W.P.NO.100481/2026 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

DATED THIS THE 21

st

DAY OF MAY 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR

A. PATIL

WRIT PETITION NO.100481 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

IN W.P. NO. 100481 OF 2026:

BETWEEN

DHARMARAJ N. SATPATII

S/O. NIJAPPA SATPATII,

AGED: 48 YEARS,

OCC: BUSINESS,

RESIDING AT: NO.104,

SADASHIV NAGAR,

OLD HUBBALLI,

HUBBALLI,

DIST: DHARWAD – 580 024.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MOT GOURISHANKAR HARISHCHANDRA, ADV.)

AND

1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

AND ADDL. DIST MAGISTRATE

HUBBALLI - DHARWAD CITY,

HUBBALLI – 580 025.

2. GOVT. OF KARNATAKA,

BY SECRETARY HOME DEPT,

VIDHANASOUDHA,

W.P.NO.100481/2026 2

BANGALORE – 560 001.

3. SUPERINTENDENT OF PRISON

CENTRAL PRISON, SAIDAPUR,

DHARWAD – 580 008.

… RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. ASHOK T. KATTIMANI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO, WRIT OF

CERTIORARI THE DETENTION OF SAGAR LAKKUNDI, S/O

BASAVARAJA LAKKUNDI, BY ORDER NO. CP/MAG-

2/HD/09/2025-26 DATED 02.06.2025 (ANNEXURE A AND B)

PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND APPROVED BY THE

RESPONDENT NO.2 BY ORDER NO. HD 290 SST 2025 DATED

09.06.2025 (ANNEXURE C) AND CONFIRMED BY THE

RESPONDENT NO.2 BY ORDER NO. HD 290 SST 2025 DATED

18.07.2025 (ANNEXURE D) AS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INIT IO.

TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS DECLARING THE

ORDER OF DETENTION, THE ORDER OF APPROVAL AND THE

ORDER OF CONFIRMATION, AS ILLEGAL AND AB INITIO VOI D.

TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS INCLUDING RELEASE OF THE

DETENU FORTHWITH. TO AWARD COSTS.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR

JUDGMENT ON 19.05.2026, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ,

THIS DAY, VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL J .,

MADE THE FOLLOWING :

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL

W.P.NO.100481/2026 3

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)

This writ petition is filed by a relative of the detenue

seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari by quashing the

detention order dated 02.06.2025 in No.CP/MAG-

2/HD/09/2025-26 by the respondent No.1 approved by the

respondent No.2 by order dated 09.06.2025 and the

confirmation by the respondent No.2 dated 18.07.202 5,

and further prayer to issue a Writ of Habeas Corpus

directing the respondents to set the detenue at liberty by

releasing him from prison.

2.

Brief facts leading to the filing of this petition are

that, the detenue has been detained pursuant to the Order

of Detention passed by the respondent No.1 against the

detenue on 02.06.2025 under Section 2(g) of the Karnataka

Prevention of Dangerous Activities, Bootleggers, Dr ug

Offenders, Gamblers, Goondas, Immoral Trafficking

Offenders, Slum Grabbers and Video or Audio Pirates Act,

1985 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Goondas Act') for

being a habitual offender and repeatedly undertakin g

W.P.NO.100481/2026 4

activities punishable under various provisions of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and Bharatiya Ny aya

Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNS') and in order to prevent him

from further engaging in activities prejudicial to the

maintenance of public order. The said order was approved

by the respondent No.2 on 09.06.2025 and the same w as

confirmed by the respondent No.2 on 18.07.2025. Bei ng

aggrieved by the said order of detention, order of approval,

and the consequential confirmation of the said order, this

petition is filed.

3.

Sri. Gourishankar H. Mot, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner, submits that the orders under

challenge are liable to be set aside solely on the ground

that some of the documents furnished to the detenue are in

English language and, as per the detention order, t he

detenue has studied till second standard in Kannada

medium and is able to read only Kannada language. I t is

further submitted that non-furnishing of translated copies of

the documents vitiates the detention order. It is a lso

submitted that some of the documents furnished are

W.P.NO.100481/2026 5

illegible, which violate the right guaranteed to the detenue

under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India to give

effective representation. It is also submitted that there is

no application of mind by the authorities in passin g the

impugned orders. It is contended that the detention order is

vague, passed on irrelevant consideration. Hence, he seeks

to allow the petition. It is further contended that that above

writ petition challenging the detention order was filed on

19.01.2026 and the State has unnecessarily sought

adjournments which has resulted in delay in considering the

petition. Hence, he insists to pass the orders immediately,

otherwise the writ petition would render infructuou s.

