No Acts & Articles mentioned in this case
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No. 839 OF 2020
(Arising out of SLP(C) No. 12449 of 2018)
CHOWGULE AND COMPANY PRIVATE
LIMITED ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
GOA FOUNDATION & ORS. .... RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL No. 840842 OF 2020
[@ SLP(C) Nos.1232812330/2018]
CIVIL APPEAL No. 843 OF 2020
[@ SLP(C) NO…3028/2020 @ Diary No(s).17815/2018]
CIVIL APPEAL No. 844846 OF 2020
[@ SLP(C) No. 2571125713/2018]
CIVIL APPEAL No. 847 OF 2020
[@ SLP(C) No.24831/2018]
CIVIL APPEAL No. 848 OF 2020
[@ SLP(C) No. 24830/2018]
SLP(C) No. 22035/2019]
2
J U D G M E N T
SLP(C) NOS. 12449, 1232812330, D. NO(S).17815,
2571125713, 24831, 24830 OF 2018
1.Delay condoned.
2.Permission to file Special Leave Petition (Civil)
D.No.17815 of 2018 is granted.
3.Leave granted.
4.The factual scenario and the questions of law involved
being common, all these appeals are being heard and decided
together.
5.The present proceedings have a chequered history.
6.Since the Government of India received information
about the rampant exploitation of natural resources in Iron
Ore mining sector in the State of Goa, it appointed Justice
M.B. Shah, a former judge of this Court, as a Commission of
Inquiry under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act,
1952, by a Notification dated 22.11.2010.
3
7. Justice Shah visited Goa and after calling for and
receiving information from various authorities as well as
mining leaseholders, submitted reports to the Government of
India on 15.3.2012 and 25.4.2012. The reports were tabled
in Parliament on 7.9.2012 along with an Action Taken
Report. Consequently, the Government of Goa passed an
order dated 10.9.2012 restraining/suspending all mining
operations in the State with effect from 11.9.2012. The
Ministry of Environment and Forest (MoEF) of the
Government of India also kept in abeyance the environmental
clearances granted to 139 mines (actually 137 mines – the
figure of 139 on account of some duplication) in the State of
Goa by an order dated 14.9.2012.
8.Subsequent to the reports given by Justice Shah, a writ
petition came to be filed by Goa Foundation in this Court
being W.P.(C) No.435 of 2012. The writ petition, being in the
nature of public interest litigation, prayed, inter alia, for
directions to the Union of India and the State of Goa to take
steps to terminate the mining leases where mining was
4
carried out in violation of various statutes. So also, various
writ petitions came to be filed in the Bombay High Court by
several mining leaseholders challenging the reports of Justice
Shah and the consequent orders passed by the State of Goa
and the Union of India. All those petitions came to be
transferred to this Court to be heard along with W.P. (C) No.
435 of 2012 filed by Goa Foundation.
9.All those petitions came to be decided by this Court by
judgment and order dated 21.4.2014 [Goa Foundation vs.
Union of India & Others
1
] (hereinafter referred to as “Goa
FoundationI”) wherein this Court , amongst other
conclusions arrived at, held that all iron ore and manganese
ore leases had expired on 22.11.2007 and any mining
operation carried out by the mining leaseholders after that
date was illegal. It was also held, that all the mining
leaseholders had enjoyed a first deemed renewal of the
mining lease and for a second renewal an express order was
required to be passed in view of and in terms of Section 8(3)
1 (2014) 6 SCC 590
5
of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957. For a second renewal of the mining lease, it was held,
that the State Government must apply its mind and record
reasons for renewal being in the interest of mineral
development and the necessity to renew the mining lease and
the same should also be in conformity with the Constitutional
provisions. It was also held, that the decision taken by the
State of Goa could be examined by way of judicial review. It
was also held, that the order dated 10.9.2012 of the
Government of Goa suspending mining operations and the
order dated 14.9.2012 of the MoEF, Government of India)
directing the environmental clearances granted to the mines
in the State of Goa to be kept in abeyance were proper and,
as such, not required to be interfered with and that they
would continue till decisions are taken to grant fresh leases
and fresh environmental clearances for mining projects.
