# Pramod Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 10 ILRA 194
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-08-07
- **Case number:** Writ- C No. 11838 of 2020
- **Bench:** Surya Prakash Kesarwani, Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pramod-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-45151
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ
- Mandamus - Scope - Willful violation of
contract - Recovery - A writ lies when any
fundamental or legal rights are infringed. A writ
of mandamus can be issued in favour of a
person when he has legally protected and
judicially
enforceable
subsisting
right
-
Petitioner willfully violated conditions of contract
resulting in cancellation of contract in terms of
clause 40 of the Agreement - Court can neither
rewrite contract by providing a new schedule of
payment nor can suspend the operation of
clause 40 of the Agreement. (Para 15 and 17)
B. Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ
- Suppression of material fact - Effect - A
person who approaches the court for grant of
10 All. Pramod Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
195
relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn
obligation
to
candidly
disclose
all
the
material/important facts which have bearing on
the adjudication of the issues raised in the case
- If he is found guilty of material facts or
making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of
justice, the court not only has the right but a
duty to deny relief to such person -Petitioner
has willfully suppressed material facts and has
attempted to mislead this Court - Held, the
conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to
invoke equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. (Para 18 and 20)
Writ Petition dismissed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-

## Text

194 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(IV) In case the counsels abstain
from work on account of strike calls, the
learned court below / the learned District
Judge, Ghaziabad, shall proceed in the
absence of such counsels and pass
appropriate orders. The parties shall be
permitted to appear in person if they so
desire.

(V) In case the counsel for any
party does not appear before the learned
court below / the learned District Judge,
Ghaziabad, on any date on account of strike
of advocates, the learned court below / the
learned District Judge, Ghaziabad, shall not
permit such counsel (of either party) to
appear in this case on all future dates.

(VI).
In
this
case,
if
the
functioning of the court is brought to a
stand still because of strike call, the learned
court below / the learned District Judge,
Ghaziabad, shall take out appropriate
proceedings in law against the erring
counsels for flouting the directions of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of ExCapt.
Harish
Uppal
(supra)
and
Krishnakant Tamrakar (supra).

(VII) The learned court below /
the learned District Judge, Ghaziabad shall
fix at least two dates every week in the
matter. If required, the learned court below
/ the learned District Judge, Ghaziabad
shall proceed with the matter on a day to
day basis, and even in the absence of
counsels, to ensure that the above stipulated
time period of six months for concluding
the proceedings is strictly adhered to.

(VIII) If the Presiding Officer is
not available for any reason, the matter
may be transferred to another competent
court which is available, if required in the
interest of justice and permissible by law.

51. This order shall be held in
abeyance in case the court is shut down due
to any emergency created by COVID-19
pandemic.
However,
the
order
shall
become operative immediately after the
reopening of the court. The time-line in this
order shall be adjusted accordingly by the
learned Presiding Officer.

52. The petition is finally disposed of.
----------
(2020)10ILR A194
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 07.08.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURYA PRAKASH
KESARWANI, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ- C No. 11838 of 2020

Pramod Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, Sri Awadhesh
Kumar Malviya, Sri Ram Dayal Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Ajeet Singh(Addl. A.A.G.), Sri
I.S. Tomar

A. Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ
- Mandamus - Scope - Willful violation of
contract - Recovery - A writ lies when any
fundamental or legal rights are infringed. A writ
of mandamus can be issued in favour of a
person when he has legally protected and
judicially
enforceable
subsisting
right
-
Petitioner willfully violated conditions of contract
resulting in cancellation of contract in terms of
clause 40 of the Agreement - Court can neither
rewrite contract by providing a new schedule of
payment nor can suspend the operation of
clause 40 of the Agreement. (Para 15 and 17)
B. Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ
- Suppression of material fact - Effect - A
person who approaches the court for grant of
10 All. Pramod Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
195
relief, equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn
obligation
to
candidly
disclose
all
the
material/important facts which have bearing on
the adjudication of the issues raised in the case
- If he is found guilty of material facts or
making an attempt to pollute the pure stream of
justice, the court not only has the right but a
duty to deny relief to such person -Petitioner
has willfully suppressed material facts and has
attempted to mislead this Court - Held, the
conduct of the petitioner disentitles him to
invoke equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of
this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. (Para 18 and 20)
Writ Petition dismissed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Director of Settlements Vs M.R. Apparao
(2002) 4 SCC 638
2. UOI Vs Upendra Singh (1994) 3 SCC 357
3. S. Govind Menon Vs UOI, AIR 1967 SC 1274
4. Oswal Fats & Oil Ltd. Vs Commissioner
(Administration) (2010) 4 SCC 728
5. S.P. Chengalvaya Naidu Vs Jagannath, AIR
1994 SC 853

(Delivered by Hon'ble Surya Prakash
Kesarwani, J. &
Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar,
learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri
Awadhesh Kumar Malviya, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Sri Ajeet Singh,
learned
Additional
Advocate
General
assisted by Sri I.S. Tomar, learned counsel
for the respondents.

