V. Narayanasamy, The Chief Minister of Puducherry Government of Puducherry Puducherry …… Petitioner/Appellant

IN THE HIGH COURT OFJUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)

C.M.P No. of 2020
in
W.A. No. of 2020

V. Narayanasamy,
The Chief Minister of Puducherry
Government of Puducherry
Puducherry …… Petitioner/Appellant
-Vs-

  1. The Union of India
    Represented by the Secretary to Government
    Ministry of Home Affairs
    New Delhi
  2. The Advisor (UT)
    Ministry of Home Affairs
    New Delhi
  3. The Administrator of Puducherry
    Puducherry
  4. The Assembly Secretary
    Puducherry Legislative Assembly
    Puducherry … Respondents/Respondents

AFFIDAVIT

 I, V. Narayanasamy, Son of Velu, aged about 72 years and residing at No.5, Ellaiamman Koil Street, Puducherry, now temporarily come down to Chennai, do hereby solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:
  1. I am the petitioner/Appellant herein and as such, I am well acquainted with the facts of this case. I am serving as the Chief Minister of Puducherry.
  2. I am filing this Writ Appeal aggrieved by the Order of the Learned Judge dated 21.02.2020 thereby dismissing the writ petition in W.P No. 821 of 2020 filed by me challenging the action of the 3rd respondent in differing with the aid and advice of the Council of Ministers by the Resolution No.2018/M.38/279 dated 07.06.2019 and referring the same to the first respondents vide the file notings bearing Ref.235/LGS/2019 dated 05.09.2019 and the consequential decision of the first Respondent advising the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry to continue with the DBT (Cash) Scheme in lieu of distribution of free rice under the Puducherry Free Rice Scheme through the order of the second Respondent dated /12/2019 bearing Ref.Nil as illegal and ultravires and consequently sought for direction to continue the policy of the Government of Puducherry as per the Puducherry Free supply of Rice, Edible oil and other essential food grains every month to all Ration Card holders, Rules, 2016 in kind.
  3. I state that originally, the Government of India in order to ensure food for the poor framed a scheme, namely, Antyodaya Anna Yojana in the year 2000 whereby it was mandated that a total number of about 1 crore families among the Below Poverty Line (BPL) families will be extended the benefit of food grains, i.e. Wheat and Rice, totaling to 25 Kgs. Per family per month at the subsidized price of Rs. 2.00 per Kg. for Wheat and Rs. 3.00 per Kg. for Rice and the Government of India will allocate the necessary food grains to the concerned State / Union Territory. For the purposes of implementation of the said scheme, it was directed that for such of the beneficiaries under the said Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) Scheme, a separate Ration Card with the endorsement AAY will be given. The Government of India has also been issuing periodical directions and operational guidelines for enumerating families under the said scheme whereby criteria, such as, landless agricultural labourers, marginal farmers, rural artisans, craftsmen, such as Weavers, Blacksmiths, slum dwellers, carpenters and persons earning their livelihood on daily basis in the informal sector like Porters, Coolies, Rickshaw Pullers, Handcraft polishers, Fruit and Flower sellers, Snake charmers, Rag pickers, Cobblers, Destitutes, Widows, Terminally ill persons, etc. However, when criteria are evolved in Delhi for the entire country when it was sought to be implemented, there was huge challenges on ground. Several deserving poor who were living in portions in urban areas in the first floor and the second floor for rents and several other categories of deserving households were left out. Besides, it was also felt that the people needed more food security.
  4. In this context, the National Food Security Act, 2013 was enacted by the Government of India which came into force on 10.09.2013 whereby persons belonging to priority households became entitled to receive a minimum of 5 Kgs. of food grains at subsidized prices from the State Government under the targeted Public Distribution System. Under Section 10 of the above said Act, the State Governments were given the authority to frame guidelines to include such remaining households apart from Antyodaya Anna Yojana households as Priority Households.
