found that the Technicians at the

field level were using excess quantity of buffer which was resulting in

inaccurate results and lead to suspicion over the quality of the Test

Kits. Though at one stage, the 2nd respondent had decided not to

procure the Test Kits of Mylab, after being satisfied with their quality,

had the supplies made by the said company. The petitioner also came

to know that the 2nd respondent had already informed the Director,

Public Health, Hyderabad of the abovementioned issues and is

awaiting a reply from him. However, so far the petitioner has not been

paid in respect of two lakh Test Kits supplied by it which already used

by the 2nd respondent. It has become difficult for the petitioner to

conduct its operations. Huge amount of nearly Rs.6 Crores is not paid

by the 2nd respondent despite several requests for the release of the

said amount. The petitioner had also met the Managing Director of

the 2nd respondent with regard to the said payment. Since there was

no response from the 2nd respondent and payment was not made, the

petitioner filed the present writ petition.

CONTENTIONS OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT:-

9. On the other hand, the 2nd respondent has filed a counter

narrating entire facts and contended that the Director, Public Health,

Telangana has requested the 2nd respondent for procurement and

supply of COVID-19 RAT Kits as intensive testing is being carried out

throughout the State of Telangana. It is also specifically mentioned

about the advice of the Medical Supplies Procurement Committee and

its approval for calling tenders. Accordingly, the Tender Notification

dated 01.10.2020 was issued. The petitioner herein stood as L1. The

details of the price quoted etc., by the other tenders including the

petitioner herein was also specifically mentioned. The 2nd respondent

further contended that the petitioner had made supplies against the KL,J Wp_10490_2021

Purchase Orders within stipulated time and the stocks were accepted

by 2nd respondent and issued the same to the destinations requested

by the Director, Public Health, Hyderabad as per the quantities

provided in the distribution list. The petitioner had submitted the

invoices for an amount of Rs.8,23,30,000/- on 22.11.2020 against the

Purchase Order dated 13.11.2020 and the 2nd respondent had

admitted the bills and passed the bills for an amount of

Rs.7,13,83,200/- duly deducting the statutory deductions and

withholding the performance security amount and transferred an

amount of Rs.7,13,83,200/- into the petitioner's account on

27.11.2020. The petitioner had simultaneously submitted bills for the

supplies made against the Purchase Order dated 12.11.2020 for an

amount of Rs.5,48,80,000/- on 18.11.2020 and the 2nd respondent

had admitted and processed the bills for an amount of

Rs.4,85,68,800/- duly deducting the statutory deductions and

withholding the performance security amount on 25.11.2020.

10. It is further contended by the 2nd respondent that on

28.11.2020 the Director, Public Health, Telangana, had informed the

2nd respondent about conducting of a Video conference and receipt of

complaints against Mylab, the Manufacturer of the material, which

are as follows:-

"Issues observed in newly supplied RAT kits from MYLABS:

1. If buffer solution added showing no result in the kit (No control line & No test result line).

2. "GHOST LINE'- Grey line appearing on the test line mistaken as positive,

3. False positives,

4. Insufficient quantity of buffer solution,

5. Supplied leaking buffer tubes. "

KL,J Wp_10490_2021

In this regard, the Director of Public Health, Telangana, requested the

2nd respondent to supply good quality of RAT Kits as per the target

and as per requirement of 33 districts and not to supply 'Mylab'

COVID-19 Antigen Card Test Kits, which were showing significant

errors in the testing process.

11. In view of the said adverse report received from the User

Department i.e. Director, Public Health, Telangana, the bill processed

against the Purchase Order No.373/350/TSMSIDC/DIAG-REAG/20,

(10282002215) dated 12.11.2020 was withheld on the ground that

the Test Kits supplied by the petitioner's firm are substandard. Mylab,

the manufacturer of the kits, supplied by the petitioner, had

submitted a detailed clarification to the Director, Public Health

Telangana, about usage of kits etc., and the Director, Public Health,

Telangana vide his office letter dated 09.02.2021 forwarded the same

to take further action in the matter. The 2nd respondent is the nodal

agency for procurement of drugs, surgical consumables, equipment

and furniture etc., to all the HODs of the Health Department of

Telangana as per the indents submitted by them.

