JUDICIAL PERFIDIES-12

I had concluded Judicial Perfidies-11 with a billion rupee question: will the reasons for the Mumbai High Court reversing the judgment of the trial court and the reasons for the dismissal of the next two appeals be investigated and the responsibility fixed?  Also, will those responsible for the miscarriage of justice be punished, even if they are dead, for the sake of record and acting as a deterrent for the future?

 

From the data provided through tweets it is amply clear that Sopan Narsinga Gaikwad is a victim of a fraud perpetrated by the seller of the property. The only extenuating circumstance could be that the seller had informed Sopan of the mortgage and Sopan had accepted that liability too. But it had to be on record. Also, with the title deed of the mortgaged property being with the lending bank how was the sale deed registered? So the only task before the trial court judge was to verify these documents. Since he had given a verdict in favour of Sopan we should presume that the judge had gone through the process of validating all these. So that leaves the high court judges who reversed the verdict and dismissed the appeals in the dock. Also in the dock should be the advocate whose failure led to the last appeal being dismissed for delayed filing and default in appearance.

 

I doubt if these failures will ever be investigated.

 

Our judges have the means to blame everybody from the petitioner, to the investigating officer (where involved) and the prosecution to the witnesses, for the verdicts going awry. But a simple look at the Right to Information Act case of Subhash Agarwal in the matter of disclosure of judges’ assets will reveal that the judges can also be at fault. (This shall be discussed in more detail subsequently.) And this is in keeping with the truism in the quip power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

Palki Sharma in her report quotes the Bhopal Gas tragedy too. In the tragedy that struck in 1984, 5 lakhs people were affected, 15000 killed and only 7 were convicted with maximum 2 years punishment. Many of the victims are yet to get their full compensation. 

 

So, she rightly asks: Is the legal logjam defeating the very purpose of the judiciary?

 

She has listed the following data too.

Of the 44 million cases pending in courts, 73000 in apex court itself. 8 lakhs are pending for more than a decade, 1 lakh for more than 20 years, 2000 cases for more than 50 years.

There are 23 new cases being filed every minute.

76 pc of the prisoners are undertrials, and as of 2020, 1271 are eligible for release having completed 50% of the maximum period for which they could have been punished, if convicted.

While 0.08 pc of GDP is being spent on the courts, the loss to economy due to judicial delays is 0.5 pc of GDP, ie about Rs 50,000 cr per annum.

11 Finance Commission had recommended 1734 Fast Track Courts. But the performance of those established, leave much to be desired. Delhi FTC takes 122 days for disposing a case against 133 days for regular courts.

Of the 29000 cases resolved in 2019, 81 pc were on trial for at least 10 years. It was insulting human dignity.

 

A study by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy conducted in Delhi HC found that in 91 pc cases delayed over 2 years, adjournments were sought and granted. She calls it luxurious litigation.

 

However, when it comes to solutions suggested, she has gone bookish. Fill vacancies and appoint more judges, use technology to streamline process to end bench fixing, use virtual courts, Alternate Disputes Redressal, central tribunals to be last resort et all are nothing but armchair solutions as we shall see from the facts listed in the following paragraphs.

 

The issue of judge to population or docket ratio has been discussed in detail before. Filling vacancies is a just need but then when the authorization itself keeps increasing there are bound to be vacancies. But beyond authorization and vacancies there is one factor that has never been considered or taken up for discussion. That is the throughput of judges or in other words, the efficiency of judges. While unwarranted holidays, short working hours etc continue to limit the output, the illegal adjournments (yes, illegal, when they are beyond the limits prescribed by the Civil and Criminal Procedure Codes) and consequent delays should be attributed only to the incompetence of the judges. 

 

When the pandemic struck the Government of India announced a lock down but exempted all essential services. So we had our electricity, water, newspapers, TV, grocery stores and vegetables, without any or minimal disruption. The courts, as usual, were left to decide for themselves. And what did they do? Locked down and worked with emergency benches. Of course,

 

Using technology and ending bench fixing though apparently independent are also inter-related. Technology will certainly speed up the administrative aspects of the judicial process. And by doing away with human intervention it can bring an end (?) to bench fixing (or, uncle judge syndrome as it is known in legal circles) as well as docket hunting (as was highlighted indirectly by the four senior most judges of the apex court when they held a controversial press conference to cast aspersions, without substantiating any, on the then Chief Justice of India) and corruption too. As per a report in Hindustan Times of 03 May 2014 (https://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/every-third-hc-judge-is-uncle/story-emvLdM8SlnlknyCQ4A7uLM.html) every third high court judge is uncle.