Hence, he seeks to allow the petition and set the detenue

free.

4.

Learned Additional Government Advocate

appearing for the respondent-State submits that the order

of detention has been passed after following all procedural

requirements and arriving at subjective satisfaction. It is

submitted that the detenue has been a habitual offe nder

with eight cases registered against him under vario us

W.P.NO.100481/2026 6

provisions of IPC and BNS. It is further submitted that the

detenue consistently engaged in the illegal activities and

caused public disorder and to prevent the same, the said

order of detention was passed. Hence, he seeks to d ismiss

the petition.

5.

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner and the learned AGA appearing for th e

respondents-State and perused the material availabl e on

record. Having given our anxious consideration to t he

submissions advanced on both sides and the material

available on record, the point that arises for consideration

in this petition is,

"Whether the impugned order of detention

dated 02.06.2025 passed by the respondent

No.1, the approval order dated 09.06.2025 and

confirmation order dated 18.07.2025 by the

respondent No.2 are sustainable under law?"

6.

To appreciate the case on hand, it would be

useful to refer to the relevant provisions of the Goonda Act

and they are extracted as under for ready reference:

W.P.NO.100481/2026 7

"3. Power to make orders detaining certain

persons.-

(1) The State Government may, if satisfied

with respect to any bootlegger or drug-offender or

gambler or goonda or [Immoral Traffic Offender or

Slum-Grabber or Video or Audio pirate] that with a

view to prevent him from acting in any manner

prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is

necessary so to do, make an order directing that

such persons be detained.

(2) If, having regard to the circumstances

prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the

local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate

or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government

is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by

order in writing, direct that during such period as

may be specified in the order, such District

Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if

satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the

powers conferred by the sub-section :

Provided that the period specified in the order

made by the State Government under this sub-

section shall not, in the first instance, exceed three

months, but the State Government may, if satisfied

as aforesaid that it is necessary so to do, amend

such order to extend such period from time to time

by any period not exceeding three months at any

one time.

(3) When any order is made under this section

by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2), he shall

forthwith report the fact to the State Government

W.P.NO.100481/2026 8

together with the grounds on which the order has

been made and such other particulars as, in his

opinion, have a bearing on the matter and no such

order shall remain in force for more than twelve

days after the making thereof, unless, in the

meantime, it has been approved by the State

Government.

8. Grounds of order of detention to be disclosed t o

persons affected by the order.-

(1) When a person is detained in pursuance of

a detention order, the authority making the order

shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days

from the date of detention, communicate to him the

grounds on which the order has been made and shall

afford him the earliest opportunity of making a

representation against the order to the State

Government.

(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the

authority to disclose facts which it considers to be

against the public interest to disclose.

10. Reference to Advisory Board.-

In every case where a detention order has

been made under this Act the State Government

shall within three weeks from the date of detention

of a person under the order, place before the

Advisory Board constituted by it under section 9, the

grounds on which the order has been made and the

W.P.NO.100481/2026 9

representation, if any, made against the order, and

in case where the order has been made by an

officer, also the report by such officer under sub-

section (3) of section 3.

11. Procedure of Advisory Board.-

(1) The Advisory Board shall after considering

the materials placed before it and, after calling for

such further information as it may deem necessary

from the State Government or from any person

called for the purpose through the State Government

or from the person concerned, and if, in any

particular case, the Advisory Board considers it

essential so to do or if the person concerned desire

to be heard, after hearing him in person, submit its

report to the State Government, within seven weeks

from the date of detention of the person concerned.

(2) The report of the Advisory Board shall

specify in a separate part thereof the opinion of the

Advisory Board as to whether or not there is

sufficient cause for the detention of the person

concerned.

(3) When there is a difference of opinion

among the members forming the Advisory Board,

the opinion of the majority of such members shall be

deemed to be the opinion of the Board.

W.P.NO.100481/2026 10

(4) The proceedings of the Advisory Board and

its report, excepting that part of the report in which

the opinion of the Advisory Board is specified, shall

be confidential.

(5) Nothing in this section shall entitle any

person against whom a detention order has been

made to appear by any legal practitioner in any

matter connected with the reference to the Advisory

Board.

13. Maximum period of detention.-

The maximum period for which any person

may be detained, in pursuance of any detention

order made under this Act which has been confirmed

under section 12 shall be twelve months from the

date of detention."

