IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

(Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction)

APPELLATE SIDE

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Krishna Rao

W.P.A. No. 27488 of 2026

West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee & Anr.

Vs.

Election Committee of India & Ors.

Mr. Ritzu Ghosal, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Sanjay Banerjee

Mr. Sohaib Rauf

Mr. Ajitesh Pandey

Ms. Sreeparna Das

Mr. Anish Mukherjee

Mr. Tathagata Majumder

Mr. Sayantan Chatterjee

Ms. Ledia Dasgupta

Mr. Shamik Roy

Mr. Abid Ali

Mr. Abhijit Raha

Mr. Manojit Bhattacharyya

Mr. Arka Chakraborty

Mr. Anwar Ali

Ms. Sarbani Mukhopadhyay

Mr. Ranjit Mondal

2

Mr. Sayan Datta

Mr. Asfak Ahammad

Mr. Samirul Sardar

Mr. Manish Ojha

....For the petitioners.

Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Prateek Kumar

Mr. Deepak Sharma

….For the respondent no. 1.

Ms. Sarda Sha

….For the respondent no. 2.

Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sanskriti Agarwal

Ms. Anamika Pandey

Mr. Deep Basak

….For the respondent no. 3.

Mr. Joydip Kar, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Pijush Biswas

Mr. Tamoghna Pramanick

….For the respondent no. 5.

Hearing Concluded On : 25.09.2026

Judgment Delivered On : 29.09.2026

Judgment Uploaded On : 29.09.2026

3

Krishna Rao, J.:

1. The petitioners have filed the present writ petition praying for the

following reliefs:

“a. hold and declare that permitting

Respondent No. 5's candidature to proceed to the

poll without verification of the apparent and facially

impossible discrepancy between her declared age

and her declared year of passing Class X, as

disclosed in her Form 26 affidavit dated

15.09.2026, would constitute a grave and

continuing violation of the fundamental right to

know of the electorate under Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution of India;

b. issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus, or

a writ, order or direction of like nature,

commanding the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to

forthwith examine and verify the apparent and

facially impossible discrepancy between the

declared age and the declared year of passing

Class X contained in the Form 26 affidavit dated

15.09.2026 filed by the Respondent No. 5, as being

a live violation of the fundamental right to know of

the electorate under Article 19(1)(a) of the

Constitution of India;

c. direct the Respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 4 to call

for, examine and verify the relevant

contemporaneous educational records of the

Respondent No. 5, including the admission register,

examination records and mark-sheet/certificate of

Chowkhali Ganga Pada Milan Kanya Vidyapith

(H.S.), relating to her stated completion of Class X

in the year 1965;

d. direct the Respondent Nos. 1 and/or 3 to

examine and determine whether the discrepancy

set out above attracts any consequence under the

Representation of the People Act, 1951, including

but not limited to Section 36 and Section 125A

thereof, or under any applicable instruction of the

Election Commission of India, and to pass a

reasoned and speaking order thereon within a

time-bound period and before the date of poll, after

4

affording an opportunity of hearing to the

Respondent No. 5 and the Petitioner;

e. direct the Respondent authorities to

preserve the nomination paper, the Form 26

affidavit and all connected scrutiny records of the

Respondent No. 5, and to produce the same before

this Hon'ble Court if and when called upon to do so;

pending hearing and final disposal of this writ

petition, direct the Respondent authorities to

preserve, and not to destroy, part with, or alter, all

original records relating to the educational

qualification and the nomination of the Respondent

No. 5.”

2. At the time of hearing, Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that

the petitioners are not challenging the election process. He submits

that the petitioners are only aggrieved with the action of the Returning

Officer who has not acted in terms of Section 36 and Section 125A of

the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and the applicable

instructions of the Election Commission of India without examining

and determining the discrepancy in Form-26 (affidavit) dated 15

th

September, 2026, submitted by the private respondent with regard to

her age and declared year of passing Class 10

th examination.

