1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL No.10269 OF  2017 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15862 of 2010)

M/s. National Building Construction        ….. Appellant

Versus

State of Maharashtra & Ors. ….. Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A.M. KHANWILKAR, J.

1. The  present  appeal  arises  out  of  the  judgment  and

decree dated 1st September, 2009, passed by the High Court

of  Judicature  at  Bombay,  Nagpur Bench,  in  First  Appeal

No.312 of 1992 whereby the High Court has partly modified

the decree passed by the Trial Court and negatived Claim

Nos.1 and 3 set up by the appellant.

2

2. The  appellant,  a  partnership  firm  engaged  in  civil

construction  works,  had  submitted  a  tender  for  work

pertaining  to  construction  of  one  Nishanghat  Minor

Irrigation  Tank  in  pursuance  of  a  notice  issued  by

respondent  No.1  –  State  of  Maharashtra.  After  the

appellant’s tender was approved and work order dated 21st

December, 1978 was issued by the State in favour of the

appellant,  the  parties  executed  an  agreement  at  Nagpur.

After completion of the contract work on 16th June, 1982,

final bill was paid to the appellant on 22nd October, 1982,

which  the  appellant  disputed  on  the  ground  that  it  had

performed extra work over and above the tendered work, for

which payment was not included. Feeling aggrieved by the

alleged shortfall in payment and unable to settle the dispute

with the respondents, the appellant filed a suit against the

respondents before the Court of 6th Joint Civil Judge (Senior

Division), Nagpur being Special Civil Suit No.279 of 1985,

inter alia seeking a decree for amounts due to it under the

following heads of claim:

3

a. Claim  1:  Unpaid  amounts  arising  out  of difference  in  government-prescribed  rates  for

work  of  excess  stone  revetment/pitching,

amounting to Rs. 1,76,199.28/- b. Claim 2: Unpaid amounts for difference in rates

relating  to  excavation  work,  amounting  to  Rs.

90,165/- c. Claim  3:  Unpaid  amounts  for  extra  lead  for

water works, amounting to Rs. 80,000/- and d. Claim  4:  Unpaid  amounts  for  extra  lead  for

sand, amounting to Rs. 9900/- In addition,  the  appellant  also  claimed interest  on the

claim amount, of Rs.1,42,505.60, calculated at 15% p.a.

from 22nd October,  1982 till  the date of  filing the suit.

With interest, the aggregate claim of the appellant was

Rs. 4,98, 769.86/-.

3. Each of the above claims was specifically challenged by

the  respondents  in  their  written  statement.  After

considering  the  rival  contentions  and  the  evidence  on

record,  the  Trial  Court  passed a  decree  in  favour  of  the

appellant on 29th October, 1991, the operative part of which

is reproduced hereinbelow:

“ORDER

1] Suit is decreed with costs.

4

2] Defendants do pay Rs. 4,98,769.87 to the plaintiff.

3] The decreetal amount to carry future interest @ 15% per annum from the date  of  filing  of  the suit till  its  actual realization.

4] Decree be drawn accordingly.”  

4. The  respondents  preferred  an  appeal  against  the

aforesaid decree passed by the Trial Court before the High

Court of Bombay, Nagpur Bench, being First Appeal No.312

of  1992.  Over  the  course  of  hearing,  the  learned  Single

Judge framed the following points for consideration:

“I)  Whether the trial Court was justified in granting the claim of Rs.1,76,199/towards pitching?

II)  Whether  the  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  an  amount  of Rs.90,165/for the excavation of the soft rock of the strata?

III)  Whether  the  plaintiff  was  entitled  to  an  amount  of Rs.80,000/for additional lead for water?

IV)  Whether the grant of compensation @ Rs.9,900/towards lead for sand was justified?

V)  What order?”

5. Ultimately, the High Court by its judgment and decree

dated 1st September, 2009 partly allowed the respondents’

appeal,  modifying  the  decision  of  the  Trial  Court  and

reducing the decreetal amount as under:

5

“23. For the reasons aforesaid, the first appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the 6th Joint Civil  Judge (Senior  Division),  Nagpur  on  29.10.1991 is hereby modified.  It is held that the respondent plaintiff would  not  be  entitled  to  claim  an  amount  of  Rs. 1,76,199/towards pitching an amount of Rs. 80,000/for additional  lead of  water.  The findings recorded by the trial Court in regard to the entitlement of  plaintiff  to an amount of Rs. 90,165/for excavation of soft rock and an amount of  Rs.  9900/towards lead of  sand are  hereby confirmed.  The plaintiff respondent would, therefore, be entitled to only an amount of Rs. 1,00,065/with interest @ 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization.

