ABRAHAM T J vs THE HONBLE SPEAKER

- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

®

TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

WRIT PETITION NO.1705 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

ABRAHAM T.J.,
ANTI-CORRUPTION AND SOCIAL ACTIVIST,
AGE. 62 YEARS, S/O LATE SRI. JOSEPH T.A.,
O/AT. #2326, ‘ASHIRWAD’,
ND TH
2 ‘A’ CROSS, 16 ‘B’ MAIN,
ND
H.A.L. 2 STAGE, INDIRANAGARA,
BANGALORE – 560 008.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. H.S. GAURAV, SRI. KAUSHIK AMBATI, ADVOCATES FOR
SRI. RAJAVARDHANA REDDY B., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE HON’BLE SPEAKER,
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU–560 001.

2. THE SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

3. K. SRINIVAS GOWDA,
MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
(148) KOLAR ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY,
S/O LATE KEMPE GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
R/AT NO.13, WARD NO.17,
KOLAR CITY–563 101.

4. SRI. H.D. KUMARASWAMY,
MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
(185) CHENNAPATTANA ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY,
S/O H.D. KUMARASWAMY,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
RD
R/AT 286, 3 MAIN ROAD,
III PHASE, J.P. NAGARA, BENGALURU–560078.

VINAYAKA
B V
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
Location: High Court of
Karnataka, Dharwad Bench
Date: 2026.06.12 17:25:27
+0530

- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

5. SRI. S.R. VISHWANATH,
MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
(150) YELAHANKA ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY,
S/O K.V. RAMAIAH,
AGED 57 YEARS,
R/AT HOUSE NO.14/1, APOORVALOKA,
SINGANAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE AND POST,
YELAHANKA HOBLI, BENGALURU NORTH TALUK,
BENGALURU–560 064.

6. DR. ASHWATH NARAYANA C.N.,
MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
(157) MALLESWARAM ASSEMBLY CONSTITUENCY,
S/O T.K. NARAYANAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,
TH ND
R/AT NO.87, 6 CROSS, 2 MAIN,
ND ST
RMV 2 STAGE, 1 BLOCK, BENGALURU–560 094.

7. SRI. C.P. YOGESHWAR,
EX-MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY,
S/O PUTTEHOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
R/AT CHAKKERE VILLAGE, MALURU HOBLI,
CHENNAPATTANA TALUK,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-571 501.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAGADISH B.N., ADDL. S.P.P. FOR R1 AND R2;
NOTICE TO OTHER RESPONDENTS ARE DISPENSED WITH
(V/O DATED 06.11.2025)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1950 READ WITH 482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO ISSUE OF WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR SIMILAR WRIT OR
ORDER OR DIRECTION TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED LETTER BEARING
NO.KaViSaSa/ShaaRaShaa/34/AMam/2022 DATED 25/04/2022 VIDE
ANNEXURE-F ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 THROUGH
RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 30.04.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS
AT DHARWAD BENCH THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S SUNIL DUTT YADAV

CAV ORDER

The present petition has been filed by the
complainant in PCR 77/2020 seeking for issuance of writ of
certiorari to set aside the communication dated
25.04.2022 addressed to the complainant. In terms of the
said communication the Deputy Secretary of the
Karnataka Legislative Secretariat has taken the stand that
the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly is not the
authority to appoint the Elected Representatives and
accordingly the question of granting sanction for the
purpose of carrying out investigation or initiation of
prosecution or registering a complaint does not arise. Such
communication has been made to the complainant upon
instructions of the Speaker.
2. Aggrieved by such communication, the present
writ petition has been filed seeking for setting aside of
such communication and for a direction to the Respondent
No.1, the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly,

- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

to take a decision on the request for sanction for
prosecution under Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 (“P.C.Act”, for short).
3. The lis is essentially one between the petitioner,
who is the complainant and has been directed to obtain
sanction, and the Hon’ble Speaker who has declined to
pass an order stating he is not the appropriate authority.
Accordingly, the contesting parties to the lis have been
heard. Notice to other respondents has been waived as
per order dated 06.11.2025.
4. The facts relevant to put the legal controversy in
context are that, the petitioner had filed a complaint vide
PCR No.77/2020 arraying as, the accused Members of the
Legislative Assembly seeking that the court may take
cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 7, 8,
12, 13 (1)(b), 13 (2) and 15 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120A and 120B, 171B,
201, 202 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code.

- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

5. It is averred in the complaint that the accused
no.1 is stated to have asserted in public that accused no.3
to 5 had lured him to cross over from the JD (S) Party to
the BJP Party by offering Rs.30 Crores and in that regard
an advance of Rs.5 Crores was paid and received by
accused no.1.
6. It is further made out from reading of the
complaint that the amount offered as bribe for switching
over to a political party and received by accused no.1 was
later returned to accused nos.3 to 5 at the instance of
accused no.2.
7. Proceedings in the private complaint filed had
progressed. During the pendency of the proceedings, the
accused had approached this court in W.P.No.14322/2021
c/w Crl.P 5003/2021, W.P.No.14354/2021,
W.P.No.16264/2021 challenging the validity of the order
dated 29.12.2020 whereby the Trial Court had taken
cognizance of the offences punishable under Section 7, 8,

- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

12, 13 (1) (b), 13 (2) and 15 of the P.C.Act and Section
120-B, 171-B, 201, 202 and 511 of IPC as against accused
nos.1 to 5.
8. The Trial Court by order dated 29.03.2021 had
also directed registration of a criminal case as against
accused nos.1 to 5 for offences punishable under Section
7, 8, 12, 13 (1) (b) r/w 13 (2) of the P.C.Act and 202 of
IPC. The trial court had then directed issuance of process
to accused nos.1 to 5 summoning them to appear before
the court for facing trial.
9. Such direction of the Trial Court came to be set
aside with certain directions in the writ petitions referred
to above. Para 4 to 6 of the order passed in
W.P.No.14322/2021 and connected matters dated
04.01.2022 is extracted as below:
“4. The memos filed by the petitioners
and the stand of the respondent have the
effect of binding the respective parties. To
such extent, the stand of the parties can be

- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

taken note of and otherwise the Court is to
pass an order irrespective of any concession.
The operative portion of the order dated
29.03.2021 is set aside. The observation
made in the order as regards to deemed
sanction at paragraph Nos. 16 and 17 is set
aside as the available material and facts do
not permit to construe as if there has been
deemed sanction. The Special Judge in terms
of the mandate to Section 19(1)(c)(ii) of the
P.C.Act, is to direct the complainant to obtain
sanction for prosecution against the public
servant for further proceeding. It is clear that
sanction undoubtedly has to be taken.
However, considering that the present
proceedings have been initiated by a private
complainant under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., the
appropriate procedure and stage for obtaining
sanction would be as contemplated under
Section 19(1)(c)(ii) of the Act. While passing
its order on 29.03.2021, the Special Judge
ought to have called upon the complainant to
obtain sanction as contemplated under
Section 19(1)(c)(ii) of the P.C.Act.

- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

5. In light of the memo filed, while
reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise
contentions as regards all aspects, matter is
relegated to the Special Judge. Upon such
relegation, the Special Judge is to follow the
procedure under Section 19(1)(c)(ii) of the
P.C.Act and call upon the complainant to
obtain sanction for prosecution and after
necessary sanction is obtained as per law, the
Court is required to further proceed in the
matter. Needless to state that the procedures
prescribed under the subsequent proviso are
also to be taken note of by the Authority
granting sanction. It is also clarified that
while setting aside of the operative portion of
the order dated 29.03.2021, this Court has
not adjudicated as regards the other findings
of the trial Court in the impugned order dated
29.03.2021 except the aspect of sanction. By
virtue of the order passed herein, the defect
as regards sanction in respect of the
proceedings is taken care of.
6. Accordingly, the petitions are
disposed off subject to above observations.
The observations made in this order would

- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

also enure to the benefit of accused No.2 as
the observations made are on an
understanding of the legal position.”
10. Taking note of such direction of this court, the
trial court has proceeded to pass a detailed order on
18.06.2022 and relevant extract of the order from para 7
onwards is as below:
“7. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka
while disposing of the above writ petitions
and criminal petitions directed this Court to
follow the procedure under Section 19 (1)
(c) (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption of
Corruption Act and call upon the
complainant to obtain sanction for
prosecution. It is further held that after
necessary sanction is obtained as per law,
the Court is required to further proceed in
the matter.
8. Now the complainant has filed a
memo producing a copy of the letter issued
by the Deputy Secretary, Karnataka
Legislative Assembly dated 25.04.2022
wherein it is stated that the Speaker is not

- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

an Appointing Authority of Members of
Vidhanasabha Legislative Assembly as they
are elected representatives and hence, the
question of issuing sanction by the Speaker
for registration of complaint and to conduct
investigation and to prosecute them does
not arise.
9. In view of the above said letter, the
complainant has filed the present memo
seeking to issue a clear direction to the
Hon’ble Speaker of Karnataka Legislative
Assembly. It is to be noted here that this
court has called upon the complainant to
obtain sanction for prosecution as per the
direction issued by the Hon’ble High Court of
Karnataka in the above said writ petitions
and criminal petition. Therefore, the
question of this Court issuing clear direction
to the Speaker of Karnataka Legislative
Assembly to issue sanction for prosecution
under Section 19 of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 does not arise. In
these circumstances, I am of the opinion
that no further direction is needed in this

- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

regard and accordingly, the memo dated
10.06.2022 is disposed of.”

11. It appears from the said order dated 18.06.2022
that the complainant had approached the Deputy
Secretary of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly seeking
for sanction which was refused by the Speaker. The
request made to the court for further direction to the
Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly to grant
sanction for prosecution was however rejected while
observing “await sanction by 12.07.2022”.

12. It is in the context of such facts and refusal by
the Speaker to grant sanction as requested, the petitioner
has challenged the validity of the communication dated
25.04.2022.

13. Before entering into the validity of
communication at Annexure-‘F’ which is in the nature of an

- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

endorsement, the extract of operative portion of the
communication at Annexure-F reads as follows:
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉÃ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: ªÀiÁ£Àå ±Á¸ÀPÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw
¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀ §UÉÎ.

G¯ÉèÃR: vÀªÀÄä ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 03.03.2022.

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉAiÀÄ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÁzÀ ²æÃ PÉ.
²æÃ¤ªÁ¸À UËqÀ, ²æÃ ºÉZï.r. PÀÄªÀiÁgÀ¸Áé«Ä, ²æÃ J¸ï.Dgï. «±Àé£Áxï
ºÁUÀÆ qÁ|| C±ÀévïÀÜ£ÁgÁAiÀÄt ¹.J£ï. EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ ¨sÀæµÁÖZÁgÀ ¥Àæw§AzsÀ
C¢ü¤AiÀÄªÀÄ, 1988gÀ PÀ®A 19gÀ CrAiÀÄ°è C©üAiÉÆÃd£Á ªÀÄAdÆgÁw
¤ÃqÀÄªÀAvÉ G¯ÉèÃTvÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è vÁªÀÅ PÉÆÃjgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ¸ÀjAiÀÄµÉÖ.

DzÀgÉ, “ªÀiÁ£Àå «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸À¨sÁzsÀåPÀëjAzÀ
£ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ºÉÆA¢zÀªÀgÀ®è. CªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ ZÀÄ£Á¬ÄvÀ d£À¥Àæw¤¢üUÀ¼ÀÄ. ªÀiÁ£Àå
¸À¨sÁzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÁ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÉÃ«Ä¸ÀÄªÀ ¥Áæ¢üPÁgÀªÁUÀzÉÃ
EgÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¸À®Ä, vÀ¤SÉ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî®Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ
C©üAiÉÆÃd£ÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¸À®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸À¨sÁzsÀåPÀëgÀÄ C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¤ÃqÀÄªÀ ¥Àæ±Éß
GzÀã«¸ÀÄªÀÅ¢®è" JAzÀÄ vÀªÀÄUÉ w½¸À®Ä ªÀiÁ£Àå ¸À¨sÁzsÀåPÀëgÀªÀjAzÀ
¤zÉÃð²vÀ£ÁVzÉÝÃ£É.