7. A bare reading of the aforesaid Sections

indicates that the State Government may, if satisfied with

respect to any "Goonda” as defined under Section 2( g) of

the Goonda Act, with a view to prevent him from act ing in

any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order,

pass an order directing such a person to be detained. Sub-

section (2) of Section 3 of the Goonda Act empowers the

District Magistrate or the Commissioner of Police to exercise

W.P.NO.100481/2026 11

the powers conferred under sub-Section (1) of Section 3 of

the Goonda Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 3 of th e

Goonda Act mandates that if the order is passed by the

Officer under sub-Section (2) of Section 3 of the G oonda

Act, he shall forthwith report the fact to the Stat e

Government along with the grounds on which the orde r has

been made. The order made by the Officer under

sub-Section (2) shall remain in force for 12 days unless in

the meantime, the State Government approves it. Se ction

8 of the Goonda Act mandates that the grounds of

detention are required to be served on the detenue within

five days from the date of detention and shall offer him the

earliest opportunity of making a representation against the

order to the State Government. Section 10 of the Go onda

Act mandates that the order of detention made under the

Goonda Act shall be placed before the Advisory Boar d

within a period of three weeks from the date of detention

order by the State Government along with grounds on

which the order has been made and representation, i f any,

made against the order. Section 11 of the Goonda A ct

W.P.NO.100481/2026 12

provides the procedure to be followed by the Adviso ry

Board. The Advisory Board is empowered to consider

providing personal hearing to the detenue and there after

submit a report to the State Government within seve n

weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned.

The Advisory Board is required to forward its opinion as to

whether or not there is sufficient cause for the detention of

the person concerned. The opinion of the Advisory Board is

confidential. Section 13 of the Goonda Act indicates that

the maximum period for detention is twelve months f rom

the date of detention.

8.

The impugned detention order dated 02.06.2025

is passed by the respondent No.1 by recording the r eason

that the detenue is aged about 28 years, a Gowndi b y

occupation, and a resident of Sadashivnagar, Old Hu bballi,

and he is rowdy-sheeter in Old Hubballi Police Station, and

is involved in criminal cases including attempt to murder,

assault and other criminal activities and he has created fear

in the minds of the people. To arrive at such a conclusion,

the authority placed reliance on the following cases;

W.P.NO.100481/2026 13

(a) Crime No.37/2019 registered by the Old

Hubballi Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504,

506 r/w 34 of IPC.

(b)

Crime No.123/2020 registered by the Old

Hubbali Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323,

341, 307, 504, and 149 of IPC.

(c)

Crime No.105/2021 registered by the Old

Hubballi Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 41(1)(d), 102 of

Cr.P.C., and Section 379 of IPC.

(d)

Crime No.39/2022 registered by the Old

Hubballi Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 143, 147, 324, 504,

506 and 149 of IPC.

(e)

Crime No.140/2022 registered by the Old

Hubballi Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 504,

506 r/w 34 of IPC.

W.P.NO.100481/2026 14

(f) Crime No.247/2024 registered by the Old

Hubballi Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 109, 115(2),

118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3) of BNS 2023.

(g)

Crime No.277/2024 registered by the Old

Hubballi Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 79, 109 and 190 of

BNS 2023.

(h)

Crime No.42/2025 registered by the Old

Hubballi Police Station for the offences

punishable under Sections 109, 115(2),

118(1), 126(2), 352, 351(2), 351(3) and 190

of BNS 2023.

9.

The grounds of detention make a reference with

regard to the registration of eight cases referred supra

against the detenue from 2019 to 2025. The detainin g

authority as well as the approving and confirming authority

have come to the satisfaction that the detenue is a habitual

offender and his activities have caused breach of p ublic

W.P.NO.100481/2026 15

order and that he cannot be prevented under ordinar y law

of land and hence, proceeded to pass the impugned orders.

10.

In the light of the legal position referred supra as

well as the grounds of detention and the contention s

advanced on both sides, we are of the view that the order

of detention, approval and confirmation is required to be

tested by considering the primary contention of the

petitioner that the respondents-authorities have failed to

furnish the relied documents to the detenue in a language

known to the detenue and also that they were requir ed to

furnish the legible copies to enable him to submit effective

representation to the authorities.

11.

We have perused the documents relied by the

detaining authority while arriving its satisfaction as well as

the approving and confirmation authority. It is noticed that

some of the relied documents in the documents furnished to

the detenue are in English language and no translat ed

copies were made available to him. The order of detention

as well as grounds of detention makes a clear refer ence

that the detenue has studied upto second standard i n

W.P.NO.100481/2026 16

Kannada medium and he is able to read only Kannada

language. We have also noticed that some of the

documents served on the detenue which were relied b y the

detaining authority were illegible. We have also perused the

statement of objections filed by the respondent-State and it

has failed to substantiate the said contentions by rebutting

the same in their statement of objections or by placing any

material to that effect. Therefore, non-furnishing of relied

document in the language known to the detenue and

submitting of illegible copies affects the right of the detenue

to submit an effective representation, which is a

fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the

Constitution of India.