  5. At the same time, in the year 2013, the Government of Puducherry took a decision to distribute free rice of 10 Kgs. to all Ration Card holders of Puducherry and Karaikal Regions and implemented with effect from the month of November, 2013. Thereafter, with effect from September, 2015, the said Scheme was extended to the Mahe and Yanam Regions. The Government of Puducherry framed rules known as “Rules for the Scheme of Free supply of 10 Kgs. of Rice and 5 Kgs. of Wheat every month to all Ration Card holders in the Union Territory of Puducherry, Rules, 2015” vide G.O.Ms.No. 1/2015 – Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs / 1159 dated 27.05.2015 which was published in the Gazette of Puducherry on 28.05.2015.
  6. I sincerely state that by our election manifesto for the Assembly Election in the year 2016 to the 14th Puducherry Legislative Assembly, we had promised to the people to continue the 20 Kgs. free rice to all Ration Card holders and people elected us to power and it has been our sincere endeavour to implement the said scheme without any blemish whatsoever so that food grains reach every household of Puducherry who are in need through the Public Distribution System, so that the deadliest evil in the Society, that is, ‘Hunger’ is wiped off and the majority of the families do not get caught in the dangerous quagmire of ‘malnutrition’. On ground, we felt that irrespective of the caste, greed, locality or avocation, majority of the people are in need of such food grains and the same helps every household more specifically the womenfolk who are the back bone of the household in feeding the children, aged persons and every one in their home.
  7. I respectfully submit that immediately after coming to power, in the very first cabinet meeting held on 06/06/2016, the Cabinet decided not only to continue the supply of rice in kind, but also to enhance it from 10 kgs to 20 kgs. Pursuant thereto, with effect from August, 2016, the distribution of free rice to all Ration Card holders was enhanced to 20 Kgs. with effect from August, 2016. It is pertinent to state here that the funds for the implementation of the scheme is by the Government of Union Territory of Puducherry and not by the Government of India.
  8. I sincerely state that the Welfare scheme of supplying food grains have yielded good results and economists across the globe have undertaken several studies and they strongly recommend and appreciate the said social welfare schemes. The states such as, my Union Territory of Puducherry, Tamil Nadu, Kerala etc., which have implemented such schemes, have shown tremendous growth rates in many parameters touching human index and the society as a whole is benefited of the scheme.
  9. As far as Puducherry is concerned, there is an NGO, “Puducherry Food Security Movement” consisting of various women’s organizations and self help groups, which had worked closely on ground with the beneficiaries and have clearly found that more than 85% of the beneficiaries preferred rice in kind while only 2% were in favour of Cash Transfer.
  10. I sincerely state that even while we were implementing the above scheme of supplying of food grains in kind, the Government of India framed the Cash Transfer of Food Subsidy Rules, 2015 in which under Rule 3 discretion was granted to the concerned state governments to either to credit cash or supply as food grains. Therefore, I wrote to the Minster of Civil Supplies & Consumer Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi, by my communication dated 16/02/2018 seeking approval for continuation of supply of food grains in kind. By his Demi Official letter dated 19/04/2018, the Hon’ble Minister for Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, permitted us to continue with supply in kind subject to the conditions such as ensuring availability of food grains, uploading of information on the portal etc..
  11. I sincerely state that while so, the present incumbent who is functioning as an Administrator does not believe in social welfare schemes and as an ideology that she only is right at all times. Therefore, by all methods, she has been putting one spoke after the other in the free rice scheme so as to somehow cripple and destroy the scheme :