10.Thereafter, quite independent of the cases pending in
this Court, writ petitions were filed by several mining
leaseholders in the Bombay High Court praying either for
6
consideration of their applications for a second renewal of the
mining lease or for the grant of a mining lease on second
renewal. The High Court heard those writ petitions and by
its judgment dated 13.8.2014 directed the State of Goa to
execute the lease deeds in favour of the leaseholders who had
already paid stamp duty pursuant to the orders of the
government in accordance with the Goa Mineral Policy 2013
and to consider the applications of other leaseholders in
accordance with the conditions laid down by this Court in
Goa FoundationI (supra). This order of the High Court was
made a subject matter of challenge in Goa Foundation v.
Sesa Sterlite Limited and Others
2
(hereinafter referred to
as “Goa FoundationII”). The said challenge came to be
decided by this Court vide judgment and order dated
7.2.2018 (Goa FoundationII).
11.It will be apposite to refer to the conclusions and
directions given by this Court in Goa FoundationII (supra)
while deciding the said challenge.
2 (2018) 4 SCC 218
7
“Conclusions and directions
154.In view of our discussion, we arrive at the
following conclusions.
154.1. As a result of the decision, declaration and
directions of this Court in Goa Foundation [Goa
Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590] ,
the State of Goa was obliged to grant fresh mining
leases in accordance with law and not second
renewals to the mining leaseholders.
154.2. The State of Goa was not under any
constitutional obligation to grant fresh mining
leases through the process of competitive bidding or
auction.
154.3. The second renewal of the mining leases
granted by the State of Goa was unduly hasty,
without taking all relevant material into
consideration and ignoring available relevant
material and therefore not in the interests of
mineral development. The decision was taken only
to augment the revenues of the State which is
outside the purview of Section 8(3) of the MMDR
Act. The second renewal of the mining leases
granted by the State of Goa is liable to be set aside
and is quashed.
154.4. The Ministry of Environment and Forests
was obliged to grant fresh environmental clearances
in respect of fresh grant of mining leases in
accordance with law and the decision of this Court
in Goa Foundation [Goa Foundation v. Union of
India, (2014) 6 SCC 590] and not merely lift the
abeyance order of 1492012.
8
154.5. The decision of the Bombay High Court
in Lithoferro v. State of Goa [Lithoferro v. State of
Goa, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom 997 : (2015) 3 AIR Bom
R 32] (and batch) giving directions different from
those given by this Court in Goa Foundation [Goa
Foundation v. Union of India, (2014) 6 SCC 590] is
set aside.
154.6. The mining leaseholders who have been
granted the second renewal in violation of the
decision and directions of this Court in Goa
Foundation [Goa Foundation v. Union of India,
(2014) 6 SCC 590] are given time to manage
their affairs and may continue their mining
operations till 1532018. However, they are
directed to stop all mining operations with effect
from 1632018 until fresh mining leases (not
fresh renewals or other renewals) are granted
and fresh environmental clearances are granted.
154.7. The State of Goa should take all necessary
steps to grant fresh mining leases in accordance
with the provisions of the Mines and Minerals
(Development and Regulation) Act, 1957. The
Ministry of Environment and Forests should also
take all necessary steps to grant fresh
environmental clearances to those who are
successful in obtaining fresh mining leases. The
exercise should be completed by the State of Goa
and the Ministry of Environment and Forests as
early as reasonably practicable.
154.8. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps
to ensure that the Special Investigating Team and
the Team of Chartered Accountants constituted
9
pursuant to the Goa Grant of Mining Leases Policy,
2014 give their report at the earliest and the State
of Goa should implement the reports at the earliest,
unless there are very good reasons for rejecting
them.
154.9. The State of Goa will take all necessary steps
to expedite recovery of the amounts said to be due
from the mining leaseholders pursuant to the show
cause notices issued to them and pursuant to other
reports available with the State of Goa including the
report of Special Investigating Team and the Team
of Chartered Accountants.”
