Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2010
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.27615/08)
ORYX Fisheries Private Limited ...Appellant(s)
- Versus -
Union of India and others ...Respondent(s)
J U D G M E N T
GANGULY, J.
1. Leave granted.
2.
The appellant, a Private Limited Company
engaged in the production, procurement and
processing and export of sea-foods, and
other related products, agreed to supply MT
1
of pealed and undeveined (PUD) shrimps to
one Cascade Marine Foods LLC (hereinafter
referred to as, “Cascade”}, a company
incorporated under the relevant laws of UAE
at Sharjah. The Purchase Contract dated
26.09.2006, was signed by Pristine Food
Inc., a local agent of Cascade, and as per
the details of the contract, the PUD
Shrimps were to be Block frozen-with
mandatory labels on both individual block
and master carton and the destination was
Sharjah, UAE. By a subsequent amendment
dated 19.10.2006 to the purchase contract,
the PUD quantity was increased to a total
of 24 MT without changing other terms of
the purchase contract. Prior to the
dispatch of the consignment, inspection was
carried out by Sakson Fisheries
Consultants, local agents of Cascade, on
18.10.2006, whereby it was found that there
was no bad odour. Rather there was a
2
fairly fresh smell and the quality of the
consignment was found to be satisfactory.
3.
On 25.10.2006, the consignment was
dispatched from Mumbai, which arrived at
Sharjah Port on 02.11.2006 via Delivery
Order, dated 06.11.2006. The Director of
Customs, Sharjah, was requested to
authorize the release of the PUD Shrimps to
Cascade. Following this, on 07.11.2006
Sharjah Customs, vide its Customs
Declaration Form, stated that the
consignment was not to be released before
Health Inspection. It appears from the
facts that the customs and health
authorities of UAE, had inspected the PUD
Shrimps’ quality and quantity and they were
satisfied that it was fit for human
consumption. The health authorities
resealed the consignment and numbered it as
MSLA 18 J 550015, as against the original
3
seal no. YME 166813. It appears from the
Store Receipt voucher No. 9232 dated
12.11.2006 of Cascade, the buyer, that they
had taken possession of the consignment.
After a lapse of more than 10 days, Cascade
alleged that the PUD Shrimp was of very
poor quality as it transpired from their
analysis report dated 21.11.06.
4.
As per the minutes of the meeting held on
17.12.2006 in the office of Cascade at
Sharjah which was attended by Mr. S.D.
Puranik and Mr. P.R. Sakthivel,
respectively Managing Director and Director
Marketing of the appellant and Mr. Vijay
Paranjape, Group QA Manager Al-Kabeer and
Ajit Pillai, General Manager, Cascade
Marine Foods LLC, the appellant agreed to
compensate Cascade to the extent of the
value of the defective goods and the
4
minutes of the meeting were signed by all
the aforementioned individuals.
5.
It has been mentioned in the note attached
to the letter dated 03.09.2007 sent by
Cascade to the Secretary, Ministry of
Commerce, Government of India that Cascade
was asked by the appellant on 21.12.2006 to
issue necessary samples to Mr. Celestine of
M/s Starfish Trading FZE and several
samples were handed over to him. The fact
that the samples were handed over to M/s
Starfish Trading FZE has been disputed
because the appellant’s stand before this
Court was that Cascade failed to hand-over
the necessary samples to the said M/s
Starfish Trading FZE.
6.
The appellant called upon Cascade to hand
over the consignment to one Freshly Frozen
Foods LLC and as a result of that 1081
5
cartons of goods were delivered to the cold
store designated by Freshly Frozen Foods on
14.04.2007 vide Cascade Store Issue Voucher
0390. Freshly Frozen Foods could retrieve
only 25 kgs from 4 MT of product they had
thawed out and they had directed Cascade to
take back the material. When the
Municipality Audit found out that the
validity of PUD shrimp packages had expired
they compulsorily destroyed the entire
consignment of shrimps and the destruction
cost was debited to Cascade. As a result,
Cascade by its facsimile transmission dated
13.08.2007 informed the appellant that they
rejected the entire consignment and they
enclosed a Debit Note No.CMF/DN/108/07 for
US$ 86,104.00 which represented the
material cost and destruction charges and
requested the appellant to settle the same
at the earliest.
