Page 1

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 400 OF 2010

K. SARAVANAN KARUPPASAMY & ANR.       .Petitioners  

Versus

STATE OF TAMILNADU & ORS.   ..Respondents

J U D G M E N T

R. BANUMATHI, J.

This  writ  petition  has  been  filed   by  the  

petitioners  seeking  a  writ  of  mandamus  to  initiate  an  

independent  investigation preferably  by Central  Bureau of  

Investigation (CBI) or  Special  Investigation Team (SIT) into  

the incident  of alleged beating of students of  Dr. Ambedkar  

Government  Law College, Chennai on  12.11.2008 by  some

Page 2

miscreants  so that   criminal proceedings could be initiated  

against  the guilty  police  personnel  as well  as  the other  

persons responsible for the said incident.  

2. Brief  facts  which  led  to  the   filing  of  the  writ  

petition are as follows:- A group of students of Dr. Ambedkar  

Law College, Chennai belonging to  Thevar Community  is  

said to have pasted posters and pamphlets inside the college  

premises  in  connection  with  the  birthday   celebrations  of  

Pasumpon Muthuramalingam Thevar  in which  the name of  

the law college was printed as “Government Law College”  

instead  of   “Dr.  Ambedkar  Government  Law  College”.  

Agitated Dalit Students  questioned the  Non-Dalit Students  

which  led to  wordy altercation between the two groups  

culminating  in an untoward incident which occurred in the  

campus of             Dr. Ambedkar Government Law College,  

Chennai on 12.11.2008 at about 2.20 P.M.   Both the group  

of students attacked each other and it is alleged that Non-

Dalit      Students (Thevar Students) were brutally beaten by  

the other group.  Regarding the incident, criminal cases were  

registered  against  both  the  groups.  Few  police  personnel  

2

Page 3

were  suspended  on  the  same  day  and  a  Commission  of  

Enquiry  headed  by  a  retired  High  Court  Judge  was  also  

appointed which filed its report and the  same was accepted  

by the State Government  and some follow up action was  

taken.    

3. The petitioners   claim to  be  the President   and  

Secretary of ‘World Human  Rights Commission &  Rescue  

Centre’ and  main aim of  their organisation  is stated to be  

to instil   a sense of  public awareness about the  human  

rights and take up cases of gross human rights violations.  

Grievance of the petitioners is that though the  occurrence  

was in front of  the Law College in broad day light  and a  

number  of  police  personnel   were  present,  they  did   not  

intervene to prevent the clashes and the police remained  

silent  spectators.    According  to  the  petitioners,  the  

delinquent  police  officials  deliberately   did  not  intervene,  

only   in order to appease  their political  bosses and the  

police personnel were negligent in preventing the incident.  

Since there was violation of      human rights  and dereliction  

of duty  on the part of  police personnel in  preventing the  

3

Page 4

incident, the petitioners tried to lodge a complaint with the  

State Human Rights       Commission (‘SHRC’),  but SHRC  

refused to entertain the same  and  the petitioner No. 2 was  

left   with  no  option,  but   to  file  a  complaint   before  the  

National Human Rights Commission       (‘NHRC’) and a case  

bearing   No.1492/22/13/08-09/UC   was  registered  with  

NHRC. Case of petitioners is that, since the petitioners have  

filed complaints before NHRC about the law college incident,  

the  petitioners  are  facing  considerable  harassment  at  the  

hands  of  the  Tamilnadu  Police  and  frivolous   cases  are  

registered  against  the  petitioners  and  their  Organisation  

since  the  petitioners    have  refused  to  withdraw  the  

complaint  filed  with  the  NHRC  regarding  the  law  college  

incident.  All the accounts and properties of the Organisation  

have been seized  by CB CID arbitrarily  without following  

proper  procedure.   The petitioners therefore allege that the  

investigation  in  the  Law  College  incident  has  not  been  

proceeded  with all  seriousness and  the petitioners seek  

independent investigation into the incident  of brutal beating  

4

Page 5

of  students  of  Dr.  Ambedkar  Government  Law College on  

12.11.2008 by  an independent agency either CBI or SIT.   

4. Upon  notice,  the  State  of  Taminadu  and  SHRC  

have filed their Status Report/response.

5. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel appearing  

for the petitioners submitted  that since the petitioners  filed  

complaint  against the erring police officials  with NHRC and  

since petitioners  have refused to withdraw the complaint  

filed  with  NHRC,   the  petitioners  are  constantly   being  

harassed  by the State  Police – Organized Crime Unit (OCU)  

and Crime Branch –Crime Investigation Department (CB CID)  

and  false  cases  have  been   registered  against  the  

petitioners.   Learned counsel  further  submitted  that  OCU  

and CB CID police  used  all kinds of third degree methods  

and the first petitioner  was brutally beaten  not only by the  

police  but also  by  rowdy  elements and the petitioner and  

his  family  members   underwent  a  great  deal  of  mental  

agony, pain and harassment.  Drawing our attention  to the  

Status Report filed by the State, learned counsel submitted  

5

Page 6

that  in  the  departmental  proceedings,  the  erring   police  

officials have been   let off either with ‘censure’ or nominal  

punishment  and the matter has not been proceeded with all  

seriousness and urged  that  the investigation  of the Law  

College incident on 12.11.2008  be handed over to CBI or  

SIT.   

6. Mr.  Subramanium  Prasad,  Learned  Additional  

Advocate  General  appearing  for  the  State  of  Tamilnadu  

had taken us through the Status Report filed by the State  

and submitted  that criminal cases were registered against  

both the groups  of students and accepting  the report of  

One  Man  Commission,  the  State  Government  initiated  

departmental proceedings against the police personnel and  

punishments were also imposed on them.  It was  submitted  

that criminal  cases are registered against the  petitioners  

and they are charge sheeted  for the offence of cheating and  

other  offences  and petitioners  with  malafide  intention are  

linking the law college incident  as the cause for registration  

of criminal cases against the petitioners by the police and  

such an allegation is baseless.   

6

Page 7

7. We have also heard Mr. K. Subramanian, learned  

Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the  intervener/impleaded  

respondent  -  K.  Armstrong  and  Mr.  R.  Balasubramanian,  

learned Senior Counsel  appearing for SHRC.

8. Grievance  of  the  petitioners   is  two-fold:-  (i)  

alleged inaction  or  nominal  action of  the State  and the  

police and SHRC  on the Law College incident  on 12.11.2008  

and need for an investigation by an independent agency  like  

CBI and  (ii)  alleged harassment  of the petitioners by the  

police and registration of false cases against the petitioners.

9. As per the Status Report filed by the State, on the  

complaint of  Mr. Ayyadurai (Thevar Community)  one of the  

injured  students,  a  case  was  registered   as  Crime  

No. 1371/2008 of B2 Esplanade Police Station under Sections  

147,  148,  341,  324,  307  &  506  (ii)  IPC   against  one  

Mr. Chithiraiselvan and 40 other students.  It is stated that  

23  accused  students  were  arrested  and  sent   to  judicial  

custody  and some of the  accused surrendered  before the  

court and they were released on bail and  remaining accused  

obtained  anticipatory  bail  from  the  High  Court  Madras.  

7

Page 8

Similarly, on the complaint of Chithiraiselvan (Dalit Student),  

a  criminal  case  was  registered   in  Crime  No.  1372/2008  

against two students  in B2 Esplanade Police Station  under  

Sections  341,  324  and  506  (ii)  IPC   and  the  same  was  

subsequently altered into  Sections 341, 324, 307 and 506  

(ii) IPC.   Those two students who are accused were arrested  

and they were released on bail on the direction of the High  

Court  on  12.1.2009.   For  the  alleged  ransacking  and  

damaging of furnitures and other properties of the Principal’s  

Room  on  13.11.2008  another  case  was  registered  in  B2  

Esplanade Police Station being Crime No.1374/2008 under  

Sections  147,  148  IPC  and  Section   3(1)  of  Tamilnadu  

Property (Prevention of Damage and Loss) Act, 1992 and 14  

accused  were arrested  who were subsequently  released on  

bail  on 23.12.2008 as per the  order of the High Court.