2. This writ petition has been filed
praying for the following relief;

"(a) Issue a writ, order or
direction the nature of certiorari quashing
the impugned order dated 26.06.2020
passed by the respondent no. 2 (Annexure17 to the writ petition) as well as order
dated 27.06.2020 passed by the respondent
no. 3 (Annexure-18 to the writ petition).

(b) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to interfere in
the functioning of the petitioner fishing
work of the petitioner in Rihand Reservoir
in any manner during the period. As per
agreement dated 02.01.2019 (Annexure-4A
to the writ petition).

(c) Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents not to take any
coercive action against the petitioners
pursuant to impugned orders (Annexure-17
and 18 to the writ petition)."

Facts:

3. By the impugned order dated
26.06.2020
passed
by
the
Director,
Fisheries, U.P. Lucknow, the contract of the
petitioner for fishing has been cancelled for
default in payment of fifth, sixth and
seventh installments of the contract amount
of the second year and certain arrears of
interest, totalling Rs. 1,20,31,144/-. The
Director has also granted liberty to the
competent authority to initiate proceedings
for recovery of arrears and black listing.
The second impugned order is dated
27.06.2020 which has been passed by the
Assistant Director (Fisheries), Rihand,
District Sonbhadra (U.P.) intimating the
cancellation of the contract. The proceeding
for black listing has not yet been initiated.

4. The contract of the petitioner for
fishing was accepted by the competent
authority by order dated 11.12.2018 for the
period from 22.11.2018 to 30.06.2028 for
total consideration of Rs. 40,72,89,736/-.

5. The aforesaid order was followed
by acceptance letter dated 18.12.2018
196 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
issued by the Deputy Director of Fisheries,
Vindhyanchal Division, Mirzapur, annexing
therewith schedule of payment of yearly
consideration amount in seven equal
monthly instalments each year payable by
15th
September,
15th
October,
15th
November, 15th December, 15th January,
15th February and 31st March. Thereafter,
the petitioner executed an agreement dated
02.01.2019 with the Fisheries Department
of Uttar Pradesh for five years for the
period from the year 2018-19 to 30.06.2023
for total contract amount/consideration of
Rs. 15,60,19,220.00. As per the aforesaid
agreement, in the fifth and seventh year,
after review, agreement for remaining
period of contract shall be executed.

6. The petitioner has filed with the
writ petition as Annexure 4 only three
pages of the aforesaid Agreement dated
02.01.2019 and suppressed the remaining
portion
containing
conditions
of
agreement which has been executed by the
petitioner on Non Judicial Stamp Papers
of total Rs. 25,800/- containing thirteen
pages and the attached schedule of
payments in two pages.

7. Learned Standing Counsel has
produced instructions of the Director
Fisheries dated 10.07.2020 alongwith a
copy of the aforesaid Agreement of the
petitioner dated 02.01.2019 which is kept
on record.

8. Conditions of contract provides
schedule of payment. It provides that 25%
of the contract amount of the first year
shall be paid on acceptance of the tender
and remaining 75% shall be deposited in
monthly installments up to 31st March.
For
the
second
year
and
other
subsequent years 25% of the yearly
contract amount shall be deposited up to
16.08.2020 and the remaining 75% shall
be deposited in seven equal monthly
installments. Thus in the second year after
deposit of 25% amount the petitioner was
liable to deposit the balance 75% amount
in seven monthly installments by 15th
September, 15th October, 15th November,
15th December 2019 and 15th January,
15th February and 31st March 2020. The
petitioner defaulted in payment of third,
fourth,
fifth,
sixth
and
seventh
installments of the second year. After
notice
he
belatedly
deposited
third
installment on 29.04.2020, part of fourth
installment
on
23.05.2020
and
the
remaining
amount
of
the
fourth
installment on 11.06.2020. The fifth, sixth
and seventh installments which fell due
in the month January, February and
March were not deposited by the
petitioner. He has also not deposited
interest on the belated deposit of
installment in the first year and second
year. All these resulted in huge arrears of
contractual amount which the petitioner
failed to deposit under the contract. The
installments were due and payable by the
petitioner even prior to the start of lock
down period on account of COVID-19
pandemic.