• In the month of January, 2018, in the guise of granting financial approval, she arbitrarily interfered in the supply and food security which is the executive function of the elected government of the day and without any jurisdiction or manner of power, in the month of January, 2018, the 3rd Respondent ordered reduction of distribution of free rice from 20 Kgs. to 10 Kgs. for the APL card holders.
• Similarly, on her own, she gave a directive that in respect of APL card holders, only the direct benefit transfer (DBT) as Cash to be done.

  1. In view of such authoritarian acts of the 3rd Respondent, my Government took up the issue of continuation of our police and the matter was placed before the Cabinet for deliberations in its meeting on 07/06/2019. The Cabinet deliberated all the relevant factors, the pros and cons of distribution of free rice as kind and the direct benefit transfer by way of cash, considered the feedbacks and reports from the ground fact that even though it is said that direct benefit transfer eliminates pilferages and gives a choice to people on the ground the majority of womenfolk had complained that:

(a) it is the male folk, who have the ATM card of this account and immediately after money is credited, they withdraw the Cash, in a majority of the cases, it ends up only in arrack shops and bars;

(b) This apart, now, the obsession and addition to smart phone, especially movies and videos, among the youngsters and they also snatch the money to recharge their cell phones and ultimately, the women are left with no money to purchase the good grains which is the basic idea for the Government;

(c) On the ground situation in Puducherry is that there is also huge pilferage as these folks are dependent on the Agents / some other persons for access to ATMs and withdrawing the money and almost 30 -40% is being swindled by these busybodies and as a matter of fact, the pilferage is very high;

(d) any questioning leads to Domestic Violence as the money is free from the government and therefore she did not have the authority to question such spending and often womenfolk are subjected to physical violence and torture;

(e) a detailed study made among the members of the self-help group carried the on-ground actual empirical data that a vast majority of the people want rice only in kind;

(f) Again in terms of price, in terms of weighment they will be completely in the hands of the merchants and there again there is loss to the public and also a great amount of pilferage percolates;

(g) if is transferred as Cash, after shelling out the subsidy, the Government will again face the problem of malnutrition and hunger;

(h) the percentage of otherwise comfortable families giving up the benefit is more if they had to come to the Ration Shop and avail the food grains, while they tend to take if its credited to their account as money;

(i) As a matter of fact, the Government of India itself while framing the Cash Transfer Rules, had sought for feedback about the effectiveness in a period of 6 months;

(j) Our Government has been receiving periodical representations from NGOs and organizations to supply rice only in kind;

(k) Given the socio-economic-cultural scenario of the Union Territory of Puducherry, the cash transfer, sometimes nick named as “THE LAZY SHORT CUT”, cannot be risked in the key area of dealing with ‘hunger’ and ‘malnutrition’, and the government wanted to roll its sleeves and work;

(l) The majority of the womenfolk clearly gave us the elected representatives, the feedback that they want rice only in kind and the money is of no help for them.

(m) As a matter of fact, the Puducherry Legislative Assembly also considered the issue and passed a resolution to supply rice only in kind.

Considering all these my Cabinet by the Resolution No.2018/M.38/279 dated 07.06.2019 decided to continue the distribution of free rice ‘in kind’ only under the free rice scheme rather than transfer equal amount of cash in the Bank account of the beneficiary is concerned.

