Sau. Sangeeta vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 2021


Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.

Supreme Court of India

Sau. Sangeeta vs The State Of Maharashtra on 1 September, 2021

Author: B.R. Gavai

Bench: L. Nageswara Rao, B.R. Gavai, B.V. Nagarathna

                             1


                                             REPORTABLE



           IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
           CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

            CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5059 OF 2021
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.5605 of
                           2021]
SAU. SANGEETA W/O SUNIL SHINDE            ...APPELLANT(S)

                           VERSUS


THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
AND ORS.                               .... RESPONDENT(S)




                    JUDGMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant has approached this Court being

aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.3.2021

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay, bench at Aurangabad, thereby

dismissing the writ petition challenging the order passed by

the District Collector, Ahmednagar dated 6.1.2020 whereby
2

the District Collector has granted approval to the selection

of respondent No. 3 – Dr. Vandana Dnyaneshwar Murkute

as Gatneta (Group Leader) of the Indian National Congress,

Shrirampur Panchayat Samiti Party (hereinafter referred to

as ‘INCPS Party’).

3. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the present

appeal are as under:

The appellant along with respondent Nos. 3, 4

and 5 were elected as members of the Panchayat Samiti,

Shrirampur in the elections, which were held in the year

2017. It is not in dispute that all four of them had

contested the election to the Panchayat Samiti on the

authorisation of the Indian National Congress Party

(hereinafter referred to as ‘INC Party’). As such, the

appellant and respondent Nos. 3, 4 and 5 formed a

‘Panchayat Samiti Party’ in the name of INCPS Party.

The first meeting of the INCPS Party was held on

1.3.2017. The said meeting was presided over by Shri

Jayantrao Sasane, the then President of the Ahmednagar

District INC Party. As per the resolution passed in the said

meeting, it was resolved to select the appellant as Gatneta
3

(Party Leader/Party Whip) of INCPS Party. It was further

resolved to authorise the appellant to prepare proposals by

making rules and regulations and submit the same to the

District Collector, Ahmednagar. In the said meeting, it was

further resolved that in the event it was decided to change

the Party Leader/Party Whip, Mr. Jayantrao Sasane, the

then District President of INC Party will have all the powers,

so also the power, to submit a proposal to the District

Collector in accordance with the rules.

Accordingly, the necessary information was

submitted by the appellant to the District Collector on

7.3.2017, informing about the formation of INCPS Party so

also she being elected as the leader of the said Party. The

District Collector, Ahmednagar vide order dated 8.3.2017

recorded in Form (4) as per Rule 5(1) of the Maharashtra

Local Authorities Members Disqualification Rules, 1987

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Rules’) about the

registration of the Aghadi; the name of the members; and

the name of the Party Leader.

A complaint dated 19.12.2019 came to be filed by

respondent Nos. 3 to 5 against the appellant before the
4

District President, Ahmednagar District INC Party alleging

therein that the appellant during her tenure of two and half

years had neither taken the members of INCPS Party into

confidence nor had convened any meeting of INCPS Party.

According to the contesting respondents, a notice

of meeting convened on 4.1.2020 came to be served upon

the appellant for change of Gatneta on 26.12.2019.

In the meeting held on 4.1.2020 under the

Chairmanship of Ahmednagar District INC Party President

Mr. Balasaheb Salunke, which was attended by respondent

Nos. 3 to 5, a unanimous resolution was passed for

removing the appellant from the post of Party Leader of

INCPS Party. Vide another resolution passed in the said

meeting, it was resolved to appoint respondent No.3 as

Party Leader/Party Whip of INCPS Party and she was also

authorised for issuing whips. Respondent No.3 was also

authorised to submit a proposal to the District Collector,

Ahmednagar regarding change of Party Leader/Party Whip.

Respondent No.3 submitted a proposal on

6.1.2020, which came to be approved by the District

Collector vide order of the same date.
5

It further appears that the election to the post of

Chairman and Vice­Chairman of the Shrirampur Panchayat

Samiti was held on 7.1.2020. In the said election, the

appellant came to be elected as Chairman of the Panchayat

Samiti.