12. In view of the same, the 2nd respondent addressed a letter

dated 17.02.2021 to the Director, Public Health, Hyderabad to offer

his specific remarks on the representation made by Mylab for taking

further action in the matter and is awaiting a reply from the Director,

Public Health, Telangana.

13. With the said submissions, the 2nd respondent sought to

dismiss the present writ petition.

ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT:-

14. From the above said submissions, the undisputed facts are

that the 2nd respondent has issued tender notice dated 01.10.2020

calling tenders for supply of 4 diagnostic items with 10 lakhs COVID-

KL,J Wp_10490_2021

19 RAT testing Kits. The petitioner has participated in the said

tenders and stood as the successful bidder (L1). As per the tender

conditions, it was found that the L2 and L3 bidders have quoted their

price as 246/- and 260/-respectively. It was not more than 10% that

of L1 who quoted of Rs.245/- and hence L2 and L3 bidders were

eligible for splitting and L1, L2 and L3 bidders would be issued

Purchase Orders in the ratio of 50%( L1), 30% (L2) and 20% (L3) and

that L2 and L3 have to reduce their price for that of L1 only subject to

submission of consent to match the L1 price which was in terms of

the tender conditions. The matter was placed before the Bid

Finalization Committee headed by the 1st respondent for approval of

L.1's rate. The Bid Finalization Committee had approved the

proposals and as per the consent given by L2 and L3 to match with

the L1 price, splitting was allowed and Purchase Orders were issued

to the petitioner for supply of their share of 5,00,000/- RAT kits

under two different Purchase Orders dated 12.11.2020 and

13.11.2020 for supply of 2lakhs and the other for 3lakhs kits

respectively. The petitioner had made supplies against the above said

Purchase Orders within the stipulated time and the stocks were

accepted by the 2nd respondent. The same were issued to destinations

as per the request of the Director of Public Health, Hyderabad.

15. While so, the petitioner had submitted an invoice for an

amount of Rs.8,23,20,000/- on 23.11.2020 against the Purchase

Order dated 13.11.2020 and the 2nd respondent had admitted bills

and cleared the same to a tune of Rs.7,13,83,200/-. The petitioner

had submitted bills for the supplies made against the Purchase order

dated 12.11.2020 for an amount of Rs.5,48,80,000/- on 18.11.2020.

The 2nd respondent had admitted the said bills and processed the

same for an amount of Rs.7,13,83,200/- duly making statutory KL,J Wp_10490_2021

deductions and withholding performance security amount and

transferred an amount of Rs.7,13,83,200/- into the account of the

petitioner on 27.11.2020. Thus, 2nd respondent had cleared the said

amount towards the petitioner herein.

16. As per the Purchase Order dated 12.11.2020 and

13.11.2020 issued by 2nd respondent, the bidder shall acknowledge

the Purchase Order and submit dated acknowledgment letter in token

of having received the Purchase Order, within 5 days from the date of

issue of the Purchase Order, failing which the Purchase Order shall

be deemed cancelled in accordance with tender conditions. The

bidder has to supply within 10 days on receipt of the Purchase Order.

There is also a penalty clause according to which 5% of the value of

goods supplied late will be levied for each day's delay or part thereof

upto 7.5% of value of late delivered goods. Once 7.5% is reached,

purchase order is deemed to be cancelled for undelivered goods. No

payment shall be made for goods delivered under the deemed

cancelled Purchase Order. It is also specifically mentioned in the

Purchase Order that 90% of the payment will be made on receipt of

the Material Received Certificate (MRC) from the concerned

CMSs/Invoices, stock entry page number of the concerned Hospitals

and the remaining 10% will be released on receiving of no adverse

report from the user departments within three months or after three

months if no adverse report has been received from the user

department, it will be treated as non-adverse performance report

automatically with or without receiving the report.

