# PSA Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 3 ILRA 625
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-02-08
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 3209 of 2020
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sunita Agarwal, Jayant Banerji
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/psa-impex-pvt-ltd-delhi-v-state-of-u-p-anr-46935
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Act, 2016 - Jurisdiction of Single member -
Complaint filed by the aggrieved person
u/s
31
of
the
RERA
Act,
can
be
adjudicated by Single Member of the U.P.
Real Estate Regulatory Authority - Court
rejected
the
contention
that
single
member
of
the
Authority
had
no
jurisdiction to decide the complaint of the
allottees
&
such
complaint
can
be
adjudicated by the Authority, comprising
of
three
members
including
its
Chairperson only

S. 21 of RERA Act, 2016 - Composition of
Authority - The Authority shall consist of a
Chairperson & not less than two Members -
Delegation - S. 81, The Authority may, delegate
to any member, officer of the Authority or any
other person powers and functions under this
Act - U.P. RERA in its meeting 05.12.2008
decided that Single Member Bench be created
for disposal of the complaints at both the places
of sitting, Lucknow & Gautam Budh Nagar - U.P.
Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General)
Regulations, 2019- Regulation 24(a) - For
adjudication
proceedings
with
respect
to
complaints filed with the Authority, the Authority
may,by order, direct that specific matters or
issues be heard and decided by a single bench
of either the Chairperson or any Member of the
Authority (Para 20)

Dismissed

List of Cases cited :

## Text

3 All. PSA Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
625
----------
(2021)03ILR A625
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SUNITA AGARWAL, J.
THE HON'BLE JAYANT BANERJI, J.

Writ-C No. 3209 of 2020
Along with
Writ-C Nos. 3210 of 2020, 3225 of 2020 & 3226
of 2020

PSA Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Anubhav Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Anil Tiwari, Sri Waseem Masood

Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Act, 2016 - Jurisdiction of Single member -
Complaint filed by the aggrieved person
u/s
31
of
the
RERA
Act,
can
be
adjudicated by Single Member of the U.P.
Real Estate Regulatory Authority - Court
rejected
the
contention
that
single
member
of
the
Authority
had
no
jurisdiction to decide the complaint of the
allottees
&
such
complaint
can
be
adjudicated by the Authority, comprising
of
three
members
including
its
Chairperson only

S. 21 of RERA Act, 2016 - Composition of
Authority - The Authority shall consist of a
Chairperson & not less than two Members -
Delegation - S. 81, The Authority may, delegate
to any member, officer of the Authority or any
other person powers and functions under this
Act - U.P. RERA in its meeting 05.12.2008
decided that Single Member Bench be created
for disposal of the complaints at both the places
of sitting, Lucknow & Gautam Budh Nagar - U.P.
Real Estate Regulatory Authority (General)
Regulations, 2019- Regulation 24(a) - For
adjudication
proceedings
with
respect
to
complaints filed with the Authority, the Authority
may,by order, direct that specific matters or
issues be heard and decided by a single bench
of either the Chairperson or any Member of the
Authority (Para 20)

Dismissed

List of Cases cited :

1. Janta Land Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Vs U.O.I. &
ors CWP No. 8548 of 2020 (P&H)

2. M/s K.D.P. Build Well Pvt. Ltd. v. State of U.P.
2020 (3) All LJ 39

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,
J. & Hon'ble Jayant Banerji, J.)

1. Heard Sri Anubhav Singh learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri
Anil Tiwari learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Sri Waseem Masood for respondent no. 2.

2. This bunch of writ petitions have
been filed for quashing of the orders passed
by respondent no. 2 namely the U.P. Real
Estate Regulatory Authority, Gautam Budh
Nagar, whereby the petitioners (promoters)
had been directed to refund the amount
deposited by the allottees alongwith interest.
Sole ground pressed to challenge the orders
impugned is that single member of the
Authority had no jurisdiction to decide the
complaint of the respondents/allottees and, as
such, the order is illegal being coram non
judice.

3. It is vehemently argued by the
learned counsel for the petitioners that the
Authority as conceptualised under the Real
Estate (Regulation and Development) Act,
2016 (In short as "the RERA Act, 2016") is
the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (In
Short as "the RERA or the Authority"),
established and incorporated under Section
626 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
20 of the RERA Act, 2016 by the appropriate
Government.

The constitution/composition of the
Authority is provided under Section 21 of
the RERA Act, 2016 which states that the
Authority shall consists of a Chairperson
and not less than two whole-time Members
to be appointed by the appropriate
Government.

The complaint filed by the aggrieved
person under Section 31 of the RERA Act,
2016 is, thus, can be adjudicated by the
Authority, comprising of three members
including
its
Chairperson.
A
Single
Member of the Authority cannot constitute
it so as to discharge the adjudicatory
functions of the Authority or to exercise the
powers under Sections 35 to 40 of the Act,
2016.