Order accordingly. No order as to costs.”

The High Court, while partly allowing the appellant’s claims,

viz. Claim 2 and Claim 4, struck off Claim 1 and Claim 3,

having held that the said claims were granted by the Trial

Court without considering the evidence on record. The High

Court further held that while there was no dispute as to the

work done by the appellant under this head of claim, the

Government/C.S.R.  rate  at  which  such  work  was  to  be

compensated was erroneously expressed in terms of square

metres instead of cubic metres, resulting in confusion. The

High Court came to hold that the respondents had produced

evidence to show that this error had been rectified and, in

6

fact,  the  appellant  was  paid  at  a  rate  higher  than  the

rectified prescribed rate. The Court noted that despite this,

the  appellant  was  claiming  payment  under  this  head  of

claim  at  an  exorbitant  and  abnormal  rate,  which  was

untenable.  The High Court went on to hold that the Trial

Court also erroneously granted the claim relating to extra

lead for water (i.e. Claim 3). For, the agreement executed by

the parties for the contract work clearly mentioned that the

work done by the appellant under this head of claim would

include watering and mechanized compaction of earth work

and  no  extra  payment  towards  lead  for  water  would  be

payable.  Further,  the  appellant  was duly  informed by the

Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Nagpur, that

its claim relating to extra lead for water was not acceptable.

Hence, such claim was rejected. The High Court, however,

did not  disturb the interest component as ordered by the

Trial Court.

6. The  High  Court’s  decision  has  been  assailed  by  the

appellant  in  the  present  appeal,  on  several  grounds.  As

regards Claim 1, the rectification issued by the respondents

7

with respect to the Government/CSR rates for pitching work

was misleading and was produced as an afterthought, being

issued much after  the end of  the  relevant financial  year.

Such direction could not be issued with retrospective effect.

The  rectification  itself  is  inadmissible  in  evidence,  not

having  been pleaded  by  the  respondents  in  their  written

statement before the Trial Court. As regards Claim 3, the

High Court ought not to have disregarded the said claim

when the respondents’ witness himself admitted that there

was  a  need  for  additional  water  to  be  brought  by  the

appellant.  The  respondents’  contention  that  they  had

rejected the appellant’s demand relating to lead for water

and duly  communicated the  same to  it,  was also  rightly

rejected by the Trial Court as bereft of merit. Finally, since

the agreement executed between the parties for the contract

work was one between a private party and the State, the

State (i.e. the respondents) was obliged to act in a just, fair

and reasonable manner.

8

7. The  respondents,  in  reply,  have  contended  that  the

High  Court’s  decision  was  justified  and  based  on  the

evidence  brought  on  record.  The  respondents  have

reiterated the findings and conclusion reached by the High

Court  while  rejecting  Claims  1  and  3  of  the  appellant.

Additionally, the respondents have faintly denied the claims

made by the appellant for variation in excavation of rock i.e.

Claim No.2 and in extra lead of sand i.e. Claim 4, stating

that the respondents never agreed to pay for any variation.

Notwithstanding  the  above,  the  respondents  had

nevertheless paid the appellant for extra work done.  