9. Respondents issued notices to the
petitioner from time to time to deposit the
amount but the petitioner failed to comply
with the notices. Copy of notices dated
24.04.2020, 01.05.2020, 02.05.2020 and
05.06.2020
have
been
filed
by
the
petitioner collectively as Annexure 11 to
the writ petition. Copy of notice dated
18.06.2020 has not been filed by the
petitioner which has been produced by the
learned Standing Counsel alongwith the
aforesaid instructions. Since the petitioner
failed to deposit the contractual amount and
did not deposit it even after notices,
10 All. Pramod Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
197
therefore, the respondents have cancelled
the contract by the impugned orders and
ordered for recovery of arrears.

10. The relevant conditions of the
Agreement
dated
02.01.2019
are
reproduced below:-

Relevant
Conditions
of
contract:

"3. उच्चति ई - मिमवदादाता को
मिमवदा प्रमकया सिाप्त होिे पर ई - मिमवदा से
सम्बन्धित अन्य शतो के अमतररक्त वामर्षक
आधार पर जो सबसे अमधक िूल्य प्राप्त होगा ,
उसकी 25 प्रमतशत धिरामश -मिमवदा स्वीकार
करिे के उपरान्त ठेकेदार / समिमत को तत्काल
अगले कायष मदवस तक जिा करिा अमियायष
होगा। शेर् 75 प्रमतशत धिरामश अिुबंध के
पश्चात 31 िार्ष तक सिाि िामसक से सलग्न
साररणी के अिुसार जिा की जायेगी । ठेको के
आगािी वर्ो की 25 प्रमतशत धिरामश ठेकेदार /
समिमत को 16 अगस्त तक जिा करिा अमिवायष
है, मजसके मलये सियवृन्धि िहीं दी जायेगी तथा
शेर् 75 प्रमतशत धिरामश 31 िार्ष तक समान
माससक सकश्तो में संलग्न समय सारणी के
अनुसार जमा करना होगी । श्रेणी -1 के
जलाशयो िें ठेकदार / समिमत द्वारा 75 प्रमतशत
धिरामश को सुमिमश्चत रूप से जिा करािे हेतु
सितुल्य धिरामश का बैंक गारण्टी पत्र अथवा
एफ 0 डी 0 आर 0 के रूप िें सम्बन्धित उप
मिदेशक ित्स्य के पास बिक के रूप िें 30
मदि के अन्दर जिा कराया जायेगा जो ठेका
सिान्धप्त की मतमथ तक बधक रहेगी । अवशेर्
अवमध के ठेको िें ठेकेदार / समिमत को
अमधकति छ : िाह की अवशेर् अवमध हेतु 100
प्रमतशत धिरामश ई - मिमवदा प्रमकया सिाप्त
होिे के तत्काल अथवा अगले कायष मदवस तक
बैंक डराफट / आर ० टी ० जी ० एस ० द्वारा जिा
करिी होगी । मजि प्रकरणों िें 6 िाह से अमधक
बकाया अवमध शेर् रहेगी उििे ठेका अवमध 7
से 8 िाह की अवशेर् अवमध के मवरुि 50
प्रमतशत की धिरामश मिमवदा के तुरन्त बाद तथा
40 प्रमतशत धिरामश ठेका स्वीकृत होिे के एक
िाह िें जिा करिी होगी एव मकश्त की
धनरासि जमा करने हेतु समयवृद्धि प्रदान
नहीं की जायेगी । उक्त दोनो द्धथिसत में समय
से सकश्त की धनरासि जमा न होने पर
सनदेिक मत्स्य को असधकार होगा सक ठेका
सनरस्त कर दे ।

4. ठेका स्वीकृत करिे के उपरान्त
अिुबंध पूणष होिे पर एक िाह तक यमद ठेकेदार
/ समिमत द्वारा िामसक मकश्तों की धिरामश जिा
िहीं की जाती है तो ठेकेदार / समिमत को मकश्त
देय की मिधाषररत मतमथ के पश्चात दो प्रसतित
प्रसतमाह ब्याज दण्ड स्वरूप आगामी देय
सकश्त के साि - साि भुगतान करना होगा ।

40. ररहन्द जलाशय श्रेणी -1 के ठेके
के अिुबि पत्र की शतष संख्या -1 से 39 तक का
उल्लघि यमद ठेकेदार / ठेकेदार द्वारा िामित
प्रमतमिमध / ठेकेदार द्वारा रखे गये किषर्ारी द्वारा
मकया जाता है तो ररहन्द जलाशय श्रेणी -1 के
सापेक्ष जिा जिाित की धिरामश जब्त करते
हुये ठेका मिररत कर मदया जायेगा एवं ठेकेदार
काली सूर्ी िें सूर्ीबि मकया जायेगा, मजसकी
सम्पूणष मजम्मेदारी ठेकेदार की होगी"

Submissions on behalf of the
Petitioner:

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits as under:-

(i) Impugned orders have been
passed in breach of principles of natural
justice inasmuch as no notice was issued to
the petitioner.