17. In the counter, the 2nd respondent has stated that on

28.11.2020, the Director, Public Health, Telangana on whose request,

the RAT Kits were procured and supplied, had informed the 2nd

respondent about the complaints received by him with regard to the KL,J Wp_10490_2021

supplies made by the petitioner during video conference and

requested to supply good quality of RAT Kits as per the target and as

per requirement of 33 districts and not to supply 'Mylab' COVID-19

Antigen Card Test Kits, which were showing significant errors in the

testing process.

18. In view of the adverse report received from the user

department, the bill processed against the Purchase Order dated

12.11.2020 was withheld by the 2nd respondent. Mylab, the

manufacturing company of the said Kits, supplied by the petitioner

had addressed a letter dated 31.12.2020 to the Director, Public

Health, Telangana, who sought certain clarifications with regard to

quality issues raised by the user department. The Technical Head of

the said company had demonstrated their kits in the Chambers of the

Director of Health and discussed the issues highlighted by the

Technicians in detail and the Director, after fully being satisfied with

the practical demonstration, found that the issue was not with the

quality but with regard to not following of the protocol of the Test Kits,

supplied by the petitioner. While using the Test Kits, the technicians

were adding more quantity of buffer which resulted in inaccurate

results whereas only two drops of buffer should be added. The same

was practically shown by the user department to the 2nd respondent

including the District Surveillance Officer (DSO), Medchal and they

were convinced and therefore, Mylab requested the 2nd respondent

and the user department to re-consider the same. The Director of

Public Health, Telangana vide his letter dated 09.02.2021 by duly

enclosing a copy of the representation dated 31.12.2020 submitted by

the Manufacturing Company, requested the 2nd respondent to take

further action in the matter.

KL,J Wp_10490_2021

19. The 2nd respondent is the Nodal Agency for procurement of

drug etc., to all the HODs of Health Department as per the indent

submitted by them. The User Department itself has informed the 2nd

respondent about the standard of the Kits supplied by the petitioner.

the 2nd respondent had addressed a detailed letter dated 17.02.2021

to the Director, Public Health, Hyderabad to offer his specific remarks

on the representation submitted by Mylab for taking further action in

the matter and a reply is awaited from the Director of Public Health.

20. In the letter dated 17.02.2021 addressed by the 2nd

respondent, the 2nd respondent had specifically mentioned that the

Technical Head for RAT Kits from Mylab representing Labcare

Diagnostic India Private Limited, visited the 2nd respondent to

address the issues/clarifications sought by the user department and

also the 2nd respondent. He satisfactorily demonstrated the use of the

kits as per the IFU supplied with the kit. His explanation was sticking

to the scientific principle and the 2nd respondent was satisfied with

the explanation as well as the quality and working of the Kit. The 2nd

respondent and also agreed to arrange Zoom training session for their

technicians and replace the empty pouches/kits.

21. In the report, dated 27.11.2020, the DMHO, Bhadradri

Kothagudem District, has informed that the Technical Head of Mylab

visited the 2nd respondent to address the issues/clarifications and

explained to the 2nd respondent by demonstration, the right use of the

kits as per the IFU supplied with the kit. His explanation was sticking

to the scientific principle and the 2nd respondent was satisfied with

the explanation as well as the quality and working of the Kits and also

agreed to arrange a Zoom training session for their technicians and

replace the empty pouches/kits of the RAT Kits. Thus, there was a KL,J Wp_10490_2021

satisfactory report dated 27.11.2020 by DMHO, Bhadradri

Kothagudem district.

22. Referring to the representation dated 31.12.2020, the

Director, Public Health and Family Welfare vide letter dated

09.02.2021 informed the 2nd respondent that Mylab has submitted a

representation to consider their request as the Director had requested

not to supply RAT Kits of the State Government to districts due to

quality issues. Thus, the Director of Public Health requested the 2nd

respondent to consider the said representation and take further

necessary action. Therefore, referring to the said facts, the 2nd

respondent, vide letter dated 17.02.2021, requested the Director of

Public Health and Family Welfare, Hyderabad to give specific

remarks/merits, if any, on the firm i.e. Mylab, the Manufacturing

Company. The 2nd respondent is awaiting the approval of the user

department i.e. Director, Public Health and Family Welfare.