It is pertinent to note that prior to the said

election, two conflicting whips came to be issued insofar as

INCPS Party is concerned. One whip came to be issued by

respondent No.3 directing therein that in the election for the

post of Chairman, she was given candidature by the INCPS

Party whereas for the post of Vice­Chairman, respondent

No.4 was given candidature by the INCPS Party. It was

therefore directed that all the members of the INCPS Party

should remain present in the election of the Chairman and

the Vice­Chairman on 7.1.2020 and vote in favour of the

aforesaid two candidates. It was further directed that in the

event of failure to comply with the same, it would be treated

as defection/anti­party activity and necessary action would

be taken in accordance with law.

Another whip came to be issued by the appellant

directing the members of the INCPS Party stating therein
6

that the INCPS Party had given candidature to the appellant

herself and all the members should cast vote in her favour.

It also contained a similar direction, that on account of non­

compliance with the same, the members will face action for

disqualification under the provisions of the said Rules.

Subsequent to the election, disqualification

proceedings being Disqualification Petition No.1 of 2020

came to be filed by the appellant against respondent Nos.3

to 5, whereas Disqualification Petition No.2 of 2020 came to

be filed by respondent No.3 against the appellant.

It is pertinent to note that in the election for the

post of Chairman (Sabhapati) that was held on 7.1.2020,

except the appellant, all the members of the INCPS Party

voted against the appellant. However, on account of the

support of the members belonging to other Parties, the

appellant came to be elected in the said election.

The appellant thereafter approached the Division

Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, bench at

Aurangabad, by way of Writ Petition No.1853 of 2020

challenging the decision of the District Collector,

Ahmednagar dated 6.1.2020 approving the appointment of
7

respondent No.3 as Gatneta. Vide order dated 31.1.2020, a

notice came to be issued in the said writ petition and by way

of interim measure the disqualification proceedings filed by

both the parties were stayed. Vide the impugned judgment,

the High Court dismissed the said writ petition. Being

aggrieved thereby, the present appeal by way of special

leave.

4. We have heard Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned

Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, Shri

Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

State and Shri Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5.

5. Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned Senior Counsel

appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that in

accordance with Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules, the INCPS

Party had submitted rules and regulations of the Panchayat

Samiti Party. He submitted that according to the said

Rules, the appellant was elected as Party Leader for a period

of five years. It is submitted that in the absence of any rule

to the contrary the appellant could not have been removed

as a Party Leader until completion of a period of five years.
8

The Learned Senior Counsel further submitted that the

meeting to remove the appellant from the post of Party

Leader was convened by the President of the Ahmednagar

District INC Party, who was an outsider. It is further

submitted that the meeting could have been convened only

by the appellant. It is submitted that in the event the

appellant did not convene a meeting, the only course

available to respondent Nos. 3 to 5 was to give a requisition

to the appellant and only in the event of her failure to

convene a meeting, respondent Nos. 3 to 5 could have

convened a meeting.

6. It is the submission of the appellant that the said

Rules are enacted with the avowed purpose of preventing

horse­trading and maintaining purity in political system.

Learned Senior Counsel submits that with that object, the

said Rules provided that once a Party Leader was elected,

he/she should continue for a period of five years. He

therefore submits that the High Court has erred in

dismissing the writ petition.

7. Shri Sachin Patil, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of the State submitted that the District Collector had
9

initially approved the appellant as Gatneta since the same

was based on a resolution passed by all the four members of

the INCPS Party. He submitted that subsequent approval

granted to the selection/appointment of respondent No.3 as

Gatneta was on the basis of resolution passed by the three­

fourth majority of the INCPS Party and as such, the action

of the District Collector was in accordance with law.

8. Shri Ravindra Adsure, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 to 5, on the contrary, would

submit that it is the appellant who has acted in breach of

the provisions of the said Rules. He submitted that the

appellant by breaking the INCPS Party chose to contest the

election for the post of Chairman contrary to the mandate of

the INCPS Party and was elected to the post of Chairman

with the support of the rivals. It is submitted that the High

Court has rightly considered the legal position and

dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant.