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹,

Sd/-
(©.J¸ï. ªÀÄºÁ°AUÉÃ±ï)
G¥À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð,
PÀ£ÁðlPÀ «zsÁ£À¸À¨sÉ ¸ÀaªÁ®AiÀÄ.

14. It is to be noticed that this court in its order

in W.P.No.14322/2021 and connected matters had
observed that the Complainant was required to obtain

- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

sanction for prosecution against the public servant for
further proceeding in terms of Section 19 (1) (c) (ii) of
the P.C.Act. It was further observed that after calling
upon the complainant at such stage to obtain sanction
for prosecution the court is required to further proceed
in the matter.

15. Subsequent to the order dated 04.01.2022
of this court disposing of the writ petition referred to
above, the petitioner had made a representation dated
03.03.2022 to the Speaker of the Karnataka
Legislative Assembly i.e., respondent no.1 requesting
according of sanction for prosecution as required
under Section 19 of the P.C.Act as against the accused
in the private complaint.

16. The Speaker having refused to consider the
request for grant of sanction in terms of the
communication/endorsement at Annexure-F dated
25.04.2022, the petitioner who is the complainant

- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

made another effort before the Trial Court seeking
issuance of appropriate directions to the Speaker,
which request was turned down as per order of the
Trial Court dated 12.07.2022 and eventually while
disposing of the memo of the petitioner dated
10.06.2022 Court has ordered “await sanction by
12.07.2022”.

17. Subsequent to such order, the petitioner has
filed the present petition on 18.01.2023 seeking for
setting aside of the communication/ order of
25.04.2022 at Annexure-“F” and has sought for
ancillary relief to direct the Speaker to accord sanction
for prosecution.

18. The only legal issue that requires
adjudication is the validity of the communication/
endorsement dated 25.04.2022.

- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

19. Confining solely to such legal issue, the
Court is required to take note of the observations of
the Apex Court in the case of P.V.Narasimha Rao
1
and Others v. State (CBI/SPE) .

20. The Apex Court dealt with the aforesaid case
by a Constitution Bench of five Judges (Justice
S.C.Agrawal, Justice G.N.Ray, Dr.A.S.Anand, Justice
S.P.Bharucha and Justice S.Rajendra Babu). The
opinion of Justice S.C.Agrawal and Dr.A.S.Anand on
such question is found at paragraph 98 which is
extracted below:

“98. On the basis of the aforesaid
discussion we arrive at the following conclusion:

1. A Member of Parliament does not enjoy
immunity under Article 105(2) or under
Article 105(3) of the Constitution from being
prosecuted before a criminal court for an
offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe

1
(1998) 4 SCC 626

- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

for the purpose of speaking or by giving his
vote in Parliament or in any committees
thereof.

2. A Member of Parliament is a public servant
under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.

3. Since there is no authority competent to
remove a Member of Parliament and to grant
sanction for his prosecution under Section
19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, the court can take cognizance of the
offences mentioned in Section 19(1) in the
absence of sanction but till provision is made
by Parliament in that regard by suitable
amendment in the law, the prosecuting
agency, before filing a charge-sheet in
respect of an offence punishable under
Sections 7, 10, 11, 13 and 15 of the 1988
Act against a Member of Parliament in a
criminal court, shall obtain the permission of
the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha/Speaker of
the Lok Sabha, as the case may be.

Reading of Point No.3 is self-explanatory.

- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

21. It is clear from the opinion of Justice S.C.
Agrawal and Dr. A. S. Anand as extracted above at point
no.3 that in the absence of an authority competent to
remove a Member of Parliament and to grant sanction for
his prosecution under section 19 (1) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act 1988, the court can take cognizance of the
offences mentioned in section 19 (1), in the absence of
sanction. It is further observed that till such provision is
made by the Parliament in that regard the Prosecuting
Agency before filing a charge sheet in respect of offences
referred to in section 19 is required to obtain permission of
the Chairman of the Rajya Sabha / Speaker of the Lok
Sabha as the case maybe. Such opinion has been
concurred with by Justice G.N. Ray in his separate opinion
and the observations made are extracted below:

“ G.N. RAY, J.- I had the privilege of
reading both the judgments — one by my
learned brother Mr Justice S.C. Agrawal and
the other by learned brother Mr Justice S.P.

- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

Bharucha. Though I respectfully concur with
the findings of Mr Justice Agrawal and agree
with the reasoning for such findings that (1) a
Member of Parliament is a public servant
under Section 2(c) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 and (2) since there is no
authority competent to grant sanction for the
prosecution of a Member of Parliament under
Section 19(1) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988, the court can take cognizance of
the offences mentioned in Section 19(1) in
the absence of sanction but before filing a
charge-sheet in respect of an offence
punishable under Sections 7, 10, 11, 12 and
15 of 1988 Act against a Member of
Parliament in a criminal court, the
prosecuting agency shall obtain the
permission of the Chairman of the Rajya
Sabha/Speaker of the Lok Sabha, as the case
may be, I have not been able to persuade
myself to concur with the reasonings and the
finding in the judgment of Mr Justice Agrawal
that a Member of Parliament does not enjoy
immunity under Article 105(2) or 105(3) of
the Constitution from being prosecuted before

- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

a criminal court for an offence involving offer
or acceptance of bribe for the purpose of
speaking or giving his vote in Parliament or in
any committee thereof.”

22. Accordingly, it is clear that though sanction
cannot be taken, however till such time Parliament makes
necessary provision even before charge sheet is filed, the
permission of the Speaker of the House is required to be
taken. The law laid down though in the context of
Members of Parliament could ipso-facto be extended to
Legislators of the Assembly.
23. In light of the legal position, the trial court while
rejecting the memo filed by the complainant which memo
was filed seeking the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
to grant sanction, the trial court had observed and ordered
“await sanction by 12/07/2022’’. In light of Speaker
having taken the stand as reflected at Annexure-‘F’, it
would be appropriative to set aside the communication at

- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

Annexure-‘F’ and remit the matter for taking fresh decision
in accordance to the discussion made above.

24. Needless to state though section 19 provides for
“…accord sanction to prosecute” the legal requirement of
the statue regarding obtaining sanction of prosecution
cannot be insisted upon, it would suffice if permission is
obtained from the Speaker of the House before filing of
charge-sheet. Though such permission is required to be
obtained by the Prosecution Agency where the proceeding
is in the nature of a private complaint, the complainant
himself may be called upon to obtain such permission at
the same stage where sanction for prosecution has to be
obtained as stipulated under Section 19 of the P.C.Act,
where the court not having dismissed the complaint under
Section 203 intends to proceed further. Thus, when the
Trial Court has called upon the complainant to obtain
sanction, the response made at Annexure-‘F’ does not
satisfy compliance of the order of the court.

- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:28594
WP No.1705 of 2023

HC-KAR

25. Accordingly, the impugned communication dated
25.04.2022 at Annexure-‘F’ is set aside. The Speaker of
the Legislative Assembly to reconsider and pass
appropriate orders on the request of the complainant
dated 03.03.2022. Such reconsideration will be in
accordance with law, in light of the discussion made at
paragraphs 20 to 22. All other contentions on merits are
kept open.

26. Accordingly the writ petition is disposed of
subject to the observations made above.

Sd/-
(S SUNIL DUTT YADAV)
JUDGE

NP/-
CT:VP
LIST NO.: 19 SL NO.: 1