1

Reportable IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Civil Appeal Nos 9218-9219 of 2018

Madhya Pradesh Power Management Co. Ltd. & Anr. Appellant(s)

Versus

M/s Dhar Wind Power Projects Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Respondent(s)

WITH

Civil Appeal Nos 9220-9221 of 2018

Civil Appeal No 9222 of 2018

Civil Appeal No 9223 of 2018

J U D G M E N T  

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J

These appeals arise from a judgment and order dated 21 September

2017 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at its Bench at Indore and an

order in review dated 29 January 2018.  In the companion appeals, the

correctness of an interim order of the High Court dated 15 May 2018 in a

subsequent petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is in question.

The  Government  of  Madhya  Pradesh  issued  a  notification  on  30

January 2012 laying down a policy to govern the generation of wind energy

in the State.  The policy was amended on 21 February 2013.  The policy,

which was known as the Wind Power Project Policy 2012, stipulated inter

alia that the purchase/sale of power would be administered and governed

by the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Regulatory Commission1.   

1 “State Commission”

2

On 26 March 2013, the State Commission, in exercise of power under

Sections 61 and 86(1)(e) of the Electricity Act 20032 issued a Tariff Order3

for procurement of power from Wind Electricity Generators4.  Para 4.1 of

the  Tariff  Order  stipulated  that  it  would  be  applicable  to  all  new  wind

electricity generation projects commissioned on or after 1 April 2013 for

sale  of  electricity  to  distribution  licensees  within  the  State  of  Madhya

Pradesh.  Para 5 provided for the “tariff review period/control period”:

“5. TARIFF REVIEW PERIOD/CONTROL PERIOD

5.1 The control period to which this order shall apply shall start from 01.04.2013 and will end on 31.03.2016 (i.e. end of FY 2015- 16).  The tariff  decided in  this  order  shall  apply  to  all  projects which come up during the above mentioned control period and the tariff determined shall remain valid for the project life of 25 years.”

The tariff prescribed by the Order was (i) to apply to all projects which

came up during the period from 1 April 2013 till 31 March 2016; and (ii) to

remain valid for 25 years.

Para 11 of  the Tariff  Order  provided for  the determination of  tariff.

Insofar as is material, it provided that the State Commission had set a tariff

at the rate of Rs 5.92 per unit of generation from new wind energy projects

to be commissioned after the issuance of the order for the project life of 25

years.  Para 11.2 is extracted below:

“11.2 Considering the above parameters, the Commission sets the levelized tariff @ Rs. 5.92 per unit for generation from new wind  energy  projects  to  be  commissioned  after  issue  of  this order for its project life of 25 years.”

2 “Act” 3 SMP-12/2013 4 “WEG”

3

Under the terms of Para 12.4, developers were permitted to execute

agreements  with  the  Madhya  Pradesh  Power  Management  Company

Limited5 before commissioning plants for the exclusive sale of electricity for

a period of 25 years and the commissioning certificate was to form a part

of the agreement.

Para 12.30 provided thus:

“12.30  All  existing  projects  i.e.  projects  commissioned  before 01.04.2013  shall  continue  to  be  governed  by  the  terms  and conditions applicable at the time of their commissioning.”

On 10 November 2014, the first respondent applied for permission to

set up a 12 MW project in Dhar District in pursuance of the Wind Power

Project Policy 2012.  The project was registered with the nodal agency.

The registered capacity was subsequently enhanced to 15 MW comprising

of ten wind turbine generators each of 1.5 MW.  Final project approval was

received from the competent agency of the State government for setting up

12 MWs on private land on 2 March 2016 and 3 MWs on revenue land on

10 March 2016.  The first respondent acted on the basis of the project

approval,  completed  construction  and  made  the  project  ready  for

commissioning.   

On 17 March 2016, the State Commission issued a fresh Tariff Order.