12.

It would be useful to refer to the decision of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Harikisan Vs. State

of Maharashtra

1

“8. We do not agree with the High Court in its

conclusion that in every case communication of the

grounds of detention in English, so long as it continues

1

1962 SCC Online 117

W.P.NO.100481/2026 17

to be the official language of the State, is enough

compliance with the requirements of the Constitution.

If the detained person is conversant with the English

language, he will naturally be in a position to

understand the gravamen of the charge against him

and the facts and circumstances on which the order of

detention is based. But to a person who is not so

conversant with the English language, in order to

satisfy the requirements of the Constitution, the

detenue must be given the grounds in a language

which he can understand, and in a script which he can

read, if he is a literate person.

9. The Constitution has guaranteed freedom of

movement throughout the territory of India and has

laid down detailed rules as to arrest and detention. It

has also, by way of limitations upon the freedom of

personal liberty, recognised the right of the State to

legislate for preventive detention, subject to certain

safeguards in favour of the detained person, as laid

down in clauses (4) and (5) of Article 22. One of those

safeguards is that the detained person has the right to

be communicated the grounds on which the order of

detention has been made against him, in order that he

may be able to make his representation against the

order of detention. In our opinion, in the

circumstances of this case, it has not been shown that

the appellant had the opportunity, which the law

contemplates in his favour, of making an effective

W.P.NO.100481/2026 18

representation against his detention. On this ground

alone we declare his detention illegal, and set aside

the Order of the High Court and the Order of

Detention passed against him.”

13. It would also be useful refer to the decision of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of The

State of

Manipur and Others vs. Buyamayum Abdul Hanan and

Another

2

referred supra, the paragraph No.22 and 23 are

extracted below for reference:

"20. What will be the effect of non-supply of legible

copies of the documents relied upon by the detaining

authority has been considered by this Court

in Bhupinder Singh [Bhupinder Singh v. Union of

India, (1987) 2 SCC 234 : 1987 SCC (Cri) 328] as

under : (SCC pp. 234-35, para 1)

“1. On 3-10-1985 the officers of the

Enforcement Directorate searched House No. B.20,

Gujranwala Town, Part II, Delhi and recovered

certain quantity of foreign exchange. It appears

that the petitioner was not immediately available.

He was called and interrogated. He made a

statement which was recorded by the officers of the

Enforcement Directorate. On 19-3-1986 an order

for detention of the petitioner was made by Shri

M.L. Wadhawan, Additional Secretary to the

Government of India, Ministry of Finance,

2

(2022) 19 SCC 509

W.P.NO.100481/2026 19

Department of Revenue, New Delhi. The petitioner

was arrested on 16-4-1986 and served with a copy

of the order of detention. Grounds of detention

were served on him four days later. On 12-5-1986

he was produced before the Advisory Board. He

made a complaint before the Advisory Board that

the copies of documents which were supplied to

him alongwith the grounds of detention were not

legible and he also placed before the Advisory

Board a copy of a representation said to have been

made by him for supply of legible copies of

documents. There is a controversy whether this

representation was made on 8-5-1986 or 12-5-

1986. From the original files produced before us we

find that the representation was typed on 8-5-

1986, but actually signed by the detenu on 12-5-

1986. But that would not make any difference for

the purposes of this case. On 19-5-1986 the

Under-Secretary to the Government of India

conceded the demand of the detenu for legible

copies of documents and directed the Directorate of

Enforcement to supply a duplicate set of documents

to the petitioner. A copy of this letter was also sent

to the detenu and was acknowledged by him on 21-

5-1986. There is a controversy as regards the date

on which the legible copies of documents were

actually given to the detenu. According to the

detenu they were served on him on 1-7-1986,

whereas according to the counter-affidavit of Shri

S.K. Chowdhry, Under-Secretary in the Ministry of

Finance, the documents were supplied on 21-6-

1986. It does not make any difference whether the

documents were supplied on 21-6-1986 or on 1-7-

1986 since we find that even before legible copies

of documents were supplied to the detenu, the

detention order was confirmed on 14-6-1986. The

detenu was thus clearly denied the opportunity of

making a representation and there was therefore a

clear contravention of the right guaranteed by

Article 22 of the Constitution. The detenu is entitled

to be set at liberty. We are told that the detenu is

now on parole. He need not surrender.”and later

in Manjit Singh Grewal [Manjit Singh

W.P.NO.100481/2026 20

Grewal v. Union of India, 1990 Supp SCC 59 : 1990

SCC (Cri) 608 (2)] as under : (SCC p. 59, para 3)

“3. It appears that the appellant had asked for

certain copies of the documents which admittedly

were there with the respondent—Union of India.