 

Regarding virtual courts, the demand has been quite old. I had read a report of a court in Mysore hearing a witness, based abroad, through video conferencing more than a decade back. But it took a pandemic to make it the primary means to process cases.

 

Alternate disputes redressal is again not a new subject. There are a plethora of institutions from ombudsmen (for local self governing bodies, banks, insurance) through commissions like human rights, women’s, child rights, minorities, consumer disputes and information (both at the state and national levels), police complaints authorities at state and district levels and even Lokayuktas and Lokpal. Anybody who has ever approached any of these quasi judicial authorities can vouch for the totally wayward manner in which they function, merely burdening the tax payer and mostly acting as rehabilitation centers for retired public servants.

 

There was this report of a Chairman of the Kerala State Human Rights Commission, a former judge of the High Court, holding regular sittings on the 1^st of every Malayalam month at Guruvayur, a pilgrimage centre famous for the Lord Krishna (Guruvayurappan) Temple in Thrissur, Kerala. It was as if that was the centre for most of the human rights violations in the State. This was while most of the district headquarters were totally out of the list of locations for camp sittings of the Commission.

 

Since I shall be dealing with the consumer fora/commissions and information commissions in detail later, let me just cite the example of the Lokpal.

 

The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act became law in 2013. The Lokpal provides for a chairman, who has been a judge of the Supreme Court, four judicial members who have been either judges of the apex court or a chief justice of a high court and four non-judicial members. The Lokpal was finally constituted in 2019 with full quorum and as of 07 Mar 2022, there are vacancies of two judicial members.

 

A report in The Print (‘Complaint not in right format? No problem, Lokpal will scrutinise it to spot genuine grievances’ dated 07 March 2022 at https://theprint.in/india/governance/complaint-not-in-right-format-no-problem-lokpal-will-scrutinise-it-to-spot-genuine-grievances/858567/) attracted attention for more than one reason.  Firstly this format is a big thing in our judicial scheme of things. A further reading of the report revealed showed a table having the following data:

Year                       Total Complaints received      Complaints in right format

2019-20                     1427                                        45

2020-21                     2355                                        110

2021-22                     4244                                        128

Live complaints as on 31 Jan 2022           -         36

Complaints in which probe ordered         -          03

 

So what happened to the complaints not in the right format?

And what of the rest of the complaints in the right format which are neither live nor being probed?

 

Here is the data on the disposal of complaints, as per the Annual Report for 2019-20:

   

              

The following facts are noteworthy:

*Annual Report of 2020-21 was not available at their website https://lokpal.gov.in/.

*Disclosures under Section 4(1)(b) of the RTI Act is not available at their website

*The copies of the orders are not available at their website and most importantly, the number of complaints which have been decided in favour of complainants and the action taken against the defaulters, that is, for example, cases being prosecuted in Special court(s), are not available even in their Annual Report. (Is there any reason why all courts and quasi judicial organizations should not use the same format as used by the Supreme Court for its website? Not that the apex court website meets all the requirements of transparency and accountability but still for the purpose of standardization and user friendliness it is still a good idea to begin with.)

*Budget allocation and Expenditure during 2019-20 has been as follows:

Budget Estimate               Rs 101,29,00,000

Revised Estimate             Rs   18,01,00,000

Actual Expenditure         Rs   16,40,73,000

*Sanctioned Strength- 144; In position- 84. A proposal for sanction of 447 posts has already been sent to the Government.

 

There is also this blog on ‘How the Indian judiciary can get out of the tareekh-pe-tareekh mode’ by popular author Chetan Bhagat at http://www.chetanbhagat.com/columns/how-the-indian-judiciary-can-get-out-of-the-tareekh-pe-tareekh-mode/. He writes:

‘…there is one huge bottleneck that prevents India’s economy from thrusting full steam ahead. This is our justice system and hence the need for judicial reforms.’ He is unduly optimistic when he asserts ‘If we could vaccinate a billion people, surely, we can also make our courts faster?’ His suggestions unfortunately are, again, bookish- more budgetary allocation, more court buildings and virtual courts, hiring more people, a separate paperwork and administrative assistance entity, and re-imagine the paperwork filing and hearing system.