[Emphasis supplied by us]
12.It is the directions given in paragraph 154.6 in Goa
FoundationII (supra) which has given rise to the present
appeals. By the direction in paragraph 154.6 (supra), this
Court gave time to the mining leaseholders, who were granted
the second renewal, to manage their affairs permitting them
to continue their mining operations till 15.3.2018. By the
said direction, they were directed to stop all mining
operations with effect from 16.3.2018.
13.It is nobody’s case that any of the mining leaseholders
have continued the mining operations after 15.3.2018. The
only question, that arises for consideration is as to whether
10
the minerals which were mined prior to 15.3.2018, can be
permitted to be transported by the mining leaseholders or
not.
14.Construing the directions of this Court in paragraph
154.6 (supra) as restricting the mining operations till
15.3.2018 and not restricting the transport of the minerals
already mined till 15.3.2018, the State of Goa by a decision
dated 21.3.2018 decided to permit the mining leaseholders to
pay the royalty on the mineral which was already mined till
15.3.2018 and transport the same.
15.Being aggrieved by the said decision, the Goa
Foundation filed Writ Petition No. 3 of 2018 before the High
Court of Bombay at Goa. In the said petition, an interim
order dated 28.3.2018 came to be passed whereby, the
transportation of all minerals was suspended.
16.The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court at Goa
while finally hearing the matter after elaborate discussion
arrived at the following finding:
11
“…According to our respectful interpretation
thus, when the Supreme Court mandated five
weeks’ time for arranging the affairs, it meant
completion of transportation as well.”
17.Observing the aforesaid, the Division Bench quashed
and set aside the decision of the State of Goa dated
21.3.2018 permitting transportation of royalty paid iron ore.
The Division Bench also held, that the State Government
should take decision regarding its ownership rights, as a
custodian of the mineral resources, and regarding its power
to take possession, to sell and dispose of iron ore in question
and utilise the proceeds for public purpose.
18.Being aggrieved thereby, various appeals/petitions are
filed before this Court. We may briefly set out the challenges
and reliefs claimed in each of the matters.
Appeal arising out of SLP(C) 12449 of 2018
The appellant/petitioner claims, that the appellant’s ore
was being loaded for being shipped for export which came to
be stopped in view of the interim order passed by the Division
12
Bench of the High Court dated 28.3.2018. The grievance of
the appellant is that the protection order dated 4.4.2018
passed by this Court in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos.
84838484 of 2018 (to which we will refer subsequently) did
not extend to it as it was not a party in the said SLP. The
appellant, therefore, prays to permit the appellant to load on
the barges and on the vessels, the iron ore which is royalty
paid and which is brought on the jetties on or before
15.3.2018 so that it can be transported to their destinations.
Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 1232812330 of 2018
The appellant’s case is identical with the appellant in
earlier appeal i.e. Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.12449 of
2018. The iron ore mined by the appellant was in the process
of being loaded in a ship at High sea through barges.
However, due to the interim order of the High Court dated
28.3.2018 passed in Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2018, the
appellant had to stop the same. The appellant is also not
covered by the order dated 4.4.2018 (supra) passed by this
Court. The appellant, therefore, prays for a similar direction
13
as sought by the appellant in Appeal arising out of SLP(C)
No.12449 of 2018.
Appeals arising out of SLP(C) D. No.17815 of 2018
The appellant herein deals in export of iron ore. The
appellant claims to have entered into an international
contract for export of ore and accordingly had made
preparation and loaded barges to be transported to vessel
berthed at High sea. However, in view of the interim order
dated 28.3.2018 (supra) it could not carry forward the said
operations. The appellant is also not covered by the order
dated 4.4.2018 (supra) passed by this Court as it was not a
party in the SLP. The appellant also claims the same reliefs
as sought by the appellant in Appeal arising out of SLP(C)
No.12449 of 2018.
Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 2571125713 of 2018
The appellants herein are engaged in trade of minerals.
The appellants had purchased iron ore from the mine of some
leaseholders. After purchasing, they have transported the
14
same to their jetties and stockyards on or before 15.3.2018.
The appellants in pursuance of the order passed by this
Court dated 11.5.2018 (to which also we will refer
subsequently) are praying for permission to transport ore
lying at jetties and stockyards on their sale.
Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.24831 and 24830 of 2018
The appellants in both these appeals herein submit,
that though they have extracted the iron ore prior to
15.3.2018, it is lying either at the stockyard or at the pithead
and, therefore, seek permission to transport the same.
19.We have heard Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the appellant in lead matter [i.e.
Appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.12449 of 2018], Shri Gourab
Banerji, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Yashraj Singh
Deora, learned counsel for the other appellants. We have
heard Shri A. N.S. Nadkarni, learned Additional Solicitor
15
General appearing for the State of Goa, Shri Vikramjit
Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for
the Union of India and Mr. Prashant Bhushan, learned
counsel for the Goa Foundation.
20.Shri Mukul Rohatgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing
for the appellant would submit, that the perusal of paragraph
154.6 of the judgment of this Court in Goa FoundationII
(supra) would clearly show, that what was permitted by this
Court was continuation of mining till 15.3.2018. He submits,
that there is a specific prohibition in the said paragraph that
after 15.3.2018 no mining activity could be carried on. He,
therefore, submits, that what was done by this Court was to
specifically prohibit mining after 15.3.2018. However, the
order did not postulate restriction on transport of the iron ore
which was already mined in the period of five weeks i.e. from
7.2.2018 [the date of the judgment and order of this Court
passed in Goa FoundationII (supra)] to 15.3.2018. He
would submit, that the perusal of the order of this Court
dated 4.4.2018 (passed in SLP(C) No.84838484 of 2018 and
16
connected matters ) and 11.5.2018 [passed in SLP(C)
No.12449 of 2018 and connected matters] would clearly
show, that the intent of paragraph 154.6 (supra) was to
prohibit the mining from 16.3.2018 and not the
transportation of the ore which was already mined prior to
15.3.2018.
21.Shri Rohatgi, relying on Rule 12(1)(gg) of the Minerals
(Other than Atomic and Hydro Carbons Energy Minerals)
Concession Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “the said
Rules), would further submit, that the legislative policy is to
grant six calendar months to remove ore mineral extracted
from the date of the expiry or sooner termination of the lease
term. He, therefore, submit, that taking into consideration
the legislative policy, it is necessary that the mining
leaseholders be permitted to transport the iron ore mineral
which is already mined by them. He submits, that the
finding of the High Court that paragraph 154.6 (supra) also
prohibits transportation of the mineral which is already
mined prior to 15.3.2018, is not only totally incorrect but is
17
in ignorance of the orders passed by this Court dated
4.4.2018 and 11.5.2018.
22.The learned counsel appearing for the State of Goa also
submits, that the State has no objection for transportation of
the mineral which is mined prior to 15.3.2018 and on which
the royalty is paid to the Government.
23.Shri Prashant Bhushan, learned counsel for the Goa
Foundation, vehemently opposed the appeals. He would
submit, that the mining leases of the various lessees had
already expired in 2007. They were illegally continuing their
mining operations. He submits, that the same has been
found in the judgment of this Court in Goa FoundationI
(supra). He further submits, that in Goa FoundationII
(supra) this Court also found that there was rampant illegal
excavation and, therefore, such stringent directions were
issued by this Court. He submits, that the Division Bench of
the High Court has rightly construed the words “to manage
their affairs” used by this Court in paragraph 154.6 (supra) to
include all activities relating to mining and transportation
18
thereof. He submits, that the lessees in the period of seven
weeks from 7.2.2018 till 15.3.2018 have extracted 2.2 MT of
iron ore. It is submitted, that if the permission is granted to
transport this iron ore, it will amount to giving a premium for
illegal activity of the leaseholder. He, therefore, vehemently
submits, that all appeals are liable to be dismissed.
24.To appreciate the entire controversy, we have to
consider what is the import of paragraph 154.6 of the
judgment of this Court in Goa FoundationII (supra).
The direction given in the said paragraph are twofold.
Firstly, the mining leaseholders are given time to manage
their affairs and to continue their mining operations till
15.3.2018. The second is a negative direction. They are
directed to stop all mining operations with effect from
16.3.2018 until fresh mining leases (not fresh renewals or
other renewals) are granted and fresh environmental
clearances are granted.
25.Applying the principle of plain and literal interpretation,
the direction would stop all mining activities from 16.3.2018.