10. As  per  Status  Report  filed  in  this  Court  on  

8.9.2014,  in  Crime  No.1371/2008  charge-sheet  was  filed  

before VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town, Chennai  

on  10.3.2011 and the same was returned for rectification of  

certain errors and  after rectification it was resubmitted on  

8

Page 9

19.5.2011 and the  same is yet to be taken  on file.  In Crime  

No.1372/2008,  charge-sheet   was  filed  and the  same has  

been taken on file  Case No.29/2011 and the next date of  

hearing   has  been  fixed  for  9.9.2014.   In  Crime  

No.1374/2008,  some  of  the  accused  are  yet  to  be  

apprehended  and  the  charge-sheet  has  been  filed  on  

22.3.2011 before VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate, George Town,  

Chennai which is also yet to be taken on file.   

11. In  the  Status  Report,  it  is  stated  that  on  

12.11.2008,  on  the  same  date  of  incident  three  officials  

namely, (1) Mr. K.K. Sridev, Principal of   the Law College and  

(2)  Mr.  K.  Narayanamoorthy,  Assistant  Commissioner  of  

Police  of the Jurisdiction Range and (3) Mr.M. Sekar Babu,  

Inspector  of  Police  of  B2  Esplanade  Police  Station   were  

suspended   and  four  Sub Inspectors  of  Police  who were  

working in that  area  had been transferred to other districts.  

Government  of  Tamilnadu   appointed   a  Commission  of  

Inquiry  headed by Justice P. Shanmugam, a  former  Judge  

of the Madras High Court to inquire into the incident  and the  

issues  referred  to  by  the  Government.   The  Commission  

9

Page 10

submitted  its  report  on  8.6.2009  to  the  Government  and  

accepting  the  recommendations  of  the  Commission,  

departmental  action  was  initiated  against  three  police  

personnel  viz.  (1)  Mr  .K.  Narayanamoorthy,  Assistant  

Commissioner of Police;            (2) Mr. M. Sekar  Babu,  

Inspector of Police and                     (3) Mr. E. Perumal, Sub  

Inspector  of Police.  After completing the inquiry against the  

police  officers  concerned,  report  was  submitted  to  the  

Government  and  matter  was  pending  before  the  Home  

Department   for final decision for quite sometime.  By Order  

dated  29.4.2011,  this  Court  directed  the  respondents  to  

ensure that the final orders are passed before the next date  

and the State was directed  to file Status Report with regard  

to the  entire situation.  In furtherance of direction  of this  

Court, the State filed a further  Status Report stating that  

Government accepted the  findings of the Inquiry Officer and  

imposed punishment of ‘censure’ to Mr. Narayanamoorthy,  

Assistant  Commissioner  of  Police   in  G.O.  (2D)  No.  217  

Home  (Police-2)  Department  dated  18.6.2013  and  

(2) Mr. Sekar Babu, Inspector of Police in G.O.(2D) No.218  

10

Page 11

Home (Police-2)  Department  dated  18.6.2013.   Insofar  as  

Mr.  E.  Perumal,  Sub  Inspector  of  Police,  the  Government  

proposed to impose punishment  of cut in pension at the rate  

of  Rs.200/-  per month for two years under Rule 9 of the  

Tamilnadu Police Rules and the said police officer  has been  

called upon to show cause against the proposed punishment.

12. Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel  appearing  

for  the  petitioners  submitted  that  even though there  was  

grave   dereliction  of  duty  on  the  part  of  the   police  

personnel,   there had been  inconsequential  departmental  

action  and  only  nominal   punishment   of  censure  was  

imposed on two police officers and in case of another  police  

officer  Mr.  E.  Perumal,  Sub  Inspector  of  Police,  the  

Government  proposed to impose meagre punishment  of cut  

in pension at the rate of  Rs. 200/-  per month for two years  

(Rs. 4,800/- in all) and thus in effect no punitive action has  

been  taken  against  the  police  personnel   commensurate  

with their grave dereliction of duty, which  only shows the  

reluctance on the part of the State  in  pursuing  the matter  

with  all  seriousness.   Insofar  as  criminal  cases  registered  

11

Page 12

regarding the incident,  the learned counsel submitted that  

in two cases charge-sheets are yet  to be taken on file and  

urged  that  in order to  have a fair investigation, the matter  

be entrusted to CBI/SIT  for  further  investigation.   Learned  

counsel submitted that it is in this backdrop of the inaction  

on the part of  State, petitioners chose to move  SHRC and  

since SHRC had not promptly responded, petitioners moved  

NHRC for  which,  the  petitioners  have  been  harassed  and  

false cases have been registered against the petitioners.  13.