6
7.
On 3.09.2007 Cascade by its letter
addressed to Chairman, Marine Products
Export Development Authority (for short,
MPEDA), made a quality complaint on the
shipment effected by the appellant for a
value of US$ 83000 and a claim of total
loss arising from intentional cheating by
way of delivery of decomposed shrimp, unfit
for human consumption.
8.
The Deputy Director, MPEDA, the third
respondent by its letter dated 12.09.2007
forwarded the quality complaint made by
Cascade and sought clarification from the
appellant regarding the same. To that the
appellant vide its letter dated 18.09.2007
stated that the consignment that they had
sent was of standard quality and also
pointed out that they were very doubtful
whether the sample shown to the appellant’s
officers during their visit to Cascade’s
7
factory and the analysis report dated
21.11.2006 pertained to the consignment
sent by them.
9.
In addition to this, Cascade, through its
advocates, served a legal notice on the
appellant on 23.09.2007 asking it to pay
US$ 83104 plus destruction costs within 7
days of receipt of the notice and on
failing to do so, appropriate legal
proceedings would be filed in India and UAE
to recover the said amount . The appellant,
through its Advocate, replied on 17.10.2007
denying that the entire consignment of
shrimps exported by the appellant had
deteriorated in quality. In furtherance
they also denied any liability to
compensate Cascade for the value of the
goods along with storage charges,
distribution costs of USD 83104 plus
destruction costs as alleged.
8
10.
The third respondent vide its letter dated
25.10.2007, addressed to the appellant,
directed it to settle the dispute with
Cascade urgently by 10.11.2007, which was
duly replied to by the appellant in the
negative by its letter dated 11.11.2007.
After a series of correspondence between
the appellant and the third respondent,
finally the third respondent decided on
20.11.2007 to convene a joint meeting on
5.12.2007 between the appellant and Cascade
to find out an amicable settlement of the
issue in the presence of the officers of
MPEDA . The appellant in order to amicably
settle the dispute offered Cascade 25% of
the value of the goods exported, by way of
deferred payment against adjustments, from
future supplies, in the presence of
officers of MPEDA, Cochin.
9
11.
However, Cascade refused to accept the
same. Then the third respondent issued a
show cause notice dated 23.01.2008. As per
the show cause notice the MPEDA called upon
the appellant to show cause why their
certificate of registration should not be
cancelled.
12.
The appellant replied to the show cause
notice vide its letter dated 4.2.2008
seeking to refute the allegations levied
upon it and further stated that MPEDA would
not be justified in canceling its
certificate of registration on the above-
mentioned grounds.
13.
Third respondent without giving any reason
and without giving the appellant any
personal hearing held, vide its order dated
19.3.2008, that the registration
10
certificate of the appellant stood
cancelled.
14.
Being aggrieved by the said order, the
appellant appealed before the second
respondent under Rule 44 of the Marine
Products Export Development Authority
Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as,
“the MPEDA Rules”). The appellate body
fixed a personal hearing on 28.04.2008. The
appellant vide letter dated 26.05.2008
addressed to the appellate body stated that
despite several attempts made by the
appellant to resolve the dispute with
Cascade as advised by the MPEDA, the
attempts proved futile and once again
requested appellate body to adjudicate the
dispute on merits as well as to revoke the
order of cancellation.
11
15.
The second respondent vide its letter dated
20.06.2008 informed the appellant that no
more personal hearing was required and
directed them to send any further evidence
of proof of settlement with Cascade, if
any. On 19-08-2008, the second respondent
passed an order holding, inter alia, that:
“……The appellant in a very unethical way,
had reneged on the promises made earlier.
It is also clear that the appellant company
has made every attempt to disown its
responsibility for supplying poor quality
seafood to M/s. Cascade Marine Foods LLC,
Sharjah. Even during the personal hearing
th
before the undersigned on the 28 April, the
appellant was given ample time to settle the
matter. Time was also given beyond the
deadline fixed. However, the appellant
seems to have taken a decision not to settle
the complaint.