  1. However, by notings in the file dated 05.09.2019, the 3rd Respondent differed with the views of the Cabinet and the Council of Ministers and referred the matter to the 1st Respondent under the proviso to Section 44 of the Government of Union Territory’s Act, 1963 read with the Rules of Business of the Government of Puducherry, 1963. Not stopping with that, the 3rd Respondent also passed an interim order that the rice will not be supplied in kind but the benefit will only be by DBT (Cash) mode pending the decision of the Government of India. Accordingly, cash is being credited to the beneficiaries account. However, now the first Respondent has passed an order answering the reference by issuing an advisory to the Union Territory of Puducherry to continue with the DBT (Cash) Scheme in lieu of distribution of free rice under the Puducherry State Free Rice Scheme, communicated by order of the second Respondent dated /12/2019 which was received in the Chief Secretariat of the Government of Puducherry on 19.12.2019.
  2. I respectfully submit that the entire exercise of disagreement and the answer by the first respondent is not only against the policy of the Government of India but is illegal as it strictly violates the Targeted Public Distribution System (Control) Order, 2015 framed in exercise of the powers under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. Under the said rules, the definition of “State” includes “Union Territory” and “State Government” includes “Union Territory Administration”. As per the said rules, the identification of the eligible households is left to the State Government and Ration Cards are mandated to all the eligible households. As per Order -5, it is mandatory on the part of the Central Government to make available Food Grains from the Central Pool for distribution. Similarly, Order -6 mandates the Food Corporation of India to ensure physical delivery of food grains at the designated depots. The Order -7 makes is mandatory for the State Governments to lift the food grains. It is the duty of the State Government to device suitable mechanism to transport and ensure the door step delivery of food grains. Order -8, again mandates the distribution of food grains. A reading of the entire rules of the Government of India clearly mandates the distribution of food grains and as a matter of fact, Order -13 of the said rules clearly mentions that any contravention of the provisions of the order would amount to an offence U/s 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. Thus, the action of the Respondents 1 to 3 is not only illegal but amounting to an offence under the Essential Commodities Act.
  3. I submit that an average Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) family, Below Poverty Line (BPL) family and the Above Poverty Line (APL) Family are being supplied with Rice and Wheat and other food grains throughout the country either free of cost or at the subsidized rates as per the scheme and a huge network ensuring food safety in the form of procurement, distribution and transporting mechanism is already in place throughout the country and suddenly for the egoistic whim of the Third Respondent, the same is sought to be changed in respect of the Union Territory of Puducherry alone. Absolutely, this is in the realm of day-to-day administration. It is not the policy of the Union Territory administration or that of the Government of India to deposit cash. Physical delivery of food grains at the door steps through targeted Public Distribution System is the policy. The Third Respondent by her reference is driving the people towards hunger only on account of her own extreme individual opinion sans any factual data and under these circumstances; the entire action of the Respondents 1 to 3 is illegal.
  4. I sincerely state that there are innumerable villages where there are no shops, but only ration shops for purchase of food grains. Percolation of the targeted public distribution system is until the last man and there is a huge system in place for this purpose. The supply of food grains is essential and is one of the most important sovereign functions of both the Government of India and all the states and union territories.
  5. Therefore, myself as the Chief Minister and the Head of the elected Government of Puducherry and that of the elected Government of Puducherry is directly affected by the reference made by the 3rd Respondent and the answering of the reference by the 1st and 2nd Respondents. In the said circumstances, I approached this Hon’ble Court by way of the above writ petition in W.P No. 821 of 2020 challenging the reference made by the 3rd Respondent and the answering of the reference by the 1st and 2nd Respondents.
  6. I sincerely state that the preliminary objection raised in the above Writ Petition by the respondents is that I cannot be personally aggrieved by the impugned communication and that the writ petition is not maintainable in view of Section 55 of the Government of Union Territory’s Act, 1963. The same was countered that the above Writ Petition is for the judicial review of an inter-se dispute between the various functionaries of the Union Territory’s Administration, i.e. to say between the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers being the elected Government on the one hand, the difference of opinion on the Administrator and the answering of the reference by the Home Ministry on behalf of the President on the other. Therefore, Section 55 is totally not applicable to the case on hand.
  7. I sincerely state that the 1st and 2nd Respondents have gone by the information furnished by the 3rd Respondent that she has received repeated complaints regarding bad quality of rice being distributed and as if the report of the concurrent evaluation carried out by M/s. M.S.Swaminathan Research Foundation has revealed that more than 90 % of the priority household and Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) Scheme, beneficiaries express satisfaction regarding DBT mode. However, the reading of M/s. M. S. Swaminathan Research Foundation report runs contrary to same. As per the said report, the majority of the house-hold expressed preference for food grains rather than cash because, the cash is inadequate for them to purchase from the open market. This apart, even the finding regarding the 4/5th house hold the finding is very clear and categorical that the people did not have an objection of the Central Government Scheme that is to say, Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) Scheme, alone being deposited as Cash but they wanted food grains only as far as the Union Territory Scheme is concerned. Hence the impugned decision based on the report is without application of mind and hence illegal.