Mr.  R.  Balasubramanian,   learned senior  counsel  

appearing for  SHRC  submitted  that  the  SHRC  was then  

headed by a retired Chief Justice of the  High Court and the  

petitioners  are  not  justified  in  making  baseless  allegation  

against SHRC  for not taking immediate action.   The learned  

counsel  submitted  that  since   the  State  Government  

appointed Commission of Inquiry  headed by a retired High  

Court Judge, SHRC did not vigorously  pursue the matter, as  

it would  have  amounted to holding  a  parallel inquiry by  

SHRC.

12

Page 13

14. We  have  perused  few  video  clippings  produced  

before us and report of the Commission of Inquiry.  But we  

are refraining from entering into the details  thereof, lest, it  

may prejudice any party.   By a perusal  of the Status Report  

and other  materials,  we feel   that   the  matter   was not  

proceeded  with seriousness with which it  ought to  have  

been  proceeded with.  For instance, the main accused K.  

Armstrong  in Crime No.1371/2008  was  not arrested for  

long   time   and was shown as an absconder  in  the final  

report  though  he            is  stated to be a practising  

advocate  and also a contesting candidate  in the election.  

On 8.2.2011,  the matter was   brought to the notice of this  

Court  and only after  the order was  passed by this court,  

accused K. Armstrong  was arrested  on 1.5.2011 who was  

subsequently released on  bail  on 4.5.2011. Likewise in two  

criminal cases charge-sheets are yet to be taken on file and  

some of the accused are yet to be apprehended  and trial is  

yet to commence.

15. Insofar as  contention  of Mr. Bhushan to entrust  

the matter for  further investigation to CBI/SIT is concerned,  

13

Page 14

time and again, it  has been reiterated by this Court  that  

such an order to conduct investigation by CBI is not to be  

passed as a matter of routine merely because the party has  

levelled  allegations  against  the   local  police.   The  extra-

ordinary  power in handing over investigation to CBI must be  

exercised  cautiously and in exceptional circumstances.  In  

State of  West Bengal & Ors. vs.  Committee for Protection of   

Democratic Rights, West Bengal & Ors., (2010) 3  SCC  571,  

a Constitution

Bench of this Court held as under:-

“70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to  emphasise that despite wide powers  conferred by Articles  32 and 226  of the Constitution, while passing any order,  the  Courts  must  bear  in  mind  certain  self-imposed  limitations on the exercise of these Constitutional powers.  The very plenitude of  the power  under  the said  Articles  requires  great  caution  in  its  exercise.   Insofar  as  the  question  of  issuing  a  direction  to  CBI  to  conduct  investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible  guidelines  can be laid down to decide whether or not such  power should be exercised but time and again it has been  reiterated  that  such  an  order  is  not  to  be  passed  as  a  matter  of routine or merely because a party has levelled  some  allegations  against  the  local  police.   This   extra- ordinary  power  must  be  exercised  sparingly,  cautiously  and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary  to  provide   credibility   and  instil  confidence   in  investigations or where the incident may have national and  

14

Page 15

international  ramifications or where such an order may be  necessary for  doing complete  justice and  enforcing  the  fundamental  rights.  Otherwise  CBI would be flooded with  a large number of cases and  with limited resources, may  find it difficult to properly investigate even serious  cases  and  in  the  process  lose  its  credibility  and  purpose  with  unsatisfactory investigations.”        

16.  Legal  education  has  a  direct  impact   on  the  

prestige of  the legal profession.  It is a matter of concern  

that  such  an  unfortunate  incident  should  have  happened  

within  the precincts   of   Law College,  Chennai  which has  

produced many eminent lawyers and legal luminaries.  We  

feel that the matter should have  been addressed by  the  

police  and the State with great concern and promptitude.  