The appellant’s contention that they
were pressured to sign the documents is
quite illogical and unjustifiable because if
they had any difference of opinion they
could have recorded then and there. Hence
there is ample evidence that this is
definitely a case of cheating of M/s. Orxy
Fisheries by shipping substandard material
to M/s. Cascade Marine that brought heavy
loss to one of the leading buyers in UAE.
Such erring and unrepentant exporters if
they continue to export seafood from India
could easily damage the reputation of India
among buyers abroad.
In view of the facts and circumstances
as mentioned above, this appellate authority
finds no lapse on the part of the Deputy
Director in canceling the registration of
the appellant as an exporter.
12
I, therefore disallow the appeal and
uphold the order of cancellation issued by
the Deputy Director, RO, Mumbai.”
16.
Being aggrieved, by the order dated
19.03.2008 and 19.08.2008, the appellant
preferred a Writ Petition No.2251 of 2008,
before the High Court of Bombay. The High
Court found no error of law on the face of
record, and upheld the findings of the
appellate authority and dismissed the writ
petition by an order dated 16.10.2008.
17.
Assailing the High Court’s order, this
Court was moved on a Special Leave Petition
whereupon this Court on 28.11.2008 issued
notice and continued the stay granted by
the High Court on 16.10.2008.
18.
In the backdrop of these facts the first
question which falls for consideration of
this Court is whether the respondents in
13
cancelling the registration certificate of
the appellant acted fairly and in
compliance with principles of natural
justice and also whether the respondents
acted with an open mind.
19.
It is obvious that in passing the impugned
order of cancellation, the respondents were
acting in a quasi-judicial capacity and
also they were acting in exercise of their
statutory powers. Indisputably, the third
respondent while purporting to cancel the
registration certificate was acting in
exercise of his power under Rule 43 of the
MPEDA Rules.
20. The show cause notice dated 23.01.2008 was
issued by the third respondent in exercise
of this power.
14
21.
For a proper appreciation of the points
involved, the show cause notice is set out
in etenso:
“Sub: SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
Your attention is invited to our HQ’s
letter No.IV/53/06-MS/HO dated 25.10.2007
and subsequent joint meeting with the
th
buyer held at our Head office on 5
September, 2007 on the trade complaint
received from M/s Cascade Marine Foods
LLC, Sharjah.
At the meeting it was convincingly
proved that the cargo shipped by you to
the above mentioned buyer was defective
and you have not so far settled the
complaint. Therefore, in exercise of the
powers vested in me vide Office Order
Part-II No.184012005 dated 25.11.2005 read
with Rule 43 of the MPEDA Rules, I hereby
call upon you to show cause why the
Certificate of Registration as an Exporter
granted to you should not be cancelled for
reasons given below:
1.
It has been proved beyond doubt that
you have sent substandard material to
M/s Cascade Marine Foods, LLC,
Sharjah.
2.
You have dishonoured your written
agreement with M/s Cascade Marine
Foods, LLC, Sharjah to settle the
complaint made by the buyer as you had
agreed to compensate to the extent of
the value of defective cargo sent by
you and have now evaded from the
responsibility.
15
3.
This irresponsible action have brought
irreparable damage to India’s trade
relation with UAE.
Your reply should reach the
undersigned within 10 days from the date
of receipt of this letter failing which it
will be presumed that you have no
explanation to offer and we will proceed
with action for cancellation of your
registration certificate without further
notice to you. If ultimately a decision is
reached to deregister you under the
provisions of the MPEDA Rules, it will
automatically entail de-registration under
Registration Exporters’ policy also.”
22.
Relying on the underlined portions in the
show cause notice, learned counsel for the
appellant urged that even at the stage of
the show cause notice the third respondent
has completely made up his mind and reached
definite conclusion about the alleged guilt
of the appellant. This has rendered the
subsequent proceedings an empty ritual and
an idle formality.
23.
This Court finds that there is a lot of
substance in the aforesaid contention.
16
24.
It is well settled that a quasi-judicial
authority, while acting in exercise of its
statutory power must act fairly and must
act with an open mind while initiating a
show cause proceeding. A show cause
proceeding is meant to give the person
proceeded against a reasonable opportunity
of making his objection against the
proposed charges indicated in the notice.