9. It will be relevant to refer to clause (l) of Section 2

of the Maharashtra Local Authority Members’

Disqualification Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the

said Act’), which reads thus:

10

“(l) “Panchayat Samiti party”, in
relation to a member belonging to any
political party or aghadi or front in
accordance with the Explanation to
section 3, means the group consisting of
all the members of the Panchayat Samiti
for the time being belonging to that
political party or aghadi or front in
accordance with the said Explanation;

[Emphasis supplied]

10. It could thus be seen that the ‘Panchayat Samiti

Party’ has been defined to mean, the group consisting of all

the members of the Panchayat Samiti for the time being

belonging to that political party or aghadi or front in

accordance with the Explanation to Section 3.

11. It will also be relevant to refer to Section 3 of the

said Act, which reads thus:

“3. Disqualification on ground of
defection. ­ (1) Subject to the provisions
of section 5, a councillor or a member
belong to any political party or aghadi or
front shall be disqualified for being a
councillor or a member,­

(a) if he has voluntarily given up his
membership of such political party
or aghadi or front; or

(b) if he votes or abstains from voting in
any meeting of a Municipal
Corporation, Municipal Council, Zilla
Parishad or, as the case may
be, Panchayat Samiti contrary to any
11

direction issued by the political party
or aghadi or front to which he belongs
or by any person or authority
authorised by any of them in this
behalf, without obtaining, in either
case, the prior permission of such
political party or aghadi or front,
person or authority and such voting or
abstention has not been condoned by
such political party or aghadi or front,
person or authority within fifteen days
from the date of such voting or
abstention:

Provided that, such voting or abstention
without prior permission from such
party or aghadi or front, at election of
any office, authority or committee
under any relevant municipal law or the
Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and
Panchayat Samitis Act, 1961 shall not
be condoned under this clause;

Explanation.­For the purposes of this
section­

(a) a person elected as a councillor, or as
the case may be, a member shall be
deemed to belong to the political party
or aghadi or front, if any, by which he
was set up as a candidate for election
as such councillor or member;

(b) a nominated councillor shall ­

(i) where he is a member of any
political party or aghadi or front
on the date of his nomination, be
deemed to belong to such political
party or aghadi or front,
12

(ii) in any other case, be deemed to
belong to the political party or
aghadi or front of which he
becomes, or as the case may be,
first becomes a member of such
party or aghadi or front before the
expiry of six months from the date
on which he is nominated;

(c)
(2) An elected Councillor, or as the case
may be, member who has been elected as
such otherwise than as a candidate set up
by any political party or aghadi or front
shall be disqualified for being a Councillor,
or as the case may be, a member if he joins
any political party or aghadi or front after
such election.

(3)

(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in
the foregoing provisions of this section a
person who on the commencement of this
Act, is a councillor, or as the case may be,
a member (whether elected or
nominated as such councillor or member)
shall­

(a) where he has a member of a political
party or aghadi or front immediately
before such commencement, be
deemed, for the purposes of sub­
section (1) to have been elected as a
Councillor, or as the case may be, a
member as a candidate set up by such
political party or aghadi or front;

(b) in any other case, be deemed to be
an elected Councillor, or as the case
may be, member who has been elected
as such otherwise than as a candidate
set up by any political party
13

or aghadi or front for the purpose of
sub­section (2).”
[emphasis supplied]

12. It could thus be seen that under sub­section (1)

of section 3 of the said Act, a councillor or a member belong

to any political party or aghadi or front would be

disqualified for being a councillor or a member, if he has

voluntarily given up his membership of such political party

or aghadi or front; or if he votes or abstains from voting in

any meeting contrary to any direction issued by the political

party or aghadi or front to which he belongs. However, this

could be condoned, if a member so does with the prior

permission of the political party or aghadi or front, person

or authority and such voting or abstention has been

condoned by such political party or aghadi or front, person

or authority within fifteen days from the date of such voting

or abstention. The proviso is important. Such voting or

abstention without prior permission from such party or

aghadi or front, at election of any office, authority or

committee under any relevant municipal law or the
14

Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act,

1961 shall not be condoned under the said clause. Sub­

section (1) of Section 3 is subject to the provisions of Section

5. Section 5 deals with disqualification on ground of

defection not to apply in case of merger and as such, the

same would not have any bearing on the facts of the present

case.