8. Considering the rival submissions, we are called upon

to examine the justness of the view taken by the High Court

with respect to the claim set up by the appellant in respect

to pitching of stones and extra lead for water, being Claim

Nos.1 and 3, respectively.  Taking up the issue regarding

Claim No.1 for a sum of Rs.1,76,199/-, the Trial Court, for

allowing the same in favour of the appellant, had noted that

there was no pleading in respect of the evidence produced

by  the  respondents  (defendants)  and,  therefore,  such

9

evidence was inadmissible.  Secondly,  the direction issued

by the  Superintending  Engineer  vide  its  letter  dated 30th

May, 1983, pertained to financial year 1981-82. That was

illegal.  For,  it  was  impermissible  to  correct  the  earlier

notified  rates  of  CSR  with  retrospective  effect.  The  High

Court, on the other hand, accepted the said evidence and

found fault with the view taken by the Trial Court that there

was  no  pleading  or  that  the  evidence  produced  by  the

defendants  was  inadmissible.  As  regards  the  pleading  in

their  written  statement  in  relation  to  Claim  No.1,  the

respondents had asserted thus:-  

“A. As to claim no. 1: Item No. 12A as put forth by the plaintiff in this suit is denied.  It is submitted that  the  deals  with  the  providing  of  stone revetment  (Pitching  of  30  cm.  thickness).   The quantity  put to  tender  of  this  item was 300 M3 and  the  remaining  quantity  of  pitching  from available material, vide tender item No. 12-B was 3144  M3.   However,  during  the  execution,  the quantity of item No. 12-A which was 300 M3 has been  increased  to  3455.50  M3  as  material available  for  pitching  was  less  than  tender quantity.   The allegations that clause No. 38 of the agreement has not been complete  with,  are denied. It is submitted that as per clause 38 of the  agreement,  the  quantity  exceeded  by  more than 25% of the tender quantity is to be paid as per CSR during which the work executed and the plaintiff was paid as per this condition as below:

10

As  per  tender  rate  481  M3  @  Rs.27.60 Rs.13275.60 As  per  CSR  80-81  409.24  M3  @  Rs.28.75 Rs.11765.65 As  per  CSR  81-82  2575.26  M3  @  Rs.35.70 Rs.91936.75

It is denied that the plaintiff is entitled to claim the amount as detailed in chart given in this para.  It is  submitted  that  the  plaintiff’s  claim for CSR 81-82 i.e. Rs. 97.30 is not correct as the rate of pitching in CSR 81-82 was given as Rs. 24.25 per M2 by the Govt. and no rate for  per  cubic  meter  is  given  in  this  CSR. However,  the  Superintending  Engineer, Nagpur Irrigation Circle Nagpur, vide letter No.  3517/HMD dt.  19.6.1981 instructed  to increase the rates for the year, 1981-82 by 30% above the CSR 180-81 for the items not included  in  the  Govt.  Sanctioned  CSR  for 1981-82.  Accordingly, this office has taken the  rate  of  pitching  per  cubic  meter  for 80-81 which was Rs. 27.60 per cubic meter and adding 30% above that the rate worked out Rs. 35.70 per M3 and the plaintiff was paid at this rate. Hence there is no substance in the claim of the plaintiff as he has been paid fully  as  per  contract conditions.  The  plaintiff  is bound by the terms of the agreement and in view the provisions made in the agreement reference as  to  the  dispute  raised  by  the  plaintiff  was already made to the Superintending Engineer and it was finally settled by the said authorities.  The plaintiff is bound by the said decision.”

(emphasis supplied)     

The  evidence  adduced  by  the  respondents,  including  the

deposition of DW1, was nothing but elaboration of the said

pleading.   The  material  facts  to  deny  the  claim  of  the

11

appellant  qua  this  head  under  consideration  was  duly

pleaded. In the context of pleading in the written statement,

DW1 in his examination-in-chief had stated thus:-  

“2. In agreement so executed by plaintiff he had quoted the rate of  pitching work 10% above the Govt. rate in cubic metres. In case the actual work carried  out  by  the  contractor  exceeds  by  25% above the estimate then the contractor is entitled to charge the rate as per CSR prevailing.  It was also agreed that in case the rate of any particular item is act mentioned in the CSR then the rate is to be fixed mutually by department and contractor to be derived from CSR.  

3.  Plaintiff never raised any dispute about the rates. The pitching rates in the CSR of 1981-82 are mentioned in the square metres and not  in  cubic  metres.  But  the  pitching rates in earlier CSR of 1979-89 and 1980-81 were in the cubic metres. As per clause 38 of the agreement as the rate of pitching in CSR 1981-82 were not in cubic metres that rate was  not  applicable  to  be  paid  to  the contractor.  In  such a case the rate was to be fixed for pitching work in the year 1981-82 by the superintending  Engineer.   By  Exh.  47  I reported to the Supdt. Engineer that whom I converted the rates from square metres to cubic meters for pitching work for the year 1981-82. I found that the rates of was too high  and  abnormal  and  therefore  what should be done. Exh. 47 in my opinion is not a recommendation to Supdt. Engineer. But only an abnormality was pointed out to the Supdt.  Engineer.  The  Supdt.  Engineer  in pursuance  of  my  letter  Exh.  47  intimated such abnormality to the Govt. Govt. by letter dated 23.6.82 intimated all Supdt. Engineer that it  was an anomaly and therefore the