(ii) Payment of instalments could
not be made due to lockdown on account of
Covid-19 Pandemic which started from
24.03.2020.

(iii) Petitioner is ready to deposit
the entire due amount in instalments.
198 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(iv) Condition No. 18 of the
Agreement, contains arbitration clause as
contended by the Additional Advocate
General, is not applicable to the case of the
petitioner, since there is no dispute with
regard to the contract. The grievance of the
petitioner is that the due amount could not
be deposited in time due to lockdown on
account of Pandemic Covid-19 and the
petitioner is now ready to deposit.

Submissions
on
behalf
of
the
Respondents

12. Learned Additional Advocate
General submits as under:

(i) The petitioner has deliberately
filed incomplete copy of the Agreement
dated 02.01.2019 so as to suppress the
relevant conditions of contract. Petitioner
has also suppressed notices issued to him.

(ii) Submission of the petitioner
that due to lockdown instalment could not
be deposited, is misleading since the
petitioner
has
regularly
defaulted
in
payment of instalments which were due
much prior to the start of lock down.

(iii)
Petitioner
has
breached
conditions of the Agreement. Hence in
view of condition No. 40, the contract has
been cancelled and impugned orders have
been passed in accordance with law.

(iv) Court can interpret conditions
of contract but cannot rewrite contract.

Discussion and Findings

13. We have carefully considered the
submissions of learned counsels for the
parties.

14. It is admitted case of the petitioner
that he did not deposit the third, fourth,
fifth, sixth and seventh instalments which
were due and payable by the petitioner on
or before 15th November 2019, 15th
December 2019, 15th January 2020, 15th
February 2020 and 15th March 2020
respectively. Besides, the petitioner has
also not deposited interest and certain other
charges in terms of the Agreement.
Consequently, notices dated 28.01.2020,
06.02.2020, 15.02.2020 and 25.04.2020
were issued by the respondents to the
petitioner asking him to deposit the due
instalments and interest. Total amount of
instalments and interest payable by the
petitioner upto 31.03.2020 accumulated to
Rs. 1,77,35,692.00 as per the aforesaid
notice dated 25.04.2020. Thereafter, the
petitioner deposited third instalment of Rs.
30,11,905.00 on 29.04.2020 which was due
and payable on or before 15.11.2019. The
Bank Guarantee submitted by the petitioner
had also expired which was not renewed by
him despite request of the respondents.
Condition no. 28 of the Agreement was
also violated. Hence, the respondents again
gave a notice dated 02.05.2020 requiring
the petitioner to pay the arrears and to
renew the Bank Guarantee which was
followed by notices dated 11.05.2020,
23.05.2020, 05.06.2020, 12.06.2020 and
18.06.2020. The petitioner deposited part
amount
of
fourth
instalment
(Rs.
20,07,937.00) on 23.05.2020 and Rs.
10,03,968.00
on
11.06.2020.
Thus,
admittedly the petitioner has not deposited
the 5th, 6th and 7th instalments which were
due and payable on or before 15th January,
15th February and 31st March 2020,
respectively. He has also not deposited
interest in terms of the contract. Sufficient
opportunity was afforded to the petitioner
to deposit the arrears by issuing notices as
aforementioned
and
to
comply
with
Condition no. 28. Therefore, for breach of
conditions of contract the impugned orders
10 All. Pramod Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
199
have been passed cancelling the contract in
terms of clause 40 of the Agreement. Thus
the impugned orders do not suffer from any
manifest error of law.

15. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner for grant of time to deposit
the arrears in instalment, cannot be
accepted in the writ petition under Article
226 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch
as, firstly the petitioner has willfully
violated conditions of contract resulting in
cancellation of contract in terms of clause
40 of the Agreement and Secondly this
Court can neither rewrite contract by
providing a new schedule of payment nor
can suspend the operation of clause 40 of
the Agreement.

16. The submission of learned counsel
for the petitioner that he could not deposit
instalments due to lock down from
24.03.2020 on account of the Pandemic
Covid-19,
is
wholly
unfounded.
Undisputed facts as noted above clearly
shows that the petitioner has been a regular
defaulter.
Monthly
instalments
of
contractual amount were due and payable
much before the start of lock down.