3. Mr. Ritzu Ghosal, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the petitioners

submits that the private respondent while submitting her nomination

paper before the Returning Officer for Bye-Election to the West Bengal

Legislative Assembly from 210 - Nandigram Assembly Constituency on

15

th

September, 2026, has submitted an Affidavit in FORM 26 wherein

the private respondent has declared her age as “60+ Years” but at

PART-A, page 10, Clause 10, she has declared her educational

5

qualification is - Class X from Chowkhali Ganga Pada Milan Kanya

Vidyapith (H.S.), 1965.

4. Mr. Ghosal submits that in PART-B of the Affidavit at Clause 11, the

private respondent has declared her highest educational qualification is

– Class-X, Chowkhali Ganga Pada Milan Kanya Vidyapith (H.S.), 1965.

By referring the said portions of affidavit, he submits that if the age of

the private respondent is 60 years on the date of filing of her

nomination form then how it is possible that the private respondent

qualified Class-X in the year 1965.

5. Mr. Ghosal submits that as per Sub-Section (2) of Section 36 of the

Representation of People Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as “Act of

1951”), the Returning Officer on his own motion after such summary

inquiry, he thinks necessary, reject any nomination. He submits that in

the face of affidavit in Form-26 submitted by the private respondent, it

is clear that the either date of birth or her educational certificate is not

correct but the Returning Officer without considering false declaration,

accepted the nomination form of the private respondent.

6. Mr. Ghosal submits that it is the duty of the Returning Officer to verify

that the candidate who has submitted nomination form to contest

election has complied with the provisions of Sections 33A and 33B of

the Act of 1951 but in the present case, the Returning Officer failed to

comply with the said provisions.

6

7. Mr. Ghosal submits that the defect appearing in the affidavit submitted

by the private respondent in FORM-26 is of a substantial character but

the respondent no.3 has not considered the same and failed to perform

his constitutional duty assigned to him by allowing the nomination of

the private respondent.

8. Mr. Ghosal submits that when the respondent no. 3 has not performed

his constitutional duty, on 21

st

September, 2026, a detailed

representation was made to the respondent no. 4 with regard to the

defects in the affidavit submitted by the private respondent under

FORM-26 with regard to her affidavit, the respondent no.3 failed to

consider the same till date.

9. Mr. Ghosal in support of his submissions, has relied upon the

judgement in the case of Ritzu Ghosal Vs. West Bengal State

Election Commission and Others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Cal

1747 and submits that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held

that any illegality, whether palpable or otherwise, on the part of the

State Election Commission, can be interfered by the Court sitting in its

Constitutional writ Jurisdiction or in an appeal therefrom especially

when such illegality manifests itself in an action which is arbitrary or

wrongful or is mala fide in nature.

10. Mr. Ghosal has relied upon the judgment in the case of Adhir Ranjan

Chowdhury Vs. West Bengal State Election Commission and

7

Others reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Cal 2135 and submits that the

Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court held that if there is an error

committed in the course of the election process, the Election

Commission had the authority to set it right by virtue of the power

vested in it under Article 324 of the Constitution and to see that the

election process was completed in a fair manner.

11. Mr. Ghosal has relied upon the judgment in the case of Kisan

Shankar Kathore Vs. Arun Dattatray Sawant and Others reported

in (2014) 14 SCC 162 and submits that the grounds stated in Section

36(2) are those which can be examined there and then and on that

basis the Returning Officer would be in a position to reject the

nomination.

12. Mr. Ghosal has relied upon the judgment in the case of Resurgence

India Vs. Election Commission of India and Another reported in

(2014) 14 SCC 189 and submits that the ultimate purpose of filing of

affidavit along with nomination paper is to effectuate the fundamental

right of the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India.

The Citizens are supposed to have the necessary information at the

time of filing of nomination paper and for that purpose, the Returning

Officer can very well compel a candidate to furnish the relevant

information.

8

13. Mr. Ghosal has relied upon the judgment in the case of Mairembam

Prithviraj Vs. Pukhrem Sharatchandra Singh reported in (2017) 2

SCC 487 and submits that providing incomplete information or

suppression of material information is to be treated as defect of

substantial character.