Para  4  which  dealt  with  applicability  of  the  Order  and  Para  5  which

specified the tariff review period/control period were in the following terms:

“4. APPLICABILITY OF THE ORDER

4.1 This  tariff  Order will  be applicable to all  new wind electric generation  projects  in  the  State  of  Madhya  Pradesh commissioned at 00.00 hrs. on 01.04.2016 or thereafter for sale of  electricity  to  the  distribution  licensees  within  the  State  of

5 “first appellant”

4

Madhya  Pradesh.  This  order  also  specifies  the  terms  & conditions (other than tariff) for captive user or for sale to third party.

4.2 It will be mandatory for the distribution licensees to submit to the  Commission,  quarterly  progress  reports  on  the  capacity addition, purchase of energy and other relevant details in respect of  wind  electric  generation  projects  commissioned  in  their licensed area, and also post them on their websites on a regular basis.  The SLDC is also required to submit through e-mail/fax immediately, a list of WEGs commissioned during the month of March 2016 i.e. from 00.00 hrs. of 01.03.2016 to 24.00 hrs. of 31.03.2016.

5. TARIFF REVIEW PERIOD/CONTROL PERIOD

5.1 The control period to which this order shall apply shall start from 01.04.2016 and will end on 31.03.2019 (i.e. end of FY 2018- 19).  The tariff  decided in  this  order  shall  apply  to  all  projects which come up during the above mentioned control period and the tariff determined shall remain valid for the project life of 25 years.”

Para 11 of the new Tariff Order provided for determination of the tariff.

The tariff which was fixed under the earlier tariff order at Rs 5.92 per unit

was reduced to Rs 4.78 per unit:

“11.2 Considering the above parameters, the Commission sets the levelized tariff @ Rs. 4.78 per unit for generation from new wind energy projects to be commissioned after issue of this order for its project life of 25 years.”

Para 12.29 provided that:

12.29  All  existing  projects  i.e.  projects  commissioned  before 00.00 hrs. of 01.04.2016 shall continue to be governed by the terms  and  conditions  applicable  at  the  time  of  their commissioning.

On  18  March  2016,  a  communication  was  addressed  by  the  first

appellant to distribution licensees and generators stating that:

Subject  :-  Issue  of  commissioning  certificate  for  Renewable Energy Projects.

***

Procurement of  Renewable Energy from Non-Solar  RE projects, is being done by MPPMCL at preferential tariff till the issuance of bidding guidelines by Central Govt. Control period of most  of  the RE tariffs  is  being completed by 31.03.2016 and determination  of  the  tariff  for  next  control  period  are  under

5

process. Looking to the financial year target and change of tariff, most of RE generators are trying to commission their projects on or before 31.03.2016. Tariff  for the RE capacity commissioned on  or  after  01.04.2016  shall  be  governed  by  the  tariff  to  be determined by MPERC. Therefore, it would be appropriate that while  issuing  commissioning  certificate  for  these  projects (especially  wind based RE projects),  status of  actual  capacity successfully  injected  power  into  the  grid  should  be  properly checked  before  issuing  of  commissioning  certificate  for  the project.   

In view of above, a format containing the commissioning details to establish the actual injection of power into the grid by particular  WTG/Unit  has  been  achieved,  is  enclosed.  It  is requested that concerning field officers may please be instructed to  provide  required  information  in  the  format  and  submit  the same  with  commissioning  certificate  for  the  wind  projects. Commissioning  certificate  for  other  Non-Solar  RE  category should also be prepared in the same line with the meter reading details to establish successful power injection into the grid by the RE plants.

It may please be noted that the commissioned capacity up  to  31st March  2016  and  after  31st March  2016  will  have different tariff and will be fixed for entire plant life.  Any dispute regarding  commissioned  capacity  would  yield  considerable financial  implications.   Therefore,  to  avoid  any  controversy, commissioning certificate should be issued with  due diligence and responsibility.”

A format for the commissioning of wind power projects was annexed

to the letter.   

Essentially, the letter took notice of the fact that since the tariff was to

change for projects which were commissioned on or after 1 April  2016,

most  generators  of  renewable  energy  were  trying  to  commission  their

projects before 31 March 2016 to get the benefit of the higher tariff under

the earlier Tariff Order.  Hence, it was specified that the “status of actual

capacity successfully injected power into the grid” should be verified before

issuance of the certificate of commissioning.