The orders impugned, therefore, are
liable to be set aside being without
jurisdiction.

4. The judgment of the High Court of
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated
16th October, 2020 in Janta Land
Promoters Private Limited vs. Union of
India
and
others1
alongwith
other
connected writ petitions has been placed
before us to submit that considering various
provisions of the Act, 2016, it was held
therein that the Single Member of the
Authority cannot validly pass order on a
complaint under the Act. Regulations 7 and
8 of the Punjab RERA (Procedure for
Handling complaints and Related Matters)
Regulations, 2017 by which a Single
Member Bench of the Authority was
entrusted to adjudicate the complaint, had
been struck down as being ultra vires the
Act.

5. At the outset, we may note that in
the instant matter, there is no challenge to
the provisions of the U.P. Real Estate
Regulatory
Authority
(General)
Regulations, 2019 (In Short as "the
Regulations, 2019") framed by the U.P.
Real
Estate
Regulatory
Authority
in
exercise of the powers conferred on it
under Section 85 of the RERA Act, 2016.

Learned counsel for the petitioner
rather placed regulations 19, 20, 21 and 22
of the Regulations, 2019 to assert that if in
any
meeting
of
the
Authority
duly
convened, the quorum is not complete, the
meeting shall have to be adjourned. He
submits that every meeting of the Authority
to conduct its business has to be presided
over by the Chairman. Only in case, where
the Chairman is unable to be present in the
meeting by any reason or the post itself is
vacant, a Member chosen by the members
present amongst themselves at the meeting
shall preside. All questions before any
meeting of the Authority have to be
decided by a majority of votes of the
Members. In any case, the quorum for the
meeting of the Authority is three.

6. It is vehemently argued that in any
case, under the scheme of the Act, the
Authority, which has been entrusted with
the powers to adjudicate on a complaint is a
three Member body constituted under
Section 21 of the Act. The decision of a
Single Member is nothing but usurpation of
power conferred upon the Authority.

7. Sri Anil Tiwari learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Sri Waseem Masood
appearing for respondent no. 2, on the other
hand, places various provisions of the
RERA Act, 2016 and relying upon Section
81 of the Act, it is submitted that the
Authority has power to delegate any of its
power and functions under the Act, except
the powers to make regulations under
3 All. PSA Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
627
Section 85, by general or special order in
writing. The delegation of power may be
on any Member, Officer of the Authority or
any other person, subject to such conditions
if specified in the order. In accordance with
the said provision, the U.P. RERA in its
meeting held on 14.8.2018 under Agenda
No. 1.03 had decided to make arrangement
of Benches of two Members each, for
hearing of the complaints at two places of
its sitting, Lucknow and Gautam Budh
Nagar. In another meeting held on
5.12.2018 under Agenda No. 1, it was
decided that Single Member Bench be
created for disposal of the complaints as
and when required at both the places of
sitting, Lucknow and Gautam Budh Nagar.
With reference to paras 18 to 23 of
Regulations 2019 framed by U.P. RERA, it
is argued that the procedure for conducting
the meetings of the Authority specified by
the regulations makes it clear that the
quorum for the meeting of the Authority of
three Members as per Regulation 19, is
required for transaction of its business
other than the adjudicatory proceedings.

The contention is that Section 29 of
the RERA Act, 2016 provides that in
regard to the transaction of business at its
meetings, the Authority shall follow the
rules of procedure, including quorum at
such meetings, as prescribed in the
regulations framed by it. Section 85
empowers
the
Authority
to
make
regulations consistent with the Act and
rules made thereunder, on the matters as
prescribed in sub-section (2) and any other
matter in respect of which provision is to
be made by regulations to carry out the
purposes of the Act. In exercise of its
power under Section 85, Regulations 2019
have been framed by U.P. RERA Authority
to formulate the rules of procedure for
transactions of its business. Regulations 18
to 25 have been framed to provide
procedure
for
the
meetings
of
the
Authority, other than the adjudicatory
functions of the Authority. Regulation 24
refers
to
conduct
of
adjudication
proceedings and provides that with respect
to the complaints filed with the Authority,
the Authority may, by order, direct that
specific matters or issues be heard and
decided by a Single Bench of either the
Chairperson or any Member of the
Authority.