13. It will also be relevant to refer to sub­rules (1) and

(4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules, which read thus:

“3. Information to be furnished by a
leader of a Party. –
(1) The leader of each municipal party or
a Zilla Parishad party in relation to a
councillor and the leader of Panchayat
Samiti party in relation to a member
(other than a municipal party or a Zilla
Parishad party or a Panchayat
Samiti party consisting of only one
member) shall, within thirty days from
the date of commencement of these rules
or, where such party is formed after
such date, within thirty days from the
date of its formation, or in either case,
within such further period as the
Commissioner, in the case of a
Councillor of a Municipal Corporation, or
the Collector, in the case of any other
Councillor or member may for sufficient
reason allow, furnish the following
information to the Commissioner, or, as
the case may be, to the Collector,
namely:­
15

(a) a statement in writing containing
the names of members of such
party together with other relevant
particulars regarding such members
as prescribed in Form I, and the
names and designations of the
members of such party who have
been authorised by it for
communicating with the
Commissioner or, as the case may
be, Collector for the purposes of
these rules;

(b) a copy of the rules and regulations
(whether known as such or a
constitution or by any other name),
of the municipal party, Zilla
Parishad party or the Panchayat
Samiti party concerned, as the case
may be; and

(c) where such party has any separate
set of rules and regulations
(whether known as such or as
constitution or/by any other name),
also a copy of such rules and
regulations.

(2) ………….

(3) ………….

(4) Whenever any change takes place
in the information furnished by the
leader of a municipal party or a Zilla
Parishad party, in relation to a
Councillor and by the leader of
a Panchayat Samiti party, in relation to a
member under sub­rule (1) or by a
member under sub­rule (2), he shall as
soon as may be thereafter and in any
16

case not later than thirty days from the
date on which such change has taken
place or within such further period as
the Commissioner, or, as the case may
be, Collector may for sufficient reason
allow, furnish in writing the information
with respect to such change to the
Commissioner or, as the case may be,
Collector.”

14. Perusal of sub­rule (1) of Rule 3 of the said Rules

would reveal that the leader of each municipal party or a

Zilla Parishad party in relation to a councillor and the leader

of Panchayat Samiti party in relation to a member is

required to give requisite information within thirty days of

formation of a party. The said information includes a

statement in writing containing the names of members of

such party together with other relevant particulars

regarding such members as prescribed in Form I, and the

names and designations of the members of such party who

have been authorised by it for communicating with the

Commissioner or, as the case may be, the Collector. The

leader is also required to supply a copy of the rules and

regulations (whether known as such or a constitution or/by

any other name), of the municipal party, Zilla Parishad
17

party or the Panchayat Samiti party concerned, as the case

may be. Where such party has any separate set of rules

and regulations (whether known as such or as constitution

or/by any other name), a copy of such rules and regulations

is also required to be submitted.

15. Sub­rule (4) of Rule 3 of the said Rules provides

that whenever any change takes place in the information

furnished by the leader of a municipal party or a Zilla

Parishad party, in relation to a Councillor or by the leader of

a Panchayat Samiti party in relation to a member under

sub­rule (1) or by a member under sub­rule (2), the

information with respect to such change has to be

communicated in writing to the Commissioner or, as the

case may be, Collector.

16. It is the bone of contention of the appellant that

in accordance with Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules, the rules

were communicated by the appellant to the District

Collector wherein it was provided that she would be the

leader of the INCPS Party for a period of five years and since

there was no provision for change of leader, the District
18

Collector could not have granted approval to removal of the

appellant and appointment of respondent No.3 as President.

17. It will be relevant to note that the appellant got

the authority to communicate to the Collector on account of

the minutes of the meeting held on 1.3.2017. It is to be

noted that the said meeting was presided over by Mr.