Though the matter was not proceeded in the way in which it  

should  have  been  proceeded  with,  we  feel   that  at  this  

distant point of time, it is not necessary to hand over the  

investigation to CBI or to SIT.    The reason being criminal  

cases have been registered and  charge-sheets are also filed  

and departmental action was also initiated against the police  

personnel  and  punishment  though  may  be  nominal  was  

imposed on those police personnel.   Since charge-sheets  in  

15

Page 16

all three cases have already been  filed  before the  VIIth  

Metropolitan Magistrate Court,  George Town, Chennai,  one  

of  which  is  already    taken on  file,  in  our  view,  it  would  

suffice if we direct the VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate Court,  

George  Town,  Chennai  to  proceed  with  the  matter  

expeditiously.  

17. Learned  counsel  for  petitioners  Mr.  Prashant  

Bhushan laid  scathing  attack on SHRC and submitted that  

SHRC  was  impervious   to  the  incident   as  well  as  

harassment to the petitioners and SHRC  did not promptly  

take steps regarding Law College incident.  Learned counsel  

also  submitted   that  the  office  of   a  Chairperson  of  

Tamilnadu  State  Human  Rights  Commission  has  been  

remaining  vacant for more than three years.     

18. Insofar as the grievance  of the  petitioners  on the  

non-taking   of  action   by  SHRC,  the  learned  counsel  for  

SHRC   submitted that the office of Chairperson of SHRC is  

lying vacant since August 2011 and  SHRC was  finding it  

difficult to  take follow up action.  Having regard to the said  

16

Page 17

submissions, we have asked the State of Tamilnadu to file its  

response as to the non-filling up of the office of Chairperson  

of  SHRC  and  the  State  has  filed  its  Status  Report   on  

8.9.2014 with regard to the  appointment  of Chairperson to  

SHRC.   

19. In  the  Status  Report,   it  is  stated  that  office  of  

Chairperson, Tamilnadu State Human Rights Commission has  

been lying  vacant since 27.8.2011 due to non-availability of  

suitable  candidates.   It  is  stated  that  in  response  to  the  

request of the State Government, High Court of Madras has  

sent  the list of retired Chief Justices who were the Former  

Judges of  the Madras High Court  along with  their  date of  

birth and  their present addresses.   According to the State,  

in  the  list  sent  by  the  Registrar   General,  High  Court  of  

Madras most of the candidates are either already appointed  

to  different  Appellate  Tribunals  or  equivalent  post  outside  

Tamilnadu or  have attained the age limit of  70 years or not  

having any  familiarity  with the language and culture  of  

Tamilnadu and it was almost impossible  to find  a suitable  

17

Page 18

candidate  for the post of Chairperson, SHRC, Tamilnadu. It is  

stated that  in  terms of  Section 25(1)  of  the Protection of  

Human  Rights Act 1993, Order dated 4.12.2013 was issued  

to Ms. Jayanthi, IAS (Retd.) Member to act as the Chairperson  

in  State  Human  Rights  Commission,  Tamilnadu   until  the  

appointment of  a new Chairperson to  the Commission. It is  

further stated that in this regard Government of Tamilnadu  

has  proposed  to  Government  of  India   that  a  suitable  

amendment   to  Section  21(2)(a)   of  Protection  of  Human  

Rights  Act, 1993 (for short ‘the Act’) could be made to make  

eligible   retired  Judges    of  High  Court  with  a  minimum  

experience of seven years as a Judge of the High Court for  

the post of Chairperson, SHRC, Tamilnadu and such proposal  

is under consideration of  the Government of India.  Status  

Report  filed  by  the  State  refers  to  various  letter  

correspondence by the State with Union of  India   in  this  

regard.   

20. We  do  not  wish  to  go  into  the  niceties  of  the  

proposal made by the State of Tamilnadu  requesting   for  

18

Page 19

suitable  amendment  to Section 21(2)(a) of the Act.  We  

confine our  focus  only  with regard to  the  vacancy  of  

office  of  Chairperson,  SHRC  remaining  vacant  for  quite  

some time.

21. Protection  of  Human  Rights  Act  1993  has  been  

enacted  to provide for better protection of human rights by  

constituting  a National Human Rights Commission and also  

State Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Courts.  