It is then argued that the RERA Act,
2016 has been framed with an object to
provide adjudicatory mechanism for speedy
redressal of the disputes. There is only one
Authority for the State of U.P. By
notification dated 19.9.2018, the State
Government has provided two places of
sitting of the RERA Authority, one at
Lucknow as Headquarter and another at
Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar as
Regional
Office.
More
than
30,000
complaints are pending before the RERA
Authority and in view of the rising numbers
of complaints, arrangement has been made
to create benches for hearing and speedy
disposal of the complaints. The Division
Benches of this Court in similar matters
have taken the view that the delegation of
power to a Single Member of the Authority
to decide the complaints is in valid exercise
of power under Section 81 of the RERA
Act, 2016. Some of the decisions appended
with the counter affidavit have been placed
before us to substantiate the above
assertions.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner,
in rejoinder, however, states that one such
decision in M/s K.D.P. Build Well Pvt.
Ltd. v. State of U.P.2 had been placed
before the Division Bench of Punjab and
Haryana High Court. In the above noted
decision, the Division Bench of the said
628 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Court had expressed its disagreement with
the conclusion drawn therein that under
Section 81 of the Act, the Authority could
have delegated its adjudicatory function to
a Single Member. It was observed therein
that it is inconceivable that the Authority
could issue a general or special written
orders to entrust the adjudicatory functions
of the Authority to a Single Member,
contrary to the express wording of Section
21 of the Act requiring the Authority to
comprise of a Chairperson and two
members.

It is argued that unless there is an
express provision in the Act itself permitting
the Authority to sit in Benches with lesser
number of members or a Single Member, it is
not possible for the Authority, either in
exercise of its power under Section 81 or
Section 85, to entrust its adjudicatory
functions in relation to complaints to a Single
Member.

9. It is pertinent to note at this stage that
in the matter before the Punjab and Haryana
High Court, there was no order, general or
special, of the Authority under Section 81 of
the Act to delegate its adjudicatory power to a
Single Member. In the case before the Punjab
and Haryana High Court, the validity of
regulations framed by the Authority therein
providing for disposal of complaint by a
Single Member had been challenged being
ultra vires the Act.

10. In light of the above arguments, it
would be apt to first go through the
provisions of the Act, Rules and Regulations
framed thereunder.

The Real Estate (Regulation and
Development) Act, 2016 (In Short as "the
RERA Act, 2016") has been enacted to
establish
the
Real
Estate
Regulatory
Authority (In Short "the Authority"). The
long title of the Act provide the object and
purpose of its establishment for regulation
and promotion of the real estate sector and
one of the objects is to establish an
adjudicating mechanism for speedy dispute
redressal and also to establish the Appellate
Tribunal to hear the appeals from the
decisions, directions or order of the Authority
and
the
adjudicating
officer.
The
"adjudicating officer" is defined under
Section 2(a) means the officer appointed
under sub-section (1) of Section 71. The
"Authority" defined under Section 2(i), is the
Real Estate Regulatory Authority established
under sub-section (1) of Section 20. The
"Appellate Tribunal" defined under Section
2(f) is the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal
established under Section 43.

Section 20 of the Act provides for
establishment and incorporation of Real
Estate
Regulatory
Authority
by
the
appropriate Government, which is the "State
Government" within the meaning of Section
2(g)(iv). Section 20(1) states that the
appropriate Government shall establish an
Authority to be known as the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority to exercise the powers
conferred on it and to perform the functions
assigned to it under the Act.

As per sub-section (2) of Section 20, the
Authority so established shall be a body
corporate having perpetual succession and a
common seal, with the power, subject to the
provisions of the Act, to acquire, hold and
dispose of property, both movable and
immovable and to contract, and shall, by the
said name, sue or be sued.

The composition of the Authority is
provided under Section 21, which reads as
under:-

"21. Composition of Authority:- The
Authority shall consist of a Chairperson
3 All. PSA Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
629
and not less than two whole-time Members
to be appointed by the appropriate
Government."

11. As we understand from the careful
reading of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act,
the Authority established under Section 21,
as per its constitution provided therein,
shall be a body which is empowered to
discharge the functions assigned to it under
the Act, in exercise of the powers conferred
on it. The object to establish the Authority
is to regulate and promote the real estate
sector and to ensure sale of plot, apartment
or building, as the case may be, or sale of
real estate project in an efficient and
transparent manner. It has been given
power, subject to the provisions of the Act,
to acquire, hold and dispose of property,
both movable and immovable, and to enter
into contract by its name. The adjudicatory
functions of the Authority is only one of
the various functions provided under
Section 32 & and Section 34 of the RERA
Act, 2016, relevant clauses of the Section
34 read as under:-

"(f) to ensure compliance of the
obligations cast upon the promoters, the
allottees and the real estate agents under
this Act and the rules and regulations made
thereunder;

(g) to ensure compliance of its
regulations or orders or directions made in
exercise of its powers under this Act;"