14. Mr. Dama Seshadri Naidu, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the

respondent no.1/ Election Commission of India submits that date of

Scrutiny of nominations was fixed on 17

th

September, 2026 and the

last date for the withdrawal of the candidatures was fixed on 19

th

September, 2026. The respondent no.5 has submitted her nomination

form on 15

th

September, 2026. No one has raised any objection to the

nomination submitted by the respondent no. 5. Only on 21

st

September, 2026, a complaint was submitted by one Subrata

Mahapatra but by the time scrutiny of nominations was completed and

nominate documents of the private respondent was accepted.

15. Mr. Naidu submits that the objection raised by the petitioners in the

present writ petition is covered under Section 100(1)(d)(i) of the

Representation of People Act, 1951, thus the writ petition is not

maintainable. He submits that in the Affidavit, the respondent no.5 has

declared that her age is 60+ years and she passed Class X in the year

1965 which cannot be said to be substantial character.

16. Mr. Naidu has relied upon the judgment in the case of Mairembam

Prithviraj (supra) and submits that mere finding that there has been

9

an improper acceptance of the nomination is not sufficient for a

declaration that the election is void under Section 100(1)(d). There has

to be further pleading and proof that the result of the election of the

returned candidate was materially affected.

17. Mr. Naidu further relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in the

case of Arindam Ghosh Vs. Union of India & Others reported in

2026 SCC OnLine Cal 5889 wherein this Court held that if any order

is passed on the allegation of acceptance of defective affidavit, the same

would amount to interfere with the election process.

18. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the

respondent no. 3/ the Chief Electoral Officer submits that the writ

petition is not coming under the provision of Section 36(1) of the

Representation of People Act, 1951. He submits that the writ petitioner

no.1 is the West Bengal Pradesh Congress Committee, State wing of the

Indian National Congress and the petitioner no.2 is one Mita

Chakravarty. There is no documents submitted by the petitioners that

the petitioner no.2 was the election agent or the proposer or duly

authorized person of the contesting candidate attended the office of the

Returning Officer and examined the nomination papers of the

respondent no.5 or raised any objection before the Returning Officer on

or before 17

th

September, 2026.

10

19. Mr. Chowdhury submits that the petitioners have disclosed a

representation dated 21

st September, 2026 of one Subrata Mahapatra

addressed to the Returning Officer after the scrutiny of the nomination

was completed and the said person is not the writ petitioner before this

Court. Mr. Chowdhury has relied upon the Hand Book for Returning

Officer 2023 and relied upon Clause 6.9.1 and submits that as per the

said clause, nomination paper cannot be rejected which is not

substantial character and any mistake or error of a technical of clerical

nature should be ignored by the Returning Officer.

20. Mr. Chowdhury further relied upon Clause 6.10.1 (iv) and submits that

as per the said clause, the Returning Officer must reject the

nomination papers if prescribed affidavit is not filed by the candidate

but if the prescribed affidavit is filed and alleged or found to be

containing false information, the nomination should not be rejected on

this ground.

21. Mr. Chowdhury submits that mere on the allegation that the

respondent no. 5 has submitted affidavit by disclosing her age as 60+

years and Class-X certificate of 1965, cannot disqualify the respondent

no. 5 to be member of the Legislative Assembly under Section 5 of the

Act of the 1951. He further referred Article 191 of the Constitution of

India and submits that the allegation of the petitioner against the

respondent no.5 is not coming any of the ground of disqualification of

the membership.

11

22. Mr. Chowdhury has relied upon the judgment in the case of Election

Commission of India Vs. Ashok Kumar and Others reported in

(2000) 8 SCC 216 and submits that the petitioners have challenged

the nomination papers submitted by the petitioners but the Returning

Officer already accepted the nomination of the respondent no.5 and

election process has also started and if at this stage, if this Court pass

any order in connection with the nomination of the respondent no.5,

the same would amount to interrupting the election process.

23. Mr. Joydip Kar, Learned Senior Advocate, representing the respondent

no.5 submits that there was no objection at the time of scrutiny of the

nomination papers of the respondent no. 5. He submits that the

petitioners have disclosed one complaint in the writ petition dated 21

st

September, 2026, regarding objection against the affidavit of the

respondent no.5 but by that time scrutiny was completed and

nomination papers of the respondent no. 5 was accepted.