According  to  the  appellants,  the  then  Superintending  Engineer

(O&M), Madhya Pradesh Paschim Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Limited,

which is the concerned distribution licensee, issued a certificate to the first

6

respondent on 31 March 2016 stating that as of the date of the certificate,

the  project  had  been  commissioned.   The  appellants  have  sought  to

dispute the certificate on the ground that the commissioning certificate was

not in accordance with the format attached with the guidelines dated 18

March 2016, according to which the actual injection of power into the grid

was the relevant criterion.

On 1 April 2016, the first respondent addressed a letter to the first

appellant seeking the execution of a Power Purchase Agreement6 on the

basis that it commissioned its project on 31 March 2016.  The appellants

dispute the factual contention that the project was commissioned on 31

March 2016 and submit that the data provided by the State Load Despatch

Centre7,  which  maintains  accounts  of  energy  transmission  to  the  grid,

shows that the injection of power into the grid took place for the first time

on 1 April 2016.  The SLDC was requested to confirm the status of power

injected into the grid in respect of the project of the first respondent on 2

April 2016.  The data furnished by SLDC and its report for active power

readings from 31 March 2016 to 2 April 2016 sets out time blocks during

which power flowed into the grid.  The data which has been placed on the

record indicates the injection of three units in Block 1 as on 1 April 2016

and, thereafter, injection commenced with Block 8 on 2 April 2016, going

up to Block 16.  Thereafter, the data indicates that there was an injection of

power into the grid during the course of several blocks on 2 April 2016.

According to the appellants, on the basis of the SLDC data, power was

injected  into  the  grid  on  or  from  1  April  2016  and  not  before.   In

6 “PPA” 7 “SLDC”

7

consequence, the first respondent was not entitled to the benefit of the unit

rate of Rs 5.92 fixed under the earlier Tariff Order.

On 30 April 2016, the first appellant informed the first respondent that

since its  project  had not  been commissioned before 31 March 2016,  it

would not enter into a PPA under the earlier Tariff Order dated 26 March

2013 under which the unit price was fixed at Rs 5.92.  The letter, however,

indicated that if the first respondent signified its consent by 30 May 2016,

the tariff would be governed by the new Tariff Order dated 17 March 2016

for  procurement  of  power  from WEGs.   On 1  February  2017,  the  first

appellant informed the first respondent that if it did not enter into a PPA

under the subsequent Tariff Order dated 17 March 2016, which fixed the

unit price for power at Rs 4.78, it would not enter into any PPA with the first

respondent nor allow injection of power into the grid.

The  first  respondent  filed  a  writ  petition  under  Article  226  of  the

Constitution  before  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh  in  order  to

challenge the letters  dated 30 April  2016 and 1  February  2017.   By a

judgment and order dated 21 September 2017, the High Court allowed the

writ petition and set aside the letters of the first appellant dated 30 April

2016  and  1  February  2017  and  directed  the  first  appellant  to  take

appropriate  steps  in  accordance  with  the  Tariff  Order  dated  26  March

2013.  In other words, by and as a result  of the directions of the High

Court,  the first appellant was required to enter into a PPA with the first

respondent for the purchase of electricity at the rate of Rs 5.92 per unit.   

After  the  decision  of  the  High  Court,  the  appellant  revoked  the

certificate of commissioning dated 31 March 2016.

8

A review petition was filed before the High Court which was dismissed

on 29 January 2018.

The  revocation  of  the  commissioning  certificate  gave  rise  to  the

institution of the second set of writ petitions in the High Court in which, by

an interim order dated 15 May 2018, the revocation has been stayed.  That

has given rise to two appeals before this Court.