12

labour rate should be corrected.  The letter now shown to  me  is  the  same.  The  Zerox copy  of  the  Govt.  letter  received  by  the Department is placed on record along with list Exh. 113. The Xerox copy tallies with the letter received by us.  The letter received by the department  is  returned  to  the  witness  and  the Xerox copy is placed at Exh. 117.  

4.  Supdt.  Engineer  subsequently  issued directions that in case any rate is not mentioned in the CSR then the payment should be made as per the earlier CSR with 30% raise in it.  As the rate of pitching in the CSR of 1981-82 was abnormal  and  end  of  was  mentioned  in square metres, as per the directions of the Supdt.  Engineer  rates  as  per  the  CSR  of 1981-82 with 30% raise was to be paid to the contractor plaintiff.  Those instructions are vide letter dt. 19.6.1981.  It is placed at Exh.118. Plaintiff  agreed in the agreement that Supdt.  Engineer  in  the final  authority to  decide the rates. It is also so mentioned in the manual. Nagpur Irrigation Project Circle Supdt. Engineer in authorized  by  the  Govt.  to  fix  the  CSR. Accordingly on the instruction of the Govt. Supdt.  Engineer  Nagpur  Irrigation  Project Circle  corrected  the  pitching rates  of  CSR 1981-82 and informed us accordingly vide letter  dt.  30.5.1983.   The  letter  is  dt. 30.5.1983 and S.E. NIRC quoted us the rate Rs.  9.95  for  square  metre  against  K.M. 24.25  per  square  metre  against  wrongly mentioned rates on CSR of 1981-82. By the same letter Supdt. Engineer also fixed the rates in cubic metres. The cubic metre is Rs. 33.15.  The department received the Xerox copy of letter dt. 30.5.1983 from Supdt. Engineer. The letter date 30.5.1983 is placed at Exh. 119. Exh. 119  is  issued  by  Executive  Engineer,  Canal Design Division in the Capacity of Secretary. CSR Committee. Nagpur to the Supdt.  Engineer, NIPC

13

in  the  capacity  of  president  of  the  CSR committee.”  

(emphasis supplied) Notably,  this  evidence  was  allowed  to  be  let  in  by  the

appellant  without  any demur.  No objection was taken for

exhibiting the aforementioned official documents.

9. Having perused the pleading in the written statement

and the evidence produced by the respondents (defendants),

the High Court, after analysing the same, concluded that

there  was  obvious  typographical  error  in  the  CSR  rates

pertaining  to  financial  year  1981-82,  which was later  on

corrected,  and  gave  benefit  of  that  position  to  the

respondents and came to hold that the appellant was not

entitled  to  the  claim amount  of  Rs.1,76,199/-.  The  High

Court  analysed  the  pleading  as  well  as  the  oral  and

documentary evidences produced by the defendant to come

to the said conclusion.  It will  be useful to advert to the

discussion found in the impugned judgment in that behalf

which reads thus :-

“19. On perusal of  the Record & Proceedings, it appears  that  the  trial  Court  had  committed  a serious  error  in  granting  the  claim  of  Rs. 1,76,199/towards  pitching.  In  the  instant case,