24. Mr. Kar referred Section 100 (1)(d)(i) of the Act of 1951 and submits

that the grounds on which the petitioners have filed the present writ

petition is the ground for the election petition. He further submits that

as per Clause (b) of Article 329 of the Constitution of India, no election

to either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the

Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election

petition.

12

25. Mr. Kar submits that the declaration submitted by the respondent no.5

in the affidavit in FORM-26 is of substantial character or not, is the

matter of evidence and the same cannot be decided in the writ

jurisdiction. Mr. Kar has relied upon the judgement in the case of

Meenakshi Nataranjan Vs. Election Commission of India and

Another passed in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No(s). 766 of 2026 dated

12

th

June, 2026 and submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not

entertained the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India in

view of the expressed bar contained in Article 329(b) of the Constitution

of India.

26. The private respondent has submitted her nomination paper along with

an affidavit under FORM-26 before the Returning Officer on 15

th

September, 2026. In the affidavit at Part–A, she has declared her age as

60+ years. In Clause 10 of Part-A of the Affidavit, the private

respondent has stated as follows:

“(10) My educational qualification is as

under:

Class-X, Chowkhali ganga pada milan Kanya

Vidyapith (H.S.), 1965 (Give details of highest

School/ University education mentioning the full

form of the certificate/ diploma/ degree course,

name of the School/College/University and the

year in which the course was completed).”

27. In Part-B of the affidavit in Clause-11, the private respondent no.5

stated that:

13

“11. Highest education qualification:

Class –X, Chowkhali Ganga Padma Milan

Kanya Vidyapith (H.S.), 1965 (Give details of

highest School/ University education mentioning

the full form of the certificate/ diploma/ degree

course, name of the School/ College/ University

and the year in which the course was completed.)”

The case of the petitioners is that if the age of the petitioner no. 2

as on the date execution of affidavit is 60+ years how the petitioner no.

2 has passed Class-X examination in the year 1965. Either the

declaration of age or the year of qualification of the petitioner no. 2 is

not correct.

28. Section 36 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 reads as follows:

“36. Scrutiny of nominations.— (1) On the

date fixed for the scrutiny of nominations under

section 30, the candidates, their election agents,

one proposer [***] of each candidate, and one other

person duly authorised in writing by each

candidate, but no other person, may attend at such

time and place as the returning officer may appoint;

and the returning officer shall give them all

reasonable facilities for examining the nomination

papers of all candidates which have been delivered

within the time and in the manner laid down in

section 33.

(2) The returning officer shall then examine the

nomination papers and shall decide all objections

which may be made to any nomination and may,

either on such objection or on his own motion, after

such summary inquiry, if any, as he thinks

necessary, [reject] any nomination on any of the

following grounds:—

[(a) [that on the date fixed for the scrutiny

of nominations the candidate] either is not

qualified or is disqualified for being chosen to

fill the seat under any of the following

provisions that may be applicable, namely:—

14

Articles 84, 102, 173 and 191, [***]

[Part II of this Act and sections 4 and 14

of the Government of Union Territories Act,

1963 (20 of 1963)] [***]; or

(b) that there has been a failure to comply

with any of the provisions of section 33 or

section 34; or

(c) that the signature of the candidate or

the proposer on the nomination paper is not

genuine.]

(3) Nothing contained in [clause (b) or clause

(c)] of sub-section (2) shall be deemed to authorise

the [rejection] of the nomination of any candidate

on the ground of any irregularity in respect of a

nomination paper, if the candidate has “been duly

nominated by means of another nomination paper

in respect of which no irregularity has been

committed.

(4) The returning officer shall not reject any

nomination paper on the ground of any [***] defect

which is not of a substantial character.

(5) The returning officer shall hold the scrutiny

on the date appointed in this behalf under clause

(b) of section 30 and shall not allow any

adjournment of the proceedings except when such

proceedings are interrupted or obstructed by riot or

open violence or by causes beyond his control:

Provided that in case [an objection is raised by

the returning officer or is made by any other

person] the candidate concerned may be allowed

time to rebut it not later than the next day but one

following the date fixed for scrutiny, and the

returning officer shall record his decision on the

date to which the proceedings have been

adjourned.