23. The above stated facts would reveal that there is no dispute

with regard to the supply of the material by the petitioner against the

Purchase Order dated 12.11.2020 and the receipt of the same by the

2nd respondent. It is also not in dispute that 2nd respondent has

accepted the said material and distributed the same to the

destinations as requested by the user department i.e. Director, Public

Health, Telangana as per the quantities provided by the distribution

list. There was no dispute till 28.11.2020. There was no complaint

whatsoever with regard to the quality of the material supplied by the

petitioner. It was only on 28.11.2020 when the Director, Public Health

had a video conference with the District Medical and Health Officers

and DSOs, he raised certain issues with regard to the supplies made

by the petitioner. Therefore, the user department requested the 2nd

respondent not to supply Mylab COVID-19 RAT Kits. Thereafter, the KL,J Wp_10490_2021

Technical Head of the said Manufacturing Company, approached the

2nd respondent and also the user department for clarifications, more

particularly, with regard to quality issues raised by them. The

Technical Head of the Manufacturing Company demonstrated the use

of kits supplied by it in the Chambers of the Director, Public Health

and discussed the issues highlighted by the Technicians in detail. The

Director, Public Health, had expressed satisfaction after detailed

explanation and practical demonstration. The issue was not with

regard to quality but with regard to not following the protocol of the

said Kits. While using the same, the Technicians were adding more

quantity of buffer leading to bad results where only two drops of the

buffer should be added. The same was practically shown to the

Director, Public Health and also the Technicians present there along

with the DSO, Medchal, and they were convinced.

24. It is also relevant to note that Mylab is start up MSME

company. It is the first company to get commercial license from ICMR

and approval for COVID-19 Test Kits. They were approved by the

ICMR after successful evaluation of three batches. Thus, Mylab and

also the petitioner herein have produced the said ICMR approval.

Based on the ICMR approval, the companies are allowed to sell the

products and are also given with Certificate of Analysis by the Quality

Assurance Department and various accredited labs have also given

third party performance full evaluation report. Mylab, the

manufacturing company has also enclosed the Quality Assurance

Department Certificate of analysis report of the products to the 2nd

respondent and also third party performance full evaluation report

from an NABH Accredited lab for the very same batches of RAT Kits

that they were supplying throughout India.

KL,J Wp_10490_2021

25. The Medical Superintendent (COVID Officer) OF Singareni

Collieries Company Limited (for short, 'the SCCL') has received

complaints from all SCCL area hospitals and the same were

specifically mentioned in a letter dated 17.02.2021. The said issues

were clarified by the Technical Head of the Mylab. Thereafter, the said

Medical Officer of SCCL has submitted a satisfactory report dated

28.11.2020.

26. Referring to all the said issues, the 2nd respondent had

addressed a letter dated 17.02.2021 to the Director, Public Health

and Family Welfare, Telangana with a request to give specific

remarks/merits if any on Mylab, the manufacturing company. There

was no reply from the user department.

27. Thus, the above stated facts would also reveal that neither

the 2nd respondent nor the user department issued any letter either to

the petitioner or to the said Mylab manufacturing company informing

them about the quality issues of the material supplied by the

petitioner. On the other hand, on coming to know about the issues

raised with regard to the quality of the material supplied, the

Technical Head of the said manufacturing company approached the

user department and also the DSOs and clarified the said issues. The

problem was also identified. The DSOs and also Technicians were

present at the time of practical demonstration. In the letter dated

17.02.2021, the satisfactory report of SCCL, DMHO and DSO,

Bhadradri Kothagudem District were specifically mentioned. Thus,

there were no issues with regard to quality of the material supplied by

the petitioner which was manufactured by Mylab. The user

department i.e. Director, Pubic Health, Telangana cannot sleep over

the representation dated 17.02.2021 submitted by 2nd respondent

and the 2nd respondent cannot withhold the payment due to the KL,J Wp_10490_2021

petitioner on the ground that it is yet to receive a reply from the User

Department though it has addressed a letter dated 17.02.2021.