 

My comments were:

More budgetary allocation, more court buildings, hiring more people etc are facile requirements, more in line with the judge to population ratio touted by judges and their apologists when what matters is the judge to docket ratio. In a presentation on ‘Justice delayed in India’, made by Adv K T S Tulsi on 24 August 2004 at the Supreme Court Bar Association, here are the statistics he had presented:

Cases filed in One Year (1999):

India 13.6 Million,  USA 93.81 Million (689% more cases with less than 25% population)

Docket’s per Judge:

India  987   USA  3235 (327% more compared to Indian judges)

 

He has also asserted in no uncertain terms that the primary causes of delay are:

 Not the law

 Not the procedure

 Not the paucity of judges

 Sheer question of (mis)management

 

I would declare anybody touting the judge to population ratio unfit to be a judicial officer on account of lack of reasoning ability, a primary requirement towards logical deductions and fair judgments.

Ok, there is shortage of infrastructure at the lower court level, but what about the high courts and the apex court? Why are cases pending there?

Hiring more people? I had, on many occasions, after the Right to Information Act came into force, looked up the apex court website to check their compliance with the basic information all public authorities are required to disclose suo moto. These are listed under Section 4(1)(b) of the Act. Sub sections 4(1)(b)(ix) and (x) pertain to a directory of its officers and employees and the monthly remuneration received by each of its officers and employees, including the system of compensation as provided in its regulations respectively. I use this as a barometer for the transparency in the public authority itself.

At the apex court website I could find the directory of 2053 officers/employees from the Secretary General to the Canteen Attendant. The judges were not in this list, though there are 32, including the Chief Justice, as per the details available elsewhere. That makes it 64 officers/employees per judge.

 

The remuneration of these employees have been provided in terms of pay scale of their grades/classes. Again, the judges were missing from this table too.

 

The more interesting revelation from the directory, accessed on 25 Feb 2022 with data updated on 19 Jan 2022, is the classes of employees and their distribution. The major clusters are:

Registrars (all grades)                  - 109;   Branch Officer/Court Masters- 140

Court Assistants                            - 843;   Personal Assistants                 - 122

Court Attendants                           - 484;   Chamber Attendants               - 117

Usherers                                        - 46;    Chauffeurs                              - 88,

Jamadars (Farash/Safaiwala)       - 30;     Restorers                               - 68

 

I leave it to the readers to guesstimate which are the categories of officers/employees that are needed to be increased further, to enhance the disposal rate of cases pending with the apex court.

 

As had been brought out earlier, the issue with throughput is not related to budgetary allocation. It is related to optimizing use of available resources and efficiency of the judges. Judges need to know thoroughly the laws they are dealing with and the facts presented, either by the party in person or his representative. And that is all that is required to decide a case on its merits.

 

This series began with the case of a retired high court judge, demanding and getting enhanced pension, due to a pension on attaining the age of 80 years, when he had only attained 79 years of age (80^th birth day or 79^th birth anniversary). The court failed to ask the pertinent question: how can a man who attained 62 years of age on the eve of his 63^nd birthday while retiring, attain 80 years of age on his 80^th birthday to claim enhanced pension?

 

A doyen among judges, V R Krishna Iyer had stated that for more disposals…and inexpensive justice, the purposeful therapy is not judicial numbers but intelligent selection, result oriented technology and summary procedure. One capable judge with sound philosophy is a better instrument of justice than a dozen mediocre, indolent ignoramuses who will merely add to the adipose of the system. He had also suggested a powerful Performance Commission to investigate the delinquencies of judges.

 

P M Ravindran/raviforjustice@gmail.com/100322

  

JUDICIAL PERFIDIES-11

 

At the cost of harping, let me repeat one fact that I am totally convinced about: our judiciary is not merely the most failed organ of our Constitution it is an absolutely failed organ. And this has led to the other organs also failing the citizens blatantly and with impunity.