14

the  appellants  State  of  Maharashtra  had  not disputed that the total excavated quantity by the plaintiff  contractor  was  2575.26  meter  cube which  was  over  and  above  the  actual  quantity which was required for the stone revetment and, hence, the plaintiff contractor was entitled to seek payment in this regard at the C.S.R. rate.  It is not in dispute that the contract existed for the period from 1979 to 1982. For the year 1979-80, the C.S.R. rate for pitching was Rs. 27.60  Ps.  Per  Cubic  Meter,  for  the  year 1980-81,  it  was  Rs.  28.55  Ps.  Per  cubic meter.  For the third year i.e., 1981-82, the year for which the dispute arose, the rate was  wrongly  shown  in  square  meters  in stead of showing it in cubic meters. The rate was  shown  as  Rs.  24.25  Ps.  Per  square meter  and  this  error  on  the  part  of  the Government of wrongly quoting the rate in C.S.R. of the year 1981-82 has given rise to the dispute and had also given rise to the claim made by the plaintiff for the pitching work @ Rs.80.33 Ps. The State had produced the C.S.R. rates for the year 1982-83 also. These rates show that for the year 1982-83, the C.S.R.  rate for pitching was Rs.  46.65 Ps. Per Meter cube.  Thus, it is apparent that C.S.R. rate was Rs. 27.60 Ps. For the year 1979-80, Rs. 28.55 Ps. For the year 1980-81, for the year 1982-83, it was 46.65 Ps. and due to a mistake in mentioning the C.S.R. rate in square meters in the year 1981-82, the plaintiff was claiming at an exorbitant and abnormal rate @ Rs. 97.60 Ps. per cubic meter.   The  State  had  produced  the necessary documents on record to show that this error was rectified by the Government. The document at Exh. 119 clearly show that there was a rectification of the mistake and it was held that for the years 1981-82, the rate was Rs. 33.50 Ps. per cubic meter and for the year 1982-83, it was Rs. 46.65 ps.

15

per cubic meters. It is  not in  dispute that the plaintiff  has  been  paid  @  Rs.  35.70  per  cubic meter for the extra work of pitching carried out by the plaintiff during the year 1981-82 and this is over and above the rate of  Rs. 33.50 Ps. which was  due  and  payable  for  the  year  1981-82 according to  the rectification.   The submission made on behalf of the respondent contractor that even if there is a mistake in the C.S.R. rate, the Government is bound to pay at the rate  stated  in  the  C.S.R.  is  totally  ill founded.  It  would  be  also  interesting  to consider  whether  the  plaintiff  contractor would have accepted the C.S.R. rate of Rs. 1/or  Rs.  2/per  cubic  meter  if  it  was  so wrongly mentioned in the C.S.R. of the year 1981-82. The documents on record clearly show that there as a mistake in the rate of pitching in the C.S.R of the year 1981-82 and that mistake was duly rectified and the plaintiff contractor was indeed paid at a rate which was more than the rate  prescribed  after  rectification.  It  appears that  the  trial  Court  has  granted  the  first claim of  the  plaintiff  on  the  mere  asking without  considering  the  necessary documents produced by the State on record. The oral evidence of the defendant is also not considered on the ground that there are no pleadings to support that evidence. This observation of the trial Court is also totally incorrect as the evidence of the witness of the  defendants  is  in  consonance  with  the pleadings of the defendants in the written statement, specially in paragraph 5A of the written  statement.  The  defendants’  witness had clearly stated in his evidence that the rate of pitching as per the C.S.R. for the year 1981-82 was  abnormal  and  was  mentioned  in  square meters. According to the witness, the abnormality was pointed out to the Superintending Engineer and in view of the anomaly in the rate, there was a rectification of the mistake by the Government.

16

It  is  stated  that  by  the  communication  at  Exh. 119, it was brought to the notice of the authorities that  the  C.S.R.  rates  for  pitching  for  the  year 1981-82 were wrongly quoted and the rate per cubic meter was Rs. 33.50 Ps. The plaintiff had been paid at the rate of Rs. 35.70 Ps. per cubic meter. The witness further deposed that the rate of  Rs. 97.60 per cubic meter as claimed by the plaintiff  had never reached at any point of  time and the plaintiff was not entitled to claim at that rate only on the basis of the mistake in the C.S.R. for the year 1981-82.  The finding on the first issue  is  recorded  without  considering  the material  evidence  on  record  and  without considering  that  there  was  a  genuine mistake in the C.S.R. of the year 1981-82 so far as the item of pitching was concerned. It would  also  be  necessary  to  refer  to  the document at Exh. 71A to deny the claim of the plaintiff towards pitching. It is necessary to  reverse  the finding of  the trial  Court on  this issue  and  hold  that  the  plaintiff  would  not  be entitled to an amount of  Rs.1,76,199/- towards pitching.”