25.
Expressions like “a reasonable opportunity
of making objection” or “a reasonable
opportunity of defence” have come up for
consideration before this Court in the
context of several statutes.
26.
A Constitution Bench of this Court in Khem
Chand v. Union of India and others ,
reported in AIR 1958 SC 300, of course in
the context of service jurisprudence,
17
reiterated certain principles which are
applicable in the present case also.
27.
Chief Justice S.R. Das speaking for the
unanimous Constitution Bench in Khem Chand
(supra) held that the concept of
‘reasonable opportunity’ includes various
safeguards and one of them, in the words of
the learned Chief Justice, is:
“ (a) An opportunity to deny his guilt and
establish his innocence, which he can only
do if he is told what the charges leveled
against him are and the allegations on
which such charges are based;”
28.
It is no doubt true that at the stage of
show cause, the person proceeded against
must be told the charges against him so
that he can take his defence and prove his
innocence. It is obvious that at that
stage the authority issuing the charge-
sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the
charges, confront him with definite
18
conclusions of his alleged guilt. If that
is done, as has been done in this instant
case, the entire proceeding initiated by
the show cause notice gets vitiated by
unfairness and bias and the subsequent
proceeding become an idle ceremony.
29.
Justice is rooted in confidence and justice
is the goal of a quasi-judicial proceeding
also. If the functioning of a quasi-
judicial authority has to inspire
confidence in the minds of those subjected
to its jurisdiction, such authority must
act with utmost fairness. Its fairness is
obviously to be manifested by the language
in which charges are couched and conveyed
to the person proceeded against. In the
instant case from the underlined portion of
the show cause notice it is clear that the
third respondent has demonstrated a totally
close mind at the stage of show cause
19
notice itself. Such a close mind is
inconsistent with the scheme of Rule 43
which is set out below. The aforesaid rule
has been framed in exercise of the power
conferred under Section 33 of The Marine
Products Export Development Authority Act,
1972 and as such that Rule is statutory in
nature.
30.
Rule 43 of the MPEDA Rules provides as
follows:
“43. Cancellation of registration
Where the Secretary or other officer is
satisfied that any person has obtained a
certificate of registration by furnishing
incorrect information or that he has
contravened any of the provisions of this
rule or of the conditions mentioned in the
certificate of registration, or any person
who has been registered as an exporter
fails during the period of twelve
consecutive months to export any of the
marine products in respect of which he is
registered, or if the secretary or other
officer is satisfied that such person has
become disqualified to continue as an
exporter, the Secretary or such officer
may, after giving the person who holds a
20
certificate a reasonable opportunity of
making his objections, by order, cancel
the registration and communicate to him a
copy of such order.”
31.
It is of course true that the show cause
notice cannot be read hyper-technically and
it is well settled that it is to be read
reasonably. But one thing is clear that
while reading a show-cause notice the
person who is subject to it must get an
impression that he will get an effective
opportunity to rebut the allegations
contained in the show cause notice and
prove his innocence. If on a reasonable
reading of a show-cause notice a person of
ordinary prudence gets the feeling that his
reply to the show cause notice will be an
empty ceremony and he will merely knock his
head against the impenetrable wall of
prejudged opinion, such a show cause notice
does not commence a fair procedure
especially when it is issued in a quasi-
judicial proceeding under a statutory
21
regulation which promises to give the
person proceeded against a reasonable
opportunity of defence.
32.
Therefore, while issuing a show-cause
notice, the authorities must take care to
manifestly keep an open mind as they are to
act fairly in adjudging the guilt or
otherwise of the person proceeded against
and specially when he has the power to take
a punitive step against the person after
giving him a show cause notice.
33. The principle that justice must not only be
done but it must eminently appear to be
done as well is equally applicable to quasi
judicial proceeding if such a proceeding
has to inspire confidence in the mind of
those who are subject to it.
22
34.