 

In an earlier part of this series I had compared the three organs-legislature/Parliament, Executive and judiciary- from first principles to establish that our judiciary is the best example of the truism that power corrupts and absolute power corrupt absolutely. 

 

Here I shall expose why I consider it to be an absolutely failed organ too.

 

There is an online petition at https://www.change.org/p/a-citizen-s-plea-to-the-indian-judiciary-expedite-court-hearings-deliver-justiceontime which had the support of 12,431 citizens as at 7:23 PM on 01 Mar 2022 IST. This petition was initiated by a US based friend of a senior citizen, Anil Gidwani, 63 years old, who is on a fast unto death at Azad Maidan, Mumbai, since 26 January 2022. That is, he is completing 35 days as I write this. His demand, as per the online petition is that his judicial hearings be expedited. Gidwani has property cases pending in court for over 23 years and, during the course of these 23 years, he has also invited two contempt of court cases. These cases are pending for the last four years and he is demanding that these should be disposed of in a time bound manner. Not today, not tomorrow but just in a time bound manner, including a tentative date by which the verdicts would be given. Now, may I ask: is that too much for a litigant to expect?

 

I have already exposed the falsehood of the claim of the judiciary that it is the shortage of the judges that is leading to delays. Senior Advocate K T S Tulsi had explicitly stated, way back in 2004, that it is not the law, not the procedure, not the paucity of judges but sheer mismanagement that has led to cases piling up and the consequent delays. Let me elaborate this further.

 

We are all familiar with the expression tariq pe tariq or endless adjournments in our courts.

 

Here are two observations made by H D Shourie ('How long before justice comes?' The New Indian Express of 04 Dec 2004):

'It is not possible for a judge to seriously hear and decide more than two or three cases a day....no judge should have more than 30 matters listed before him/her on a given day.'

And, 'Lawyers are accused of employing delaying methods, but no lawyer can succeed if the court refuses an adjournment.'

 

Now, even the figure 30 is disputable, given the fact that if only two or three cases can be heard in a day, it should not be more than 4 or 5 cases that should be listed. Of course this will vary depending on the nature of the case but then there is no gainsaying that even with these differences a certain number can be decided as a thumb rule to be adopted so that not only the time of the court but the time of the litigants are also not wasted. And when I say time of the court, I mean just the productive time of the court because the time of the judge in the court is not to be considered wasted.

 

Anil Gidwani has led the way in quantifying the cost of his time wasted in courts due to tariq per tariq.  He had imposed a fine of Rs 2,20,000 for 22 adjournments due to various reasons, such as board mismanagement, papers not supplied to Advocate General or the respondent, judges absent, judges get up early, paucity of time etc. Now there may be dispute as far as the amount of Rs 10,000/- per adjournment is concerned. But here I need to list two facts/case laws.

 

One, even the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as amended had provided for compensating the opposite party if any adjournment was demanded by one party and granted by the Forum/Commission. (It is a different matter that even this specific mandate is not complied with by the consumer courts, as they are popularly referred to, because I had got only Rs 750/- after 3 such adjournments and persistent demands, when the prescribed amount was Rs 500/- per adjournment.)

 

The next is that, in the matter of paying compensation to the victims of the air crash at Mangalore in 2010, the carrier was initially directed to pay a flat rate to each victim. But the courts had, irrationally and unfairly, linked it to the income levels of the victims.  I reiterate, irrationally and unfairly, because, all the victims had paid the same fare and the fare had not been linked to the income levels of the passengers. It, of course, implies different compensation for different classes of passengers but not different compensation for the same class of passengers.  

 

I can vouch, from personal experience, that in the lower courts, around 100 cases are listed and almost half the limited time of the court is spend in mustering when cases are called out, attendance of the litigants/advocates are confirmed and simply adjourned. And that too by months, as if the litigants have nothing to do except attend the court, once they have a case in a court.

 

These over-spaced adjournments do have a serious adverse effect on the quality of the hearings themselves, which nobody seems to recognize or at least pretend not to recognize. It is the coherence of arguments and understanding. You may ask all those who are stuck with some or the other serials telecast by our TV channels, whether they would like to have them telecast every day, once in a week or once in a month. I know of people fidgeting when there is break during just the weekends.

 

Now what are the rules governing adjournments?