  8. I sincerely state that If only the quality of rice, pilferages or any other malpractice which is the primary concern of the 3rd Respondent, then the solution is not imposing on policy of cash transfer as stated above. It is pertinent to state here that the scheme of supply of free rice is in vogue in Puducherry from the year 2013. The Scheme is well augmented and proper system is in place for procurement, distribution and quality checks and to look into the complaints and has been effectively and efficiently implemented in the Union Territory of Puducherry for the past 6 years. People are very much depending on the said rice and in fact, the neighbouring Taluks and Districts of the abutting states of Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh people envy the quality of rice is supplied in Puducherry and often borrow sample and take it to show it to their authorities. The majority of the households consume the good quality rice supplied by the Government of Puducherry and as a result, the food security is ensured in the entire Union Territory in a great manner.
  9. I sincerely state that my Government is very much ready and willing to lift the entire stock of Rice from the Food Corporation of India alone and distribute to the general public of the Union Territory of Puducherry. Our concern is relating to hunger and poverty and our Government is committed to the policy of supply of food grains in kind to every public throughout the Union Territory of Puducherry to ensure there is 0 % hunger, there is no malnutrition among the general public especially, the old and vulnerable, the Women and Children. The distribution of food grains is a time tested policy of Independent India and the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India had for long taken up a public interest litigation and has issued a series of directions to ensure food security throughout the country and hundreds of research papers and reports have been submitted to enhance the public distribution systems. The 3rd Respondent who is an urban elite, who has no connection with the grass roots having served as a police officer of higher cadre and cannot understand even a semi urbanized union territory like, Puducherry can have rural pockets of Sq.Kms. without any Rice shop and what are all the malpractices that the retail vendors practice while delivery and weighing rice to the poor in the ordinary shops. Without any understanding suddenly she has issued the direction to deposit as cash. Further, no risk whatsoever can be taken or tested in the matter of hunger elimination and malnutrition and the view of the elected representative, i.e. myself, the Chief Minister and my colleagues, the Cabinet have to be implemented as the voice of people. This is an ir-reversible area and nobody can retrospectively lift the hunger or malnutrition. It is highly regrettable that the Government of India has not spelt out its actual policy which is only distribution of Food grains. As a matter of fact, on account of the large scale procurement, the distribution as Food Grains costs lower than distribution as Cash.
  10. I sincerely state that from the reading of the Central Government cash transfer of Food Subsidiary Rules, 2015, it is clear from Rule 3 (2) of the Rule itself that the scheme shall be implemented only in the identified areas and it is made clear by the rules itself that the prevailing system of distribution of food grains through targeted public distribution system shall continue in remaining areas. Therefore, prior to the implementation of such a policy, first area has to be identified and it has to be done by the State Government as per Rule No.4. Therefore, the invocation of the said rules is totally incorrect just because she has unauthorisedly directed deposit of cash now in the hindsight, the 3rd Respondent is trying to fall back upon some rule so as to justify her illegality.
  11. I sincerely state that Puducherry Food Security Rules, 2017 is relating to the Central Government Scheme alone and has got nothing to do with the scheme formulated by the Union Territory Administration. This apart, reviewing the said subordinate legislation only, the Cabinet clearly decided to supply food grains in kind only.
  12. I sincerely state that merely because the resolutions of the cabinet are sent to the 3rd Respondent, it does not mean that it is for her approval or concurrence but for information. Taking it as her individual power and proclaiming as if she is a superior authority over the elected government, the 3rd Respondent has been approaching the files with that erroneous belief that she is an ultimate decision making authority in the matters of issue of Government Orders after the Cabinet decision and also for making necessary financial arrangements for day to day functioning which is not so. As a matter of fact, immediately after the communication of the decision of the Council of Ministers, the concerned Department is duty bound to implement it and the decisions are communicated only to keep the 3rd Respondent appraised of the decision and also to enable her to differ to the Government of India in the rarest of rate case. The scope of reference in the context of democracy being the basic structure of the Constitution of India is totally not available in the field of a different policy.
  13. I sincerely state that the further allegations of the respondent is that other welfare schemes, cash is being transferred is in no way relevant and the Chief Minister and the Cabinet of state is entitled to consider the aspects of supply of food grains and have every right to decide the policy for the Union Territory to supply the food grains in kind only. As a matter of fact, the same is a policy of every other State Government throughout the country. It is the policy which is being pursued by the Government of India also. The Direct Benefit Transfer was introduced on test basis on certain conditions that is to say that firstly, the area has to be identified which would be suitable for cash transfer considering the nature of the people, their literacy, availability of ATMs, etc., and only if any particular area is identified only for that area on the recommendation of the State Government cash benefit transfer can be effected. No area in Puducherry is suitable in this regard. Just by a stroke of a pen, the 3rd Respondent has simply passed an interim order to deposit cash throughout the Union Territory. The people have correctly given their views in all the survey reports available which would bring the correct factual position. I must respectfully submit before this Hon’ble Court that this issue cannot be left for the individual whim of the 3rd Respondent and the democratic decision has to be accepted.