(emphasis supplied)    10. In our opinion, the High Court was right, both on facts

and in law, in rejecting the claim of the appellant in respect

of pitching of stones, to the extent of Rs.1,76,199/-. We find

that the finding of facts recorded by the High Court is in

consonance with the pleading in the written statement and

the  oral  and  documentary  evidences  produced  by  the

respondents  (defendants)  in  that  behalf.   The  appellant,

however, relies on the observation made by the Trial Court

17

that  it  was  not  open  to  the  Superintending  Engineer  to

modify  the  rates  of  CSR  with  retrospective  effect.  This

argument does not commend us. The effect of typographical

error in the CSR applicable for the financial year 1981-82,

is not one of modification of the rates as such. Whereas, the

effect of correcting the typographical error in the CSR rates

is  to  restate  the  correct  position  as  applicable  for  the

relevant period and not one of modification of the rates, as

contended.  It is not disputed that in the previous financial

year 1979-80, the rate prescribed in the CSR was Rs.27.60

per cubic metre. In the following financial year 1980-81, it

was Rs.28.55 per cubic metre. It is, therefore, logical and

rational to accept the stand taken by the respondents that

the rates specified for pitching work in the year 1981-82,

were erroneously mentioned in square metres which worked

out @ Rs.80.33 per cubic metre. In the next financial year

i.e. 1982-83, the rate prescribed for the same work was only

Rs.46.65  per  cubic  metre.  Thus,  correcting  the

typographical  error  in  the  CSR  rates  was  not  an  act  of

modification  of  those  rates  as  such.  That  act  cannot  be

18

construed as retrospective change introduced in the CSR by

the  respondents.  The High Court  has  justly  rejected this

plea by giving an illustration that if the CSR rates were to

be  misprinted  as  Re.1  or  Rs.  2  per  cubic  metre  for  the

financial year 1981-82, the appellant would not have agreed

to be bound by such rate.   

11. Suffice it to observe that we find no error, much less

any  infirmity  in  the  approach  of  the  High  Court  in

disallowing the claim of the appellant concerning pitching of

stones to the extent of Rs.1,76,199/-. The view taken by the

High  Court,  in  our  opinion,  is  just  and  proper,  and  a

possible  view.  We  find  force  in  the  argument  of  the

respondents (defendants) that the Trial Court misled itself

in  misreading  the  pleading  and  discarding  the  legal

evidence  relied  upon  by  the  respondents  (defendants)

concerning  Claim  No.1.   Further,  the  Trial  Court  has

selectively  referred  to  the  deposition  in  the  cross

examination of  DW1 and not  analysed his  evidence  as a

19

whole. Hence, no interference is warranted at the instance

of the appellant in respect of Claim No.1.

12. Reverting to the  Claim No.3 set  up by the  appellant

regarding additional lead for water, we find that the Trial

Court was swayed  away by the fact that the appellant was

required to transport water from some distance via Kaccha

Road for  which the appellant was entitled to such claim.

The High Court in paragraph 21 of the impugned judgment,

however,  considered the  said  claim of  the  appellant  with

reference to the contract document. In that, Clause “d” of

tender Item No.8,  pertaining to watering and mechanized

compaction of earth work, clearly stated that the rates for

earthwork raising are inclusive of watering and compaction

at optimum moisture content. Further, in Clause “d” of Item

No.8, it has been made amply clear that no extra payment

for these items would be given.  The High Court held that

the  appellant  having  accepted the  terms in  the  contract,

which did not provide for any extra payment relating to lead

for water, was not entitled to that claim. The High Court

also  took  note  of  the  document  issued  by  the  Executive

20

Engineer dated 19th June, 1981 which also forms a part of

record at Exh.-65A and noted that it reinforced the stand of

the respondents that the appellant was not entitled to grant

of the amount of Rs.80,000/- for additional lead for water.

We find no infirmity in the view so taken by the High Court.

The Claim of the appellant under this head is not supported

by express terms of the contract document.  As a result, no

interference is warranted even with the conclusion reached

by the High Court in relation to Claim No.3 set up by the

appellant.  

13. As no other issue arises for our consideration in this

appeal, the appeal must fail.  

14. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed with costs.  

.…………………………………….J. (Dipak Misra)  

 …....……………………………….J. (A.M. Khanwilkar)

New Delhi,  Dated: August 23, 2017.