A somewhat similar observation was made by
this Court in the case of Kumaon Mandal
Vikas Nigam Limited v. Girja Shankar Pant &
others , (2001) 1 SCC 182. In that case,
this court was dealing with a show cause
notice cum charge-sheet issued to an
employee. While dealing with the same,
this Court in paragraph 25 (page 198 of the
report) by referring to the language in the
show cause notice observed as follows:
“25 . Upon consideration of the language in
the show-cause notice-cum-charge-sheet, it
has been very strongly contended that it
is clear that the Officer concerned has a
mindset even at the stage of framing of
charges and we also do find some
justification in such a submission since
the chain is otherwise complete.”
35.
After paragraph 25, this Court discussed in
detail the emerging law of bias in
different jurisdictions and ultimately held
in paragraph 35 (page 201 of the report),
the true test of bias is:
23
“35 . The test, therefore, is as to whether
a mere apprehension of bias or there being
a real danger of bias and it is on this
score that the surrounding circumstances
must and ought to be collated and
necessary conclusion drawn therefrom — in
the event however the conclusion is
otherwise inescapable that there is
existing a real danger of bias, the
administrative action cannot be
sustained:”
36. Going by the aforesaid test any man of
ordinary prudence would come to a
conclusion that in the instant case the
alleged guilt of the appellant has been
prejudged at the stage of show cause notice
itself.
37.
The appellant gave a reply to the show
cause notice but in the order of the third
respondent by which registration
certificate of the appellant was cancelled,
no reference was made to the reply of the
appellant, except saying that it is not
satisfactory. The cancellation order is
totally a non-speaking one. The relevant
24
portion of the cancellation order is set
out:-
“Sub: Registration as an Exporter of
Marine Products under MPEDA Rules 1972.
Please refer to the Show Cause Notice
No.10/3/MS/2006/MS/3634 dated 23.01.2008
acknowledged by you on 28/01/2008
directing you to show cause why the
certificate of registration as an exporter
No.MAI/ME/119/06 dated 03/03/2006 granted
to you as Merchant Exporter should not be
cancelled for the following reasons:-
1.
It has been proved beyond doubt that
you have sent sub-standard material to
M/s. Cascade Marine Foods, L.L.C.,
Sharjah.
2.
You have dishonoured your written
agreement with M/s. Cascade Marine
Foods, L.L.C, Sharjah to settle the
complaint made by the buyer as you had
agreed to compensate to the extent of
the value of the defective cargo sent
by you and have now evaded from the
responsibility.
3.
This irresponsible action has brought
irreparable damage to India’s trade
relation with UAE.
Your reply dated 04/02/2008 to the
Show Cause Notice is not satisfactory
because the quality complaint raised
by M/s. Cascade Marine Foods, L.L.C,
Sharjah have not been resolved
amicably. Therefore, in exercise of
the power conferred on me vide Rule 43
of the MPEDA Rules, read with office
order Part II No.1840/2005 dated
25/11/2006, I hereby cancel the
25
Registration Certificate
No.MAI/ME/119/06 dated 03/03/2006
issued to you. The original
Certificate of Registration issued
should be returned to this office for
cancellation immediately.
In case you are aggrieved by this
order of cancellation, you may prefer
an appeal to the Chairman within 30
days of the date of receipt of this
order vide Rule 44 of the MPEDA Rules.
38.
Therefore, the bias of the third respondent
which was latent in the show cause notice
became patent in the order of cancellation
of the registration certificate. The
cancellation order quotes the show cause
notice and is a non-speaking one and is
virtually no order in the eye of law. Since
the same order is an appealable one it is
incumbent on the third respondent to give
adequate reasons.
39.
On the question whether the entire
proceeding for cancellation of registration
26
initiated by the show cause notice and
culminating in the order of cancellation is
vitiated by bias we can appropriately refer
to the succinct formulation of the
principle by Lord Reid in Ridge v. Baldwin
and others (1964 A.C. 40). The Learned Law
Lord, while dealing with several concepts,
which are not susceptible of exact
definition, held that by fair procedure one
would mean that what a reasonable man would
regard as fair in the particular
circumstances (see page 65 of the Report).
If we follow the aforesaid test, we are
bound to hold that the procedure of
cancellation registration in this case was
not a fair one.
40.
On the requirement of disclosing reasons by
a quasi- judicial authority in support of
its order, this Court has recently
delivered a judgment in the case of Kranti
27
Associates Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Sh. Masood
th
Ahmed Khan & Others on 8 September 2010.