19
However, from the date of the order i.e. 7.2.2018 till
15.3.2018, the lessees were permitted to continue with the
mining activities and manage their affairs.
26.As could be seen, after the Government of Goa had
taken a decision to permit the royalty paid iron ore to be
transported which was mined prior to 15.3.2018 by its
decision dated 21.3.2018, the Goa Foundation had
approached the High Court and the High Court had stayed
the said direction by its interim order dated 28.3.2018. The
said interim order dated 28.3.2018 reads thus:
“11.In the meantime, there shall be an ad interim
relief in terms of the bracketed portion of prayer
clause (d), which reads thus:
“Pending hearing and final disposal of this petition,
a direction to the State Government to order an
immediate suspension of transport of all minerals
related to the mining activity of 88
leaseholders……”
27.Being aggrieved thereby, a Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Nos. 84838484 of 2018 came to be filed before this Court.
The matter came up for hearing before the same Bench which
had delivered the judgment in Goa FoundationII (supra).
An order dated 4.4.2018 came to be passed by the same
20
Bench of this Court in the said Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Nos. 84838484 of 2018. The said order dated 4.4.2018
passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 84838484 of
2018 reads thus:
“It is categorically stated by learned counsel for
the petitioners that the iron ore which is sought to
be loaded on the vessels in the Port area in Goa is
royalty paid and it was removed and brought to the
jetties on or before 15th March, 2018.
Under these circumstances, we are of the view
that the iron ore which is royalty paid and which is
lying on the jetties on or before 15th March, 2018
should be permitted to be loaded on the barges and
on the vessels so that they can be transported to
their destinations.
The State of Goa will ensure and confirm that
only that iron ore is loaded which is royalty paid
and which is lying in the jetties on or before 15th
March, 2018.
Insofar as the other issues are concerned,
since the matter is already pending in the High
Court, we do not propose to deal with them and
leave it to the High Court to adjudicate.
The special leave petitions are disposed of”
28.An identical order dated 11.5.2018 came to be passed
by the same Bench in the present lead appeal arising out of
SLP(C) No. 12449 of 2018, which reads thus:
“Issue notice.
21
Mr. Shishir Deshpande and Mr. Prashant
Bhushan, learned counsel accept notice.
We have heard learned counsel for the
parties at some length.
It is categorically stated by learned
counsel for the petitioners that the iron ore
which is sought to be loaded on the vessels in
the Port area in Goa is royalty paid and it was
removed and brought to the jetties on or before
15th March, 2018.
Under these circumstances, we are of the
view that the iron ore which is royalty paid and
which is lying on the jetties on or before 15th
March, 2018 should be permitted to be loaded
on the barges and on the vessels so that they
can be transported to their destinations.
The State of Goa will ensure and confirm
that only that iron ore is loaded which is
royalty paid and which is lying in the jetties on
or before 15th March, 2018.
Insofar as the other issues are concerned,
since the matter is already pending in the High
Court, we do not propose to deal with them
and leave it to the High Court 3 to adjudicate.
An allegation has been made by learned
counsel appearing for Goa Foundation that
rampant mining took place after the order
passed on 7th February, 2018 till 15th March,
2018.
22
We would like to have full details about
the mining that has taken place during the
period from 7th February, 2018 till 15th
March, 2018.
We make it clear that there will be no
movement of iron ore until further orders
except the iron ore which has reached the
jetties.
List the matter in the third week of July,
2018.”
29.It could thus be seen, that the Division Bench which
had delivered the judgment in Goa FoundationII (supra) by
subsequent orders dated 4.4.2018 and 11.5.2018 has
permitted the iron ore which was royalty paid and which was
lying on the jetties on or before 15.3.2018 to be loaded on the
barges and on the vessels so that it can be transported to
their destinations.
30.It will also be relevant to refer to Rule 12(1)(gg) of the
said Rules.
12.Terms and conditions of a mining lease. (1)
Every mining lease shall be subject to the following
conditions:
(a)
…….