17. A writ lies when any fundamental
or legal rights are infringed. A writ of
mandamus can be issued in favour of a
person when he has legally protected and
judicially enforceable subsisting right, vide
Director of Settlements Vs M.R. Apparao
(2002) 4 SCC 638. A writ of prohibition
can be issued only when patent lack of
jurisdiction is made out, vide Union of
India Vs Upendra Singh (1994) 3 SCC
357 (para 4) and S. Govind Menon Vs
Union of India, AIR 1967 SC 1274. A writ
of certiorari can be issued for correcting
errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior
courts or Tribunals or where the impugned
orders suffers from manifest error of law.
None of the above circumstances exist in
the case of the present petitioner which
may entitle him for relief in the nature of
writ of mandamus or certiorari as prayed.
The impugned orders have been passed in
terms of the agreement on breach of
conditions of agreement, for which a writ
of certiorari cannot be issued.

18. It is settled law that a person who
approaches the court for grant of relief,
equitable or otherwise, is under a solemn
obligation to candidly disclose all the
material/important
facts
which
have
bearing on the adjudication of the issues
raised in the case. In other words he owes a
duty to the court to bring out all the facts
and refrain from concealing/suppressing
any material fact within his knowledge or
which he could have known by exercising
diligence expected of a person of ordinary
prudence. If he is found guilty of material
facts or making an attempt to pollute the
pure stream of justice, as happened in the
present case, the court not only has the
right but a duty to deny relief to such
person. The above principle is supported by
the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Oswal Fats & Oil Ltd. Vs
Commissioner (Administration) (2010) 4
SCC 728.

19. In the case of S.P. Chengalvaya
Naidu Vs Jagannath, AIR 1994 SC 853
(para 7 and 8), Hon'ble Supreme Court
observed that the courts of law are meant
for imparting justice between the parties.
One who comes to the court, must come
with clean hands. A person whose case is
based on falsehood, has no right to
approach the court. He can be summarily
thrown out at any stage of the litigation. A
litigant who approaches the court, is
bound to produce all the documents
200 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
executed by him which are relevant to the
litigation. If he withholds a vital document
in order to gain advantage on the other
side then he would be guilty of playing
fraud on the court as well as on the
opposite party.

20. We find that the petitioner has
willfully suppressed material facts and has
attempted to mislead this Court by filing
incomplete copy of the Agreement dated
02.01.2019 suppressing the entire portion
of this Agreement containing conditions of
contract. He has also not filed agreed
schedule of payment of instalments which
was
part
of
the
Agreement
dated
02.01.2019. This conduct of the petitioner
also disentitles him to invoke equitable and
discretionary jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India.

21. Insofar as the question of black
listing is concerned, it goes without saying
that in the event the respondents propose to
take any such action for black listing they
shall afford reasonable opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner before passing any
order of black listing.

22. For all the reasons aforestated, we
do not find any merit in this writ petition.
Consequently,
the
writ
petition
is
dismissed with costs.
----------
(2020)10ILR A200
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHASHI KANT GUPTA, J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Writ- C No. 12745 of 2020
Meena Jaiswal ...Petitioner
Versus
Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Varanasi
Divisional Office, Varanasi ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vinayak Mithal, Sri Sagar Mehrotra

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Pramod Kumar Rai

A. Constitution of India - Article 14 -
Natural Justice - Petrol pump dealership -
Appointment - Dispute regarding dimensions of
land - Non-speaking order - It's justification -
Corporation has only recoded its conclusion
without assigning any reason - To give reasons
is the rule of natural justice - The administrative
order also must be supported by the reasons
recorded in it. The reason is heartbeat of every
conclusion - Held, the absence of reason makes
an order unsustainable. (Para 14 and 29)
Writ Petition allowed (E-1)
Cases relied on :-
1. Writ C No. 15653 of 2018; Panch Dev Kumar
Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & 2 ors. decided
on 09.05.2018
2. Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax
Department, Works Contract & Leasing, Kota Vs
Shukla & Bros.; (2010) 4 SCC 785
3. M/s Travancore Rayon Ltd. Vs UOI; (1969) 3
SCC 868
4. S.N. Mukherjee Vs UOI (1990) 4 SCC 594
5. Dharampal Satyapal Limited Vs Deputy
Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati & ors.;
(2015) 8 SCC 519
6. J. Ashoka Vs University of Agricultural
Sciences & ors.; (2017) 2 SCC 609
7. Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. & anr. Vs Masood
Ahmed Khan &
Others; (2010) 9 SCC 496
8. Writ C No. 18164 of 2018; Nanak Chand
Sharma Vs St. of U.P. & 3 ors., decided on
03.12.2018