(6) The returning officer shall endorse on each

nomination paper his decision accepting or rejecting

the same and, if the nomination paper is rejected,

shall record in writing a brief statement of his

reasons for such rejection.

15

[(7) For the purposes of this section, a certified

copy of an entry in the electoral roll for the time

being in force of a constituency shall be conclusive

evidence of the fact that the person referred to in

that entry is an elector for that constituency, unless

it is proved that he is subject to a disqualification

mentioned in section 16 of the Representation of

the People Act, 1950 (43 of 1950).]

[(8) Immediately after all the nomination

papers have been scrutinised and decisions

accepting or rejecting the same have been recorded,

the returning officer shall prepare a list of validly

nominated candidates, that is to say, candidates

whose nominations have been found valid, and

affix it to his notice board.]”

29. Admittedly on the date of scrutiny of the nomination papers of the

respondent no. 5, the petitioners have not filed any objection. The

contention of the petitioners is that as per Section 36(2), the Returning

Officer has the power to reject the nomination papers but in the present

case, the Returning Officer has not invoked his power though the

affidavit filed by the respondent no.5 is having defect of substantial

character.

30. The Election Commission of India has fixed Schedule for Bye-Election

which are as follows:

SCHEDULE FOR BYE-ELECTION

Poll Events Schedule

Date of Issue of Gazette Notification 09.09.2026

(Wednesday)

Last date of making nominations 16.09.2026

(Wednesday)

Date for the scrutiny of nominations 17.09.2026

(Thursday)

16

The last date for the Withdrawal of

candidatures

19.09.2026

(Saturday)

Date of Poll 06.10.2026

(Tuesday)

Date of Counting Votes 09.10.2026

(Friday)

Date before which election shall be

completed

11.10.2026

(Sunday)

As per Schedule fixed by the Election Commission of India, the

Scrutiny of nomination papers were completed on 17

th

September,

2026 and nomination papers of the respondent no.5 is accepted. In the

case of Ashok Kumar & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held

that:

“32. For convenience sake we would now

generally sum up our conclusions by partly

restating what the two Constitution Benches have

already said and then adding by clarifying what

follows therefrom in view of the analysis made by

us hereinabove:

(1) If an election, (the term election being

widely interpreted so as to include all steps

and entire proceedings commencing from the

date of notification of election till the date of

declaration of result) is to be called in question

and which questioning may have the effect of

interrupting, obstructing or protracting the

election proceedings in any manner, the

invoking of judicial remedy has to be

postponed till after the completing of

proceedings in elections.

(2) Any decision sought and rendered will

not amount to “calling in question an election”

if it subserves the progress of the election and

facilitates the completion of the election.

Anything done towards completing or in

17

furtherance of the election proceedings cannot

be described as questioning the election.

(3) Subject to the above, the action taken

or orders issued by Election Commission are

open to judicial review on the well-settled

parameters which enable judicial review of

decisions of statutory bodies such as on a

case of mala fide or arbitrary exercise of

power being made out or the statutory body

being shown to have acted in breach of law.

(4) Without interrupting, obstructing or

delaying the progress of the election

proceedings, judicial intervention is available

if assistance of the court has been sought for

merely to correct or smoothen the progress of

the election proceedings, to remove the

obstacles therein, or to preserve a vital piece of

evidence if the same would be lost or

destroyed or rendered irretrievable by the time

the results are declared and stage is set for

invoking the jurisdiction of the court.

(5) The court must be very circumspect

and act with caution while entertaining any

election dispute though not hit by the bar of

Article 329(b) but brought to it during the

pendency of election proceedings. The court

must guard against any attempt at retarding,

interrupting, protracting or stalling of the

election proceedings. Care has to be taken to

see that there is no attempt to utilise the

court's indulgence by filing a petition

outwardly innocuous but essentially a

subterfuge or pretext for achieving an ulterior

or hidden end. Needless to say that in the

very nature of the things the court would act

with reluctance and shall not act, except on a

clear and strong case for its intervention

having been made out by raising the pleas

with particulars and precision and supporting

the same by necessary material.”