Section 2(1)(d) of the Act defines  “human rights”  as the  

rights  relating  to  life,  liberty,  equality,  dignity  of  the   

individual  guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in   

the International Covenants  and enforceable  by courts in   

India.   The above rights  are traceable  to  Part  III  of  the  

Indian Constitution guaranteeing  Fundamental  Rights and  

particularly  Articles 14, 19,  20, 21, and 22.  Chapter V of  

the  Act  consisting  of  Sections  21  to  29  deals  with  the  

constitution  of  State  Human  Rights  Commission  and  its  

functions  thereto.   State  Commission  consists   of   a  

Chairperson who has been a Chief Justice  of a High Court  

19

Page 20

and  four  Members.   The  Act  has  put  in  place  various  

remedial   measures   for  prevention  of  any  human  rights  

violations   and  confers  power  upon  the   NHRC/SHRC  to  

inquire  suo motu   or on a petition not only of  violations of  

human  rights  or  abetment  thereof  or  even  negligence  

exhibited by  a public servant  in preventing such violations.  

The  statute  has  conferred  wide  range  powers  upon  

NHRC/SHRC.  The Commission is therefore  required to be  

constituted  with  persons  who  have  held  very  high  

constitutional  offices earlier so that all aspects of good  and  

adjudicatory  procedures would be familiar to them.   Having  

regard  to  the   benevolent   objects  of   the  Act   and  the  

effective  mechanism  for  redressal  of   grievances of  the  

citizens   against  human  rights  violations,  the  office  of  

Chairperson of SHRC cannot be allowed to remain vacant for  

a long  time.  State of Tamilnadu has always shown  zero  

tolerance  towards human rights violations  and has always  

sent clear  message  of its commitment  towards protection  

of human  rights.  We see no  reason as to why the post of  

Chairperson, SHRC which is to be headed by a person who  

20

Page 21

has been the Chief  Justice of  a  High Court  should remain  

vacant for more than three years.  In our view, pending the  

State  Government’s  request  for  amendment   to  Section  

21(2)(a)  of the Act which process will take long time, it will  

be in order if the State of Taminadu  takes steps to fill up the  

vacancy of the post   of Chairperson, SHRC, Tamilnadu in  

terms  of  Section  21(2)(a)  by  constituting  a  Search  

Committee  at an early date.     

22. So  far  as  the  grievance  of  the  petitioners  as  

regards   registration  of  false  cases  against  them  is  

concerned,  it  is  stated  that  on  the  complaint  lodged  by  

Reception Officer of the Circuit House Coimbatore, a criminal  

case  has been registered   against  the first  petitioner in  

Crime  No.  191/2009    in  B4  Race  Course  Police  Station,  

Coimbatore City under Section 420 IPC.   Organized Crime  

Unit (OCU) CB-CID has registered  a case Crime No.1/2009  

against  the  petitioners    on  the  complaint  of  one  

Krishnakumar  for the alleged act of cheating.   In both the  

cases,  charge-sheets  have  been  filed   before  the  Chief  

21

Page 22

Judicial Magistrate Court, Coimbatore which were taken on  

file  in CC 84/2010 and 83/2010.  Both the petitioners have  

filed quash petitions under                  Section 482 Cr.P.C.  

before  the  High  Court  of   Madras  to  quash   the  charges  

against them in  Criminal O.P.Nos.14609 & 14610/2011 and  

14611 & 14612 /2011 and obtained interim stay  and quash  

petitions are stated to  be  pending.  Since the petitioners  

have already filed petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,  the  

petitioners are at liberty to  raise all contentions before the  

High Court in those petitions filed by them.

23. This  writ  petition  is  disposed  of   directing  the  

VIIth Metropolitan  Magistrate  Court,  George Town,  Chennai  

to immediately  take the  cases on file relating to the Law  

College  incident  and   expedite the trial  and dispose of the  

cases expeditiously in accordance with law within a period of  

one year.  The VIIth Metropolitan Magistrate shall file report  

regarding the progress of the cases to the High Court once in  

two months and we request the High Court to monitor the  

progress of the cases.  In view of our discussion in para (21),  

22

Page 23

the State of Tamilnadu would do well if it takes appropriate  

steps  to  fill  up  the  vacancy  of  the  Chairperson,  SHRC,  

Tamilnadu expeditiously.   

……………………………J. (T.S. Thakur)

……………………………J.    (R. Banumathi)

New Delhi; September 16, 2014   

23