41.
In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this
Court after considering various judgments
formulated certain principles in para 51 of
the judgment which are set out below
a. In India the judicial trend has always been
to record reasons, even in administrative
decisions, if such decisions affect anyone
prejudicially.
b. A quasi-judicial authority must record
reasons in support of its conclusions.
c. Insistence on recording of reasons is meant
to serve the wider principle of justice
that justice must not only be done it must
also appear to be done as well.
d. Recording of reasons also operates as a
valid restraint on any possible arbitrary
exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or
even administrative power.
e. Reasons reassure that discretion has been
exercised by the decision maker on relevant
grounds and by disregarding extraneous
considerations.
f. Reasons have virtually become as
indispensable a component of a decision
making process as observing principles of
natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial
and even by administrative bodies.
g. Reasons facilitate the process of judicial
review by superior Courts.
28
h. The ongoing judicial trend in all countries
committed to rule of law and constitutional
governance is in favour of reasoned
decisions based on relevant facts. This is
virtually the life blood of judicial
decision making justifying the principle
that reason is the soul of justice.
i. Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions
these days can be as different as the
judges and authorities who deliver them.
All these decisions serve one common
purpose which is to demonstrate by reason
that the relevant factors have been
objectively considered. This is important
for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the
justice delivery system.
j. Insistence on reason is a requirement for
both judicial accountability and
transparency.
k. If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is
not candid enough about his/her decision
making process then it is impossible to
know whether the person deciding is
faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to
principles of incrementalism.
l. Reasons in support of decisions must be
cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of
reasons or ‘rubber-stamp reasons’ is not to
be equated with a valid decision making
process.
m. It cannot be doubted that transparency is
the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of
judicial powers. Transparency in decision
making not only makes the judges and
decision makers less prone to errors but
also makes them subject to broader
scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of
Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law
Review 731-737).
29
n.
Since the requirement to record reasons
emanates from the broad doctrine of
fairness in decision making, the said
requirement is now virtually a component of
human rights and was considered part of
Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19
EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs.
University of Oxford , 2001 EWCA Civ 405,
wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of
European Convention of Human Rights which
requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons
must be given for judicial decisions”.
o. In all common law jurisdictions judgments
play a vital role in setting up precedents
for the future. Therefore, for development
of law, requirement of giving reasons for
the decision is of the essence and is
virtually a part of “Due Process”.
42.
In the instant case the appellate order
contains reasons. However, absence of
reasons in the original order cannot be
compensated by disclosure of reason in the
appellate order.
43.
In Institute of Chartered Accountants of
India v. L.K. Ratna and others ,(1986) 4
SCC 537, it has been held:
“……after the blow suffered by the initial
decision, it is difficult to contemplate
complete restitution through an appellate
decision. Such a case is unlike an action
30
for money or recovery of property, where
the execution of the trial decree may be
stayed pending appeal, or a successful
appeal may result in refund of the money
or restitution of the property, with
appropriate compensation by way of
interest or mesne profits for the period
of deprivation. And, therefore, it seems
to us, there is manifest need to ensure
that there is no breach of fundamental
procedure in the original proceeding, and
to avoid treating an appeal as an overall
substitute for the original proceeding.”
(See para 18, pages 553-554 of the report)
44.
For the reasons aforesaid, this Court
quashes the show cause notice as also the
order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the third
respondent. In view of that, the appellate
order has no legs to stand and accordingly
is quashed.
45.
We are constrained to observe that
unfortunately this aspect of the matter was
not considered by the High Court. We
cannot, therefore, approve the order of the
High Court and the same is accordingly
quashed. The cancellation of the
registration certificate of the appellant
31
is set aside and we declare the
registration to be valid if it is not
vitiated for any other reason.
46.
We, however, make it clear that if the
authorities are so inclined, they can
proceed from the stage of show cause notice
afresh but strictly in accordance with law
and following the fair procedure indicated
in this judgment.
47.
The appeal is allowed. Parties are left to
bear their own costs.
.......................J.
(G.S. SINGHVI)
.......................J.
(ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)
New Delhi
October 29, 2010
32