Jayantrao Sasane, the then President of Ahmednagar

District INC Party. The resolution in the said meeting also

provided that in the event of a decision to change the Party

Leader/Party Whip, the District President of the INCPS

Party will retain all his powers as well as the power to

submit proposals to the District Collector.

18. It could thus be seen that the very appointment

of the appellant as Gatneta (Party Leader) is on the basis of

the resolution of the meeting chaired by the President of the

Ahmednagar District INC Party. The decision to remove the

appellant from the post of Gatneta/Party Leader of the

INCPS Party and to appoint respondent No.3 as

Gatneta/Party Leader is also taken in a meeting which was

presided over by the President of Ahmednagar District INC

Party.

19

19. It is pertinent to note that in the meeting dated

1.3.2017 itself, the authority to take steps with regard to

change of leader was given to the President of the District

INC Party. The appellant therefore cannot be heard to make

grievance with regard to the procedure which was followed

while removing her inasmuch as the entry of the appellant

as Gatneta/Party Leader is by following the very same

procedure.

20. The so­called reference to rules and regulations

under Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules cannot be stretched to

be on par with the rules and regulations framed on the

basis of any statutory power. The said rules are not happily

worded. It appears from the record that the appellant has

been the sole draftsman of the so­called rules and

regulations referable to Rule 3(1)(b) of the said Rules. The

source to submit the said Rules is on the basis of the

resolution of the first INCPS Party meeting held on

1.3.2017. The resolution also contains that in the event of

change of Party Leader, the President of Ahmednagar

District INC Party will have the sole power and was also
20

authorised to take steps in that regard. The appellant

conveniently framed the rules giving effect to some part of

the resolution while ignoring other part thereof. We are

therefore of the view that the so­called reliance placed on

the said Rules would not be of any assistance to the case of

the appellant.

21. It will be relevant to refer to the following

observations of this Court in the case of Sunil Haribhau

Kale v. Avinash Gulabrao Mardikar and others1

“10. The definition of the term “leader”
very clearly shows that where a munici­
pal party is an aghadi, its leader has to
be chosen by the aghadi or front. Neces­
sarily, any change in the leader of the
municipal party is to be effected by
the aghadi and not by any outsider.

Once the Rules provide for the election
of the Group Leader, it has to be done in
that manner only and not in any other
manner, even when there is change of
the leader. The change of leader has to
be in the same democratic process of in­
duction, in the absence of any other
method prescribed under the Rules con­
cerned.

1 (2015) 11 SCC 403
21

11. Once an aghadi (group) is formed and
duly recognised by the Divisional Commis­
sioner, it becomes a municipal party in
terms of Section 2(i) of the Act. Once origi­
nal political parties form a municipal party
by way of an aghadi, for all purposes, the
Group Leader is chosen by the municipal
party (aghadi) only. The Rules do not pro­
vide for nomination of Group Leader.

Similarly, the Group Leader of
the aghadi can be changed only by the
group and not by one of the political
parties, big or small, belonging to
the aghadi. In a democracy, a leader is
not imposed; leader is elected. Once the
birth of a leader in a group is by way of
election by the group, the Group Leader
thus elected cannot be replaced other­
wise than through the very same process
of the election in the group, in the ab­
sence of any rules to the contra. No
doubt, Nationalist Congress Party has 17
members in the aghadi (group). That does
not mean that the said party can impose a
Group Leader in the aghadi. Imposition of a
Group Leader otherwise than by the demo­
cratic process cuts at the roots of the
democracy and certainly it is in violation of
the Rules. It is always open to the original
political parties to have their respective
leaders in the aghadi. However, as far as
Group Leader is concerned, he has to be
elected by the aghadi (group).”
[emphasis supplied]
22

22. It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly

held that the leader of a municipal party has to be chosen

by aghadi or front and not by any outsider. It has been held

by this Court that the change of leader has to be in the

same democratic process of induction, in the absence of any

other method prescribed under the Rules concerned. It has

further been held that once the birth of a leader in a group

is by way of election by the group, the Group Leader thus

elected cannot be replaced otherwise than through the very

same process of the election in the group, in the absence of

any rules to the contra. It has been clearly held that

imposition of a Group Leader otherwise than by the

democratic process cuts at the roots of the democracy and

certainly it is in violation of the Rules.