 

The procedure and traits of an adjournment is given under Rule 1 of Order XVII of the Civil Procedure Code. Some of the relevant clauses are:

Court may grant time and adjourn hearing, for reasons to be recorded in writing, provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party;

The court shall make such orders as to costs occasioned by the adjournment or such higher costs as the court deems fit;

The hearing shall be continued from day-to-day;

No adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;

The fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment.

 

 

Similarly, the power to postpone or adjourn proceedings as per Criminal Procedure Code is given in Section 309. They are more or less the same as in Rule 1 of Order XVII of the CPC. However, for ease of understanding, they are:

-the proceedings shall be continued from day-to-day until all the witnesses in attendance have been examined, unless the Court finds the adjournment of the same beyond the following day to be necessary for reasons to be recorded;

-when witnesses are in attendance, no adjournment or postponement shall be granted, without examining them, except for special reasons to be recorded in writing;

-no adjournment shall be granted at the request of a party, except where the circumstances are beyond the control of that party;

-the fact that the pleader of a party is engaged in another Court, shall not be a ground for adjournment

 

And as per Anil Gidwani, the two contempt cases against him are the results of:

One, during the hearing of a partition suit (2017) the judge did not give him a chance to argue his case in a Notice of Motions, and began dictating the order. When he objected, the judge threatened to call the police. It was countered with: “go ahead”. He did, and also filed contempt against him.

Two, on the final day of execution proceedings in an eviction suit (2018), the defendant tenant, who had never appeared in the matter, again failed to appear. The judge

rescheduled the matter to the afternoon session and the defendant suddenly appeared and obtained a stay. The next date, Anil told the judge that he hoped that there will not be any need to reschedule the matter. The judge got angry and he filed contempt.

 

Now, how many reports have we read of judges talking from roof tops on the fundamental right to freedom of expression? And what do these two contempt cases say of the fundamental right of a citizen to express himself in a court while seeking justice? And let us not make any mistakes about this, the court procedures, at the least, should facilitate the litigants to bring their facts on record and protect their rights guaranteed by the laws. It is not for nothing that the laws mandate that all witnesses should be heard in the presence of the accused. Again, from personal experience, I can vouch for the fact that even this is ensured by the courts only in a superficial manner where the accused/defendants are kept at the farthest end of the court while the witnesses are heard by the judge at closer quarters.

 

The judges may claim that unruly behavior cannot be permitted in the courts and decorum has to be maintained. This obviously is not disputable. In fact, based on ground realities, it should be recognized that it applies more to judges than to litigants because whether petitioner or defendant, they are in the unenviable position of almost begging for the right decision.  In this context, it is pertinent to recollect that Booker Prize winning author Arundhati Roy was punished for contempt of court on the ground that the language used in her affidavit submitted in court was not proper. This is what Roy had written on 02 Mar 2002 at http://www.narmada.org/sc.contempt/aroy.stmt.mar7.2002.html:

I stand by what I have said in my Affidavit and I have served the sentence which the Supreme Court imposed on me. Anybody who thinks that the punishment for my supposed 'crime' was a symbolic one day in prison and a fine of two thousand rupees, is wrong. The punishment began over a year ago when notice was issued to me to appear personally in Court over a ludicrous charge which the Supreme Court itself held should never have been entertained. In India, everybody knows that as far as the legal system is concerned, the process is part of the punishment.

 

Shortly thereafter a high court judge, S M Daud, had reportedly denounced her punishment (‘Arundhati's conviction was wrong: HC judge’, PTI Mar 24, 2002; http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-03-24/india/27131899_1_arundhati-roy-hc-judge-conviction). The relevant paragraph of the report reads:

 

Mangalore: Noted writer Arundhati Roy, who was convicted by the Supreme Court for contempt of court, has got support from an unexpected quarter with a high court judge saying the conviction was "wrong". "Arundhati Roy was wrongly convicted," Justice S M Daud, a judge of the Bombay High Court, said. The courts should accept the criticism by the citizens, he told reporters here on Saturday. The highest court should also be open to scrutiny by the public, he said, adding that the courts can either refute it or justifies their actions. He also suggested that the courts should cut down the vacation periods and working hours should be increased to expedite the clearance of the pending cases. Roy was recently convicted by the Supreme Court on charges of contempt of court and sentenced to a one-day "symbolic imprisonment" and slapped Rs 2000 fine for criticising the courts.