  14. It is respectfully submitted that merely because the word Administrator is mentioned in the NFSA Act, the 3rd Respondent erroneously thinks that it is her personal power. As the unitary head, whenever the Union Territory is referred, it is referred only as Administrator as there are different types of Union Territories. However, as far as the Union Territory of Puducherry is concerned, it would be clear that on a reading of Article Nos. 239, 239 (A), 240, r/w Section 18 and 44 of the Government of Union Territories Act that these executive functions have to be carried on the aid and advice of the Chief Minister and the Council of Ministers. Further, the framing of policy as to whether there should be any income criteria or not, the number of households to be covered and the manner in which the food grains are to be delivered are all matters of day to day administration, which is to be decided by the concerned Ministry and the Chief Minister and his Cabinet and the Lt.Governor is bound to act by the aid and advice. Only if it is ultravires or illegal the third respondent can choose to differ and not for having a different opinion on matters of policy. As a matter of fact, it would be clear from the files that the 3rd Respondent wants an income criteria for distribution of free rice and she wanted to restrict it to the priority house-holds and Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) Scheme alone. Only because the elected Government of Puducherry within its powers chose otherwise in its collective wisdom to supply food grains for all the house-holds considering the material before it, as a Counter blast and for political consideration, the 3rd Respondent simply differed and taken a view that the cash should be distributed. As a matter of fact, her idea is to stop distribution to all the families if possible and if not, restrict it to Antyodaya Anna Yojana (AAY) families alone. Her entire interference in the targeted Public Distribution System (PDS) and distribution of Rice is only in pursuit of her own ideology that no free Rice should be given and secondly for political considerations merely because, the opposition party is elected to function as the Government.
  15. I sincerely state after filing of the above Writ Petition, I had a meeting with the Hon’ble Minister for Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution, Government of India and after the discussion by his Demi-Official letter bearing D.O.No.5-3/2007-NFSA (Pt.2)/1281 Dated 13.01.2020, it was brought to my notice that even though the Government of India is ready to supply the food grains as per its policy to the Union Territory of Puducherry, it could not supply food grains in time because, there has been no response from the Union Territory Administration. As a matter of fact, the communication of the Government of India dated 07.01.2020 to the Secretary to Government, Department of Food and Civil Supplies, Government of Puducherry has been furnished to me and the Secretary concerned is unable to furnish the requisite information so as to get the supply of rice because, the Third Respondent has blocked the reply being sent to the Government of India through the Chief Secretary of the Government of Puducherry. Thus, the 3rd Respondent is categorically going against the policy of the Government of India also, only to perpetrate her own individual policy. While being so, while the writ petition is pending 1st respondent wrote to the Hon’ble Minister for Consumer Affairs, Food and Public Distribution citing the pendency of the writ petition and the consequential decision of the first Respondent in the order of reference. Based on the same, the Hon’ble Minister for Consumer Affairs had withdrawn the sanction that was granted earlier and not because of the change in policy of Government of India.
  16. I sincerely state that the basic premise on which the writ petition was filed is that merely because there is power for the 3rd Respondent to defer and refer any matter to the President, it is not open to the 3rd Respondent to defer unless for a legally tenable and acceptable reason and the said action of deferring and referring is open for judicial review. While being so, the Learned Judge Learned Judge without considering or answering the same and had erroneously dismissed the writ petition by order dated 21.02.2020. In the said circumstances, I prefer the present writ appeal as against the order dated 21.02.2020. I crave leave of this Hon’ble court to read the memorandum of grounds filed along with this appeal as part and parcel of this affidavit.
  17. I sincerely state that in the process of playing the political games, elimination of hunger and malnutrition is placed on the table and sacrificed which is totally against public interest and the balance of convenience is in favour of continuing the rice distribution in kind and implementing the time tested and prevalent decision of the Cabinet.
  18. It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to pass an order of interim injunction restraining the Respondents 1 to 3 from in any manner preventing the Government of Puducherry from distributing the free supply of rice, edible oil and other essential food grains every month to all ration card holders, in kind, pending disposal of the main Writ appeal and pass such further or other orders and thus render justice.

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai BEFORE ME
on this the day of February,
2020 and signed her name
in my presence ADVOCATE:: PUDUCHERRY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
(Appellate Jurisdiction)

C.M.P No. of 2020
in
W.A.No. of 2020
Against

                        W.P.No. 821 of 2020
                           (on the file of this Hon’ble Court)

AFFIDAVIT

M/s. R.Saravanan
Counsel for Appellant

You may also like...