23. Though it is sought to be urged by Shri Shekhar

Naphade, learned Senior Counsel that the appellant has

been removed and respondent No.3 has been appointed as

Group Leader by an outsider i.e. the President of

Ahmednagar District INC Party, we are unable to accept the

said contention. The election of the appellant as Group
23

Leader was under the resolution in the meeting attended by

all the four elected members and the said meeting was only

chaired by the President of the Ahmednagar District INC

Party. Similarly, the removal of the appellant and

appointment of respondent No.3 is by INCPS Party,

however, consisting of three members since the appellant

had chosen the different path.

24. Somewhat similar observations have been made

by this Court in the case of Bhanumati and others v.

State of Uttar Pradesh and others2 albeit with regard to

the provisions of ‘no confidence motion’, which are as

under:

“58. These institutions must run on demo­
cratic principles. In democracy all persons
heading public bodies can continue pro­
vided they enjoy the confidence of the per­
sons who comprise such bodies. This is the
essence of democratic republicanism…..”

25. In the case of Usha Bharti v. State of Uttar

Pradesh and others3, a challenge was made with regard to

the validity of Section 28 of the U.P. Kshettra Panchayat

2 (2010) 12 SCC 1
3 (2014) 7 SCC 663
24

and Zilla Panchayats Act, 1961, which made a provision for

‘no confidence’ against Chairperson of Zilla Panchayat to be

not consistent with Part IX and, in particular, Article 243N

of the Constitution of India. Negating the said

contention/challenge, this Court in Usha Bharti (supra)

observed thus:

“31. We also do not find any merit in the
submission of Mr Bhushan that permitting
the provision contained in Section 28 of the
Act to remain on the statute book would
enable the executive to deprive the elected
representatives of their fundamental rights
enshrined in Part III and Part IX of the
Constitution of India. In our opinion, the
ratio of the judgment in I.R. Coelho [(2007)
2 SCC 1] relied upon by Mr Bhushan is
wholly inapplicable in the facts and cir­
cumstances of this case. There is no inter­
ference whatsoever in the right of the elec­
torate to choose. Rather Section 28 en­
sures that an elected representative can
only stay in power so long as such per­
son enjoys the support of the majority of
the elected members of the Zila Pan­
chayat. In the present case, at the time
of election, the petitioner was the cho­
sen one, but, at the time when the mo­
tion of no­confidence in the petitioner
was passed, she was not wanted. There­
fore, the right to choose of the elec­
torate, is very much alive as a conse­
25

quence of the provision contained in
Section 28.”
[emphasis supplied]

26. This Court upheld the provisions of Section 28

which ensured that an elected representative can only stay

in power so long as such person enjoys the support of the

majority of the elected members of the Zila Panchayat. As

soon as such a person loses the confidence of the majority,

he becomes unwanted. In a democratic set up, the will of

the majority has to prevail.

27. The appellant was elected as Gatneta when she

enjoyed the support of all the members of INCPS Party.

However, after she decided to walk on a different path, she

lost the support of majority of the INCPS Party and as such,

could not have thrust her leadership on the majority. No

doubt, that the said Act and the said Rules are in tune with

the provisions contained in the Tenth Schedule of the

Constitution of India, so as to prevent horse­trading and

maintain purity in the political system but, at the same

time, the provisions cannot be interpreted in a manner that
26

one person in minority will thrust himself/herself upon the

other members who are in absolute majority.

28. We are amazed to hear the argument of horse­

trading from the mouth of the appellant. It is the appellant

who has acted contrary to the wishes of the Party and chose

to contest the election of the Chairman of the Panchayat

Samiti with the support of the rival group. It is for anybody

to guess as to who has indulged in horse­trading.

29. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere

with the view taken by the High Court. The appeal is

accordingly dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

…….……………………, J.

[L. NAGESWARA RAO]

…….……………………, J.

[B.R. GAVAI]

NEW DELHI;

SEPTEMBER 01, 2021



Source link