 

Quite a sane judge, a rare breed, I must say. He not only acknowledged one basic fact of democracy but also slammed the judiciary for its hypocrisy in the matter of availing long holidays and short working hours when cases are piling by the day.

 

There is a video that has been widely circulated on social media. It is about a judge, Kazim Ali, in Pakistan explaining how he cut out the delays. The essence of what he said is this:

 

When he reached Gujranwala, there were murder cases pending for more than 10 years. He met the advocates in the Bar Room and requested them for co operation to dispose of the cases. He told them that once the trial in a case had commenced he would give adjournment only under three conditions-one, if the judge dies, two, if the advocate dies and three, if the accused dies. The result was within 12 months 600 murder cases were disposed of. Similarly he held a meeting with the police officials also and explained what he expected of them. Like Senior Advocate K T S Tulsi had asserted, this judge can also be seen asserting that the primary causes for the backlog and delays are not the law, not the procedure, not the paucity of the judges but is a sheer question of mismanagement.

 

Another interesting video report I viewed recently on judiciary was at https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-plus-3-in-4-people-in-indias-jails-are-under-trials-454641. (Gravitas Plus: 3 in 4 people in India’s jails are under-trials, Feb 19, 2022, 08:05 PM(IST) by Palki Sharma)

 

One of the sample cases she mentioned was that of Sopan Narsinga Gaikwad, a 108 year old man who died after waiting in vain for justice for 50 years.  I had the read the report at https://www.indiatoday.in/india/story/108-year-old-maharashtra-man-dies-just-before-sc-admits-land-dispute-plea-1831108-2021-07-22 and https://www.independent.co.uk/asia/india/india-oap-court-case-1968-b1888627.html but both the reports misses the crunch issues which had been tweeted by Maheshwer Peri on 22 Jul 2021 at https://twitter.com/maheshperi/status/1418077171617202179.

 

Here are the tweets (emphasis added):

 

This is the story of Sopan Narsinga Gaikwad

1968: Sopan, aged 55 years, hailing from rural Maharashtra, purchased a plot of land through a registered sale deed. Soon he came to know that it was already mortgaged to a bank in lieu of a loan taken by the original owner.

 

1969: The bank issues a notice to him on default of loan by original owner. Sopan approaches the courts to enforce his rights.

 

1982 (14 years after purchase): A trial court issues a decree in his favour. Original owner moves court. Sopan is now 69 years old.

 

1987 (19 years after purchase): High court reverses the decree that favored him. Sopan is 74 years old.

 

1988 (20 years after purchase): Sopan moves High court against the HC order. Sopan is 75 years old.

 

2015 (47 Years after purchase and 27 years after appeal): Bombay High Court dismisses the appeal. Sopan appeals to a larger bench. Sopan is 102 years old.

 

2019 (51 years after purchase): Bombay HC dismisses the second appeal too for delayed filing and default for non appearance. Sopan never knew his lawyers did not appear in court. Sopan hails from Rural Maharashtra and is 106 years old now.

 

2021 (53 years after purchase): Sopan appeals in the Supreme Court against the HC order. Sopan is 108 years old.

 

12 July 2021 (53 years after purchase): SC agrees to hear Sopan's appeal. Sopan is 108 years old.

 

12 July 2021: The lawyer of Sopan informs the court that his client has died. The information from Rural Maharashtra took time to reach the advocate. Sopan died aged 108 years.

 

Sopan bought land when he was 55. He died 53 years after he bought the land at age 108. He still doesn't have ownership of his land and the court is still deciding his ownership.

 

This is the story of Sopan Narsinga Gaikwad.

 

Or is it the story of Indian Judicial system?

 

The case will now be continued by the legal heirs of Sopan Narsinga Gaikwad.

 

But the billion rupee question is will the reasons for the Mumbai High Court reversing the judgment of the trial court and the reasons for the dismissal of the next two appeals be investigated and the responsibility fixed?  And, will those responsible for the miscarriage of justice be punished, even if they are dead, for the sake of record and acting as a deterrent for the future?

 

To be continued….

 

P M Ravindran/ raviforjustice@gmail.com/ 01 March 2022