23
(gg)the lessee may, after paying the rents, rates
and royalties payable under the Act and rules made
thereunder or under the lease deed, at the expiry or
sooner termination of the lease term or within six
calendar months thereafter (unless the lease is
terminated for default of the lessee, and in that case
at any time not less than three calendar months nor
more than six calendar months after such
termination) take down and remove for its own
benefit, all or any ore mineral excavated during the
currency of the lease, engines, machinery, plant,
buildings structures, tramways, railways and other
works, erection and conveniences which may have
been erected, set up or placed by the lessee in or
upon the leased lands and which the lessee is not
bound to deliver to the State Government or which
the State Government does not desire to purchase.”
31.A perusal of clause (gg) of Rule 12(1) of the said Rules
would reveal, that on the expiry or sooner termination of the
lease term, six months period is granted to the lessees to
remove for its own benefit, all or any ore mineral excavated
during the currency of the lease, engines, machinery, plant,
buildings, structures, tramways, railways and other works,
erections and conveniences which may have been erected, set
up or placed by the lessee in or upon the leased lands. An
exception is carved out in case of lease being terminated for
24
default of the lessee wherein, period so to be granted is not
less than three months and not more than six calendar
months after such termination. However, it is subject to the
lessee paying the rents, rates and royalties payable under the
Act and the Rules made thereunder.
32.Taking overall view of the matter i.e. paragraph 154.6 of
the judgment of this Court in Goa FoundationII (supra); the
orders dated 4.4.2018 and 11.5.2018 passed by the same
Bench which delivered the judgment in Goa FoundationII
(supra) permitting the minerals/iron ore to be transported
which were royalty paid and which was lying on the jetties on
or before 15.3.2018; and the legislative policy granting six
months’ period for removal of the mineral for the benefit of
the lessees, we find that the view taken by the Division Bench
of the Bombay High court is not correct. If this Court in Goa
FoundationII (supra) intended to prohibit the mining as well
as transportation of the minerals/iron ore with effect from
16.3.2018 nothing precluded it from doing so. However, the
25
words used were that the lessees are permitted to manage
their affairs and are permitted to continue mining till
15.3.2018. The only prohibition contained in the said order
after 15.3.2018 is for carrying out mining operations. Not
only this but the same Bench which has decided the Goa
FoundationII (supra) itself on two occasions has permitted
the mineral to be transported from the jetties. We do not find,
that there is any rationale in differentiating between the iron
ore which is either at the jetties or at the stockyards or
pitheads, if the same is mined prior to the date of the
prohibition i.e. 15.3.2018. There is no doubt that the
ownership of the ore is that of the party that has raised the
ore. The ore which has been permitted to be transported is
on condition of payment of royalty. We see no reason why the
owners should not be allowed to transport their own ore.
33.It will not be out of place to mention here the specific
stand of the State Government before the High Court that the
State is monitoring to ensure that only such of the mineral is
26
permitted to be transported which is mined prior to
15.3.2018.
34.We are, therefore, inclined to allow all the appeals.
Order accordingly. We set aside the impugned judgment and
order dated 4.5.2018 passed by the High Court and uphold
the decision of the State of Goa dated 21.3.2018, which
permits transportation of mineral/iron ore which is mined
prior to 15.3.2018.
35.Needless to state, that the transportation of the mineral
would be only in respect of such minerals on which royalty is
paid. The appellants/mining leaseholders would be
permitted to transport the royalty paid ore/mineral from the
jetties/stockyard or pitheads on the basis of the valid transit
permits issued to them by the competent authority of the
State Government.
36.Taking into consideration the legislative policy as
contained in clause (gg) of Rule 12(1) of the said Rules, we
27
direct that all such transportation shall be completed within
a period of six months from today.
37.It is needless to state that all other directions contained
in paragraph 154 of the judgment of this Court in Goa
FoundationII (supra) shall be strictly complied with by the
State of Goa.
38.All pending applications including the application for
intervention shall stand disposed of.
SLP(C) No. 22035/2019
39.Detagged. To be listed before the appropriate Bench in
its due course.
…....................CJI.
[S.A. BOBDE]
......................J.
[B.R. GAVAI]
28
......................J.
[SURYA KANT]
NEW DELHI;
JANUARY 30, 2020
Legal Notes
Add a Note....