Appearing on behalf of the appellants, Mr. Nitin Gaur, learned counsel

submitted that:

(i) The crucial provision for the application of the Tariff Order which came

into force on 17 March 2016 is that it would apply to all  new wind

electric generation projects commissioned on or after 00.00 hrs on 1

April 2016;

(ii) The appellants had, by the guidelines dated 18 March 2016, required

the submission of data in the prescribed format to indicate the actual

injection of power into the grid so as to furnish an objective basis for

determining as to whether the project had been commissioned before

or after the cut-off prescribed;

(iii) As a result  of the data which was obtained from the SLDC, it  has

emerged that the actual injection of power into the grid took place on

1 April 2016;

(iv) In consequence, the first appellant offered to the first respondent that

it was ready and willing to execute a PPA in terms of the new Tariff

Order dated 17 March 2016 which was applicable to projects which

had been commissioned on or after 1 April 2016;

9

(v) The first respondent failed to take the benefit of the offer which was

made by the first appellant and instead pursued its writ petition before

the High Court;

(vi) The High Court has erred in relying on the commissioning certificate

issued by the Superintending Engineer,  ignoring that the certificate

was not in accordance with the format in which data was required by

the  first  appellant  for  the  purpose  of  establishing  the  actual

commissioning of the project before 31 March 2016;

(vii) As a result of the subsequent developments, the first appellant is now

bound by  the  guidelines  which  have  been issued by  the  State  of

Madhya Pradesh on 1 August 2014.  Moreover, under the guidelines

formulated by the Union Ministry of Power in the Government of India

on  8  December  2017,  the  first  appellant  is  required  to  pursue  a

competitive bidding process for the purpose of entering into a PPA;

(viii) As a result  of the PPAs which have been entered into by the first

appellant following the competitive bidding process, it has been able

to secure electric power at cheaper rates ranging between Rs 2.30 to

Rs 2.59  per unit; and

(ix) The first appellant would now be willing to enter into a PPA on the

basis of competitive bidding and having due regard to the interests of

the  consumers,  it  would  be  appropriate  if  the  first  respondent  is

directed to do so.

On the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of the first respondent

in the appeals by Mr Vivek K Tankha and Mr Gopal Sankaranarayanan,

learned senior counsel, that:

10

(i) Under the terms of the earlier Tariff Order which held the field for the

period 2013-16, a rate of Rs 5.92 per unit was prescribed for all new

wind generating units, which had been commissioned until 31 March

2016;

(ii) The rate of Rs 5.92 per unit was to remain frozen for a life cycle of 25

years;

(iii) In the present case, in terms of the Tariff Order, which referred to the

successful  commissioning  of  the  project,  the  first  respondent

commissioned its  project  on  31  March  2016 as  evidenced by  the

certificate issued by the Superintending Engineer;

(iv) The High Court has not erred in directing the appellants to act on the

basis of the certificate of commissioning and in staying the revocation

which was issued only on 17 November 2017 after the writ petition

was decided;

(v) In the alternative, and without prejudice to the above submissions, in

any event, there is no justification on the part of the first appellant not

to enter into a PPA with the first respondent on the basis of the Tariff

Order  which was notified on 17 March 2016 for  the control  period

2016-19;

(vi) The notification of the Union of India dated 8 December 2017 has no

application since it applies to projects having an individual size of 5

MW and above at one site with a minimum bid capacity of 25 MW for

intra-State projects.

11

(vii) The revocation of the commissioning certificate was a unilateral act of

the first appellant without allowing an opportunity of being heard to

the first respondent and no show cause notice was issued.

The Tariff Order of March 2013 stipulated that it would be applicable

to all new wind electric generation projects which were commissioned on

or after 1 April 2013 for the sale of electricity to distribution licensees in the

State.  The control period of the Tariff Order commenced on 1 April 2013

and would end on 31 March 2016.  The Tariff Order fixed a levelized tariff

of Rs 5.92 per unit for new wind energy projects to be commissioned after

the  issuance  of  the  Order  for  a  project  life  of  25  years.   Para  12.30

provided that all existing projects which were commissioned before 1 April

2013 would be governed by the terms and conditions applicable at the time

of commissioning.  Hence, the crucial ingredient in determining the tariff

was the actual date on which the project was commissioned.