Copies of the documents were supplied, but the

same were not legible. This position is also

apparent. It is not necessary in the facts of this

case to go into the question whether these

documents were relevant or material.”

21. The learned counsel also relied upon the

judgment of this Court in Union of India v. Ranu

Bhandari [Union of India v. Ranu Bhandari, (2008) 17

SCC 348 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 543] wherein it was

held in paras 27 and 31 as under : (SCC pp. 355-56)

“27. It has also been the consistent view that

when a detention order is passed all the material

relied upon by the detaining authority in making

such an order, must be supplied to the detenu to

enable him to make an effective representation

against the detention order in compliance with

Article 22(5) of the Constitution, irrespective of

whether he had knowledge of the same or not.

These have been recognised by this Court as the

minimum safeguards to ensure that preventive

detention laws, which are an evil necessity, do not

become instruments of oppression in the hands of

the authorities concerned or to avoid criminal

proceedings which would entail a proper

investigation.

28-30.***

31. Of course, in Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran

case [Radhakrishnan Prabhakaran v. State of T.N.,

(2000) 9 SCC 170 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1198] it was

also made clear that there is no legal requirement

that a copy of every document mentioned in the

order has to be supplied to the detenu. What is,

W.P.NO.100481/2026 21

therefore, imperative is that copies of such

documents which had been relied upon by the

detaining authority for reaching the satisfaction

that in the interest of the State and its citizens the

preventive detention of the detenu is necessary,

have to be supplied to him. Furthermore, if in this

case, the detenu's representation and writ petition

had been placed before the detaining authority,

which according to the detenu contained his entire

defence to the allegations made against him, the

same may have weighed with the detaining

authority as to the necessity of issuing the order of

detention at all.”

22. Thus, the legal position has been settled by

this Court that the right to make representation is a

fundamental right of the detenu under Article 22(5) of

the Constitution and supply of the illegible copy of

documents which has been relied upon by the

detaining authority indeed has deprived him in making

an effective representation and denial thereof will hold

the order of detention illegal and not in accordance

with the procedure contemplated under law.

23. It is the admitted case of the parties that

Respondent 1 has failed to question before the

detaining authority that illegible or blurred copies were

supplied to him which were relied upon while passing

the order of detention, but the right to make

representation being a fundamental right under Article

22(5) of the Constitution in order to make effective

representation, the detenu is always entitled to be

supplied with the legible copies of the documents

relied upon by the detaining authority and such

W.P.NO.100481/2026 22

information made in the grounds of detention enables

him to make an effective representation."

14. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court makes it clear that

non-supplying the documents in a language known to the

detenue and supplying illegible copy of documents w hich

have been relied upon by the detaining authority de prives

the detenue from making an effective representation

guaranteed under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India

and denial of which results in violation of the procedure

contemplated under the law for passing an order of

preventive detention. We have also noticed that the

detention order would lapse on 02.06.2026. Hence, o n this

ground also, we are of the view that the matter is required

to be heard on priority basis.

15.

The learned counsel for the petitioner though

raised other grounds to attack the orders under challenge,

we are not proposed to consider those grounds urged in

view of our aforesaid finding. We have also noticed that

that order of detention as well as consequential orders were

W.P.NO.100481/2026 23

assailed in this petition in the month of January 2026 and,

due to one or the other reason, the matter could no t be

taken up and the counsel appearing for the petition er

insisted the matter to be taken up for final disposal by the

Vacation Bench on the ground that the writ petition would

render infructuous if the consideration of the petition is

deferred further. Considering the said request and with the

consent of both sides, we heard the writ petition for final

disposal.

16.

For the aforementioned reasons, the orders of

detention, approval and confirmation under challeng e are

contrary to law and require interference, and we are of the

considered view that the impugned orders are passed in

violation of the fundamental rights of the detenue

guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

Hence, we proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The writ petition is allowed.

ii. The impugned order of detention dated

02.06.2025 passed by the respondent

W.P.NO.100481/2026 24

No.1, and the order dated 09.06.2025 and

the confirmation order dated 18.07.2025

passed by respondent No.2 are hereby

quashed.

iii. The respondents are directed to set the

detenue at liberty forthwith, if not required

in any other cases.

iv. Registry is directed to communicate the

operative portion of the order to the

Superintendent of Central Prison, Dharwad,

forthwith for compliance.

v. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

(H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD)

JUDGE

Sd/-

(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)

JUDGE

KMS

CT: ASC