31. Article 329 (b) of the Constitution of India provides that no election to

either House of Parliament or to the House or either House of the

18

Legislature of a State shall be called in question except by an election

petition presented to such authority and in such manner as may be

provided for by or under any law made by the appropriate Legislature.

32. The defects in the affidavit submitted by the respondent no.5 are

substantial character or not are the matter of evidence. Section 100 of

the Act of 1951 provides as follows:

“100. Grounds for declaring election to be

void.— [(1) Subject to the provisions of sub-section

(2) if [the High court] is of opinion—

(a) that on the date of his election a returned

candidate was not qualified, or was

disqualified, to be chosen to fill the seat

under the Constitution or this Act [***] [or

the Government of Union Territories Act,

1963 (20 of 1963)]; or

(b) that any corrupt practice has been

committed by a returned candidate or his

election agent or by any other person with

the consent of a returned candidate or his

election agent; or

(c) that any nomination has been improperly

rejected; or

(d) that the result of the election, in so far as it

concerns a returned candidate, has been

materially affected—

(i) by the improper acceptance or any

nomination, or

(ii) by any corrupt practice committed in the

interests of the returned candidate 6 [by an

agent other than his election agent], or

(iii) by the improper reception, refusal or

rejection of any vote or the reception of any

vote which is void, or

19

(iv) by any non-compliance with the

provisions of the Constitution or of this Act

or of any rules or orders made under this

Act,

[the High Court] shall declare the election of

the returned candidate to be void.]

[(2)] If in the opinion of [the High Court], a

returned candidate has been guilty by an agent,

other than his election agent, of any corrupt

practice [***] but [the High Court] is satisfied—

(a) that no such corrupt practice was

committed at the election by the candidate or

his election agent, and every such corrupt

practice was committed contrary to the orders,

and [without the consent], of the candidate or

his election agent;

[***]

(c) that the candidate and his election agent

took all reasonable means for preventing the

commission of corrupt [***] practices at the

election; and

(d) that in all other respects the election was

free from any corrupt [***] practice on the part

of the candidate or any of his agents, then [the

High Court] may decide that the election of the

returned candidate is not void.”

As per Sub- Section 1(d)(i) of Section 100 of the Act of 1951, if

any, nomination is improper accepted, the election can be declared to

be void.

33. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Meenakshi

Natarajan (supra) by considering the case N.P. Ponnuswamy Vs.

Returning Officer, Namakkal Constituency and Others reported in

(1952) 1 SCC 94 held that :

20

“10. As we have seen the most important

question for determination is the meaning to be

given to the word “election” in Article 329(b). That

word has by long usage in connection with the

process of selection of proper representatives in

democratic institutions, acquired both a wide and a

narrow meaning. In the narrow sense, it is used to

mean the final selection of a candidate which may

embrace the result of the poll when there is polling

or a particular candidate being returned unopposed

when there is no poll. In the wide sense, the word

is used to connote the entire process culminating in

a candidate being declared elected.”

34. Though the petitioner No. 2 has made several prayers in the present

writ petition but the petitioner No. 2 has restricted her prayer only to

the effect that the Returning Officer has not invoked his power by

rejecting the nomination papers of the respondent no.5 of his own after

verification of the affidavit submitted by the respondent no.5 wherein

the respondent no.5 is alleged to has disclosed her age or education

qualification wrongly or incorrect.

35. The petitioner No. 2 has not prayed for any relief with regard to the

election process but if at this stage, this Court will decide the issue

raised by the petitioner No. 2 with regard to the nomination papers of

the respondent no. 5, the same will directly affects the present election

process.

36. In view of the above, the writ petition being WPA No. 27488 of 2026 is

dismissed. However, dismissal of writ petition will not prevent the

petitioners to agitate the issue in an election petition at an appropriate

stage.

21

Parties shall be entitled to act on the basis of a server copy of the

Judgment placed on the official website of the Court.

Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for,

be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.

(Krishna Rao, J.)