28. As stated above, there are timelines in the Purchase

Orders for supply of the material and there are penal provisions for

non-supply of the provisions within the stipulated time. There are also

conditions for making payments. As per the Purchase Order, payment

of 90% shall be made on receipt of the material and MRC from

CMSS/Invoices. Balance 10% shall be paid on receiving no adverse

reports to the user department within three months or after three

months of adverse report will be received by the user department. No

adverse performance report is received, therefore, automatically they

have to clear the bills.

29. The petitioner has supplied the material in terms of the said

Purchase Orders. It is the obligation of the 2nd respondent to make

the said payments to the petitioner herein. It is also relevant to note

that the petitioner herein is only a proprietary concern. Huge amount

is withheld by the 2nd respondent on flimsy grounds. Therefore, 2nd

respondent cannot wait for the approval of the user department.

There is no persuasion, much less serious persuasion by 2nd

respondent from the user department for clearing said dues. The 2nd

respondent herein, being the Head of the Department, is also silent on

the said issue. Thus, the respondents, even after receiving the said

material from the petitioner, cannot withhold the said amount.

30. As discussed above, there are no disputed facts much less

serious disputed facts. It is also a settled principle that in contractual

matters, writ petitions are maintainable. The said principle is laid

down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Joshi Technologies KL,J Wp_10490_2021

International Vs. Union of India1. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble

Apex Court has relied on its principle laid down in ABL International

Ltd. Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India2 wherein

the Hon'ble Apex Court held that merely because one of the parties to

the litigation raises a dispute in regard to the facts of the case, the

Court entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India is not always bound to relegate the parties to a suit; and that in

an appropriate case, writ Court has jurisdiction to entertain a writ

petition involving disputed questions of fact and there is no absolute

bar for entertaining a writ petition even if the same arises out of a

contractual obligation and/or involves some disputed questions of fact.

It held that merely because a question of fact is raised, the High Court

will not be justified in requiring the party to seek relief by the

somewhat lengthy, dilatory and expensive process by a Civil Suit

against a Public Body.

31. In Popatrao Vynkatrao Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra

and others in C.A.No.1600 of 2020 dated 14.02.2020, a three Judge

Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, held that when a petition involves

disputed questions of fact and law, the High Court would be slow in

entertaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. However, it is only a rule of self-restraint and not a hard and

fast rule. Even if there are disputed questions of fact which fall for

consideration but if they do not require elaborate evidence to be

adduced, the High Court is not precluded from entertaining a petition

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

32. With the said findings, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that in

a contractual matters, writ petition is maintainable and High Court

2015 (7) SCC 728

(2004 3 SCC 553 KL,J Wp_10490_2021

can go into the disputed questions of fact while considering a writ

petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The said

principle was held by Division Bench of this Court in Agni Aviation

Consultants, Bangalore Vs. State of Telangana3

33. In view of the above said settled principles and also above

said discussion, this Writ Petition is liable to be allowed and the

petitioner is entitled for the amounts claimed by it towards Invoice

Nos.296 and 297, dated 12.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 pertaining to the

Purchase Order dated 12.11.2020 towards supply of two lakh COVID-

19 Rapid Antigen Test Kits. The respondents are liable to pay the said

amounts to the petitioner herein.

34. In the result, this Writ Petition is allowed with the following

directions:-

i) The respondents are directed to release amount to the petitioner as against the invoice Nos. 296 and 297, dated 12.11.2020 and 13.11.2020 pertaining to the Purchase Order dated 12.11.2020 towards supply of two lakh COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Test Kits within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

ii) The petitioner is also entitled for interest at the rate 7.5% p.a. on the said amount from the date of due till the date of realization, and

iii) There is no order as to costs.

35. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.

____________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J Date:27.09.2021.

vvr

2020(5) ALD 561 (TS)(DB)