The Tariff  Order of 17 March 2016 which replaced the earlier Tariff

Order  applied  to  all  new  wind  electric  generation  projects  which  were

commissioned at 00.00 hrs on 1 April 2016 or thereafter.  The SLDC was

required  by  Para  4.2  of  the  Tariff  Order  to  submit  a  list  of  WEGs

commissioned during the month of March 2016 from 00.00 hrs of 1 March

2016 to 24.00 hrs of 31 March 2016.  This data was sought in order to

provide  an  objective  basis  of  determining  whether  a  project  had  been

commissioned before the new Tariff Order became applicable to projects

which were commissioned with effect from 1 April 2016.

In line with the above provisions, the guidelines that were issued by

12

the first appellant on 18 March 2016 provided a format for the issuance of

commissioning  certificates.   The  format  required  readings  of:  (i)  WTG

meters; (ii) main billing meters; and (iii) check billing meters.  The format

required the submission of this data in order to establish the date on which

a  particular  project  had  been  commissioned.   The  actual  date  of

commissioning would determine the applicable tariff; the tariff of Rs 5.92

per unit would apply to projects which were commissioned on or before 31

March 2016, while the new rate of Rs 4.78 per unit would apply to projects

which were commissioned on or after 1 April 2016.   Requiring the SLDC to

submit  data  of  the actual  injection of  power  into  the grid  was with  the

objective of establishing the actual commissioning of the project.

In the present case, the principal submission of the appellants is that

the  data  which  was  furnished  by  the  SLDC  indicates  that  the  actual

injection of power into the grid by the first respondent took place on 1 April

2016.  It  is  on that basis that the first  appellant has submitted that the

commissioning certificate was not in accordance with the prescribed format

and  had  to  be  revoked.   Before  this  Court,  the  data  which  has  been

furnished by the SLDC is not in dispute.  Indeed, that is the basis on which

Mr  Vivek  K  Tankha,  learned  senior  counsel  urged  his  alternative

submission that in any event, even going by the SLDC data, it is evident

that the power was injected into the grid on and from 1 April 2016.   

On  reviewing  the  docmentary  material  on  the  record,  we  are  not

prepared  to  accept  the  view  which  has  weighed  with  the  High  Court,

namely, that the commissioning of the project was completed by 31 March

2016.   The certificate  of  commissioning which has been issued by the

13

Superintending Engineer is belied by the objective factual data available

from the SLDC which is a statutory body constituted under Section 31 of

the Act.  The objective data on the record indicates that the injection of

power into the grid took place on 1 April 2016.  Hence, we are of the view

that this should be the basis on which the claim for the entering into a PPA

should be founded.   

Since the factual data has been placed before this Court, we are of

the view that the project of the first respondent was commissioned on 1

April 2016 since the SLDC data indicates the injection of power into the

grid with effect from that date.  On the basis of the commissioning of the

project on 1 April 2016, we find merit in the alternative submission which

has been urged on behalf of the first respondent in the appeals that the

Tariff Order that must apply is the Tariff Order dated 17 March 2016.  The

first  respondent  was  before  the  Madhya  Pradesh  High  Court  in  writ

proceedings espousing its claim to the benefit of a higher rate of Rs 5.92

per unit on the basis of the earlier Tariff Order and on the basis that the

commissioning of its project had taken place on 31 March 2016.  The first

respondent was  bona fide pursuing its claim in that regard which found

acceptance  in  the  impugned  judgment  and  order  of  the  High  Court.

Though we have differed with the view which has been taken by the High

Court,  we  are  of  the  view  that  it  would  be  unfair  to  deny  to  the  first

respondent the benefit of the rate which came to be prescribed by the Tariff

Order of 17 March 2016.  The rate which was prescribed by that Tariff

Order of Rs 4.78 per unit was to apply during the control period beginning

from 1  April  2016  and  ending  on  31  March  2019 and  that  rate  would

14

continue to govern the life cycle of 25 years, as prescribed by Para 5 of the

Tariff Order.  The first respondent cannot be denied a parity of treatment,

as has been allowed to other projects of a similar nature which would be

governed by the control period stipulated in Para 5 of the Tariff Order dated

17 March 2016.

The  competitive  bidding  guidelines  upon  which  reliance  has  been

placed  by  Mr  Nitin  Gaur,  learned  counsel  appearing  on  behalf  of  the

appellants, were formulated by the Union Ministry of Power subsequently

on  8  December  2017.   Moreover,  Para  3.1  of  those  guidelines  is  not

applicable to the project of the first respondent.  Para 3.1 provides thus:

“3. APPLICABILITY OF GUIDELINES

3.1  These Guidelines are being issued under the provisions of Section 63 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for long-term procurement of  electricity  through  competitive  bidding  process,  by  the ‘Procurer(s)’, from grid-connected Wind Power Projects (‘WPP’) having, (a) individual size of 5 MW and above  at one site with minimum bid capacity of 25 MW for intra-state projects; and (b) individual size of 50 MW and above at one site with minimum bid capacity of 50 MW for inter-state projects.”

(emphasis supplied)

The above guidelines apply to grid-connected Wind Power Projects

with an individual size of 5 MW and above at one site with a minimum bid

capacity of 25 MW for intra-State projects.  Since the first respondent is

admittedly an intra-State project and does not fulfil the above requirement,

the guidelines (which in any event came into force subsequently) will have

no application.

For the above reasons, we allow the appeals in part and set aside the

impugned judgments and orders of the High Court dated 21 September

2017 and 29  January  2018.   We direct,  in  consequence  of  the above

discussion,  that  the first  respondent  in  the appeals  shall  be  entitled  to

15

the benefit of the Tariff Order dated 17 March 2016.  The appellants shall

process the application of the first respondent in the appeals for execution

of a PPA on that basis with effect from 1 April 2016.  In the view which we

have  taken,  the  second  writ  petition  which  has  been  filed  by  the  first

respondent before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh shall not survive and

shall stand disposed of in terms of the present judgment.  There shall be

no order as to costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

…………...…...….......………………........J.                                                                     [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]

…..…..…....…........……………….…........J.                              [Indira Banerjee]

 New Delhi;  July 25, 2019

16

ITEM NO.6               COURT NO.11               SECTION IV-A

              S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A                        RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).9218-9219/2018

MADHYA PRADESH POWER MANAGEMENT CO. LTD. & ANR. Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS

M/S DHAR WIND POWER PROJECTS PVT. LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)

(WITH  IA  No.  121382/2018  –  CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION,  IA  No. 60776/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT, IA No. 60779/2018 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T., IA No. 60778/2018 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)   WITH C.A. No. 9220-9221/2018 (IV-A) (WITH  APPLN.(S)  FOR  EXEMPTION  FROM  FILING  C/C  OF  THE  IMPUGNED JUDGMENT,  FOR  PERMISSION  TO  FILE  ADDITIONAL  DOCUMENTS/  FACTS/ ANNEXURES, FOR EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T. ON IA 59166/2018, FOR CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION ON IA 121384/2018)

C.A. No. 9222/2018 (IV-A) (WITH  APPLN.(S)  FOR  EXEMPTION  FROM  FILING  C/C  OF  THE  IMPUGNED JUDGMENT  ON  IA  93676/2018,  IA  No.  93676/2018  -  EXEMPTION  FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT)

C.A. No. 9223/2018 (IV-A) (WITH  APPLN.(S)  FOR  EXEMPTION  FROM  FILING  C/C  OF  THE  IMPUGNED JUDGMENT ON IA 94228/2018)   Date : 25-07-2019 These matters were called on for hearing today.

CORAM :           HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE D.Y. CHANDRACHUD          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDIRA BANERJEE

For Appellant(s) Mr. Nitin Gaur, Adv.                   Mr. Ranjit Kumar Sharma, AOR                     For Respondent(s) Mr. Vivek K Tankha, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Adv. Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR Mr. Aman Nandrajog, Adv. Mr. Ashish Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Vaibhav Gulia, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Verma, Adv.

                 Ms. Rakhi Ray, AOR                     

17

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following                               O R D E R

The  appeals  are  allowed  in  terms  of  the  signed

reportable  judgment.   There  shall  be  no  order  as  to

costs.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

 (SANJAY KUMAR-I)                (SAROJ KUMARI GAUR)      AR-CUM-PS                           COURT MASTER

(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)