Section 31 of the Act provides that the
complaint,
for
any
violation
or
contravention of the provisions of the Act
or
the
rules
and
regulations
made
thereunder, against any promoter allottee or
real estate agent, may be filed with the
Authority or the adjudicating officer, as the
case may be. Sections 35 to 40 confer
powers on the Authority to pass orders,
issue directions including interim orders on
the complaints requiring such person who
act in contravention of the Act, rules and
regulations, to comply the same and to
impose penalty or interest, in regard to any
contravention of obligations cast upon such
person. While making an inquiry on such
complaint, the Authority has the powers, in
respect to matters provided in sub-section
(2) of Section 35, as are vested in a civil
court under the Code of Civil Procedure
while trying a suit. Section 38 (2) provides
that in making such order or direction, the
Authority shall be guided by the principles
of natural justice and subject to the above
provisions of this Act and the Rules made
thereunder, it shall have powers to regulate
its own procedure. Section 40 confers
power upon the Authority to execute its
own orders and make recovery from such
person
against
whom
an
order
of
imposition of interest or penalty has been
passed. Section 71 of the Act prescribes for
appointment of one or more judicial officer
as deemed necessary, by the Authority in
consultation
with
the
appropriate
Government as an adjudicating officer for
holding an inquiry in the matter of
adjudging compensation under Sections 12,
14, 18 and 19 of the Act, 2016. Chapter VII
deals with the establishment of the Real
Estate Appellate Tribunal and its powers
both administrative and adjudicatory.

12. It can, thus, be seen that three
adjudicatory forums have been created
under the RERA Act, 2016. The complaint
filed by an aggrieved person for violation
or contravention of the provisions of the
Act or the rules or regulations made
thereunder against any promoter, allottee or
Real Estate Agent has to be dealt with by
the Authority in accordance with its powers
under Sections 35 to 40 contained in
Chapter V of the Act. The Real Estate
630 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Appellate Tribunal is constituted only to
deal with the appeals from the decisions,
directions or orders of the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority or an adjudicatory
officer under the Act. The administrative
powers of Chairperson of the Appellate
Tribunal is restricted to the powers of
general superintendence and direction in
the conduct of the affairs of Appellate
Tribunal.

Section 81 which confers power of
delegation and Section 85 conferring power
to make regulations to the Authority read as
under:-

"81. Delegation.- The Authority may,
by general or special order in writing,
delegate to any member, officer of the
Authority or any other person subject to
such conditions, if any, as may be
specified in the order, such of its powers
and functions under this Act (except the
power to make regulations under section
85) as it may deem necessary.

85. Power to make regulations.- (1)
The Authority shall, within a period of
three months of its establishment, by
notification, make regulations, consistent
with this Act and the rules made
thereunder to carry out the purposes of
this Act.

(2)
In
particular,
and
without
prejudice
to
the
generality
of
the
foregoing power, such regulations may
provide for all or any of the following
matters, namely:-- 3
(a) [* * *]

(b) [* * *];

(c) such other information and
documents required under clause (f) of
sub-section
(1) of section 11;

(d) display of sanctioned plans,
layout plans along with specifications,
approved by the competent Authority, for
display under clause (a) of sub-section (3)
of section 11;

(e) preparation and maintenance of
other details under sub-section (6) of
section 11;

(f) time, places and the procedure in
regard to transaction of business at the
meetings of the Authority under subsection (1) of section 29;

(g) [* * *];

(h) standard fees to be levied on the
promoter, the allottees or the real estate
agent under clause (e) of section 34;

(i) any other matter which is required
to be, or may be, specified by regulation
or in respect of which provision is to be
made by regulations."

13. From a careful reading of Section
81, it is clear that the Authority can
delegate such of its powers and functions
under the Act (except the powers to make
regulations under Section 85), as it may
deem necessary, to any member, officer of
the Authority or any other person subject to
such conditions as may be specified in the
order.

14. Looking to the plain and simple
language of Section 81, it cannot be said
that the power of delegation conferred upon
the Authority to adjudicate on a complaint
and execute its order provided under
Sections 35 to 40, in discharge of its
functions under Clauses (f) and (g) of
Section 34, is restricted in any manner.
There is no exclusion or prohibition except
to delegate the power to make regulations.

Section 85 confers power on the
Authority to make regulations, consistent
with the Act and the rule made thereunder,
to carry out the purposes of the Act. Clause
(i) of Section 85 (2) says that the Authority
may make regulations on any other matter
3 All. PSA Impex Pvt. Ltd., Delhi Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
631
which is required to be specified by
regulations, or in respect of which
provision is to be made by regulations.

Section 29 of the Act, 2016 states that
the Authority shall follow such rule of
procedure at its meetings in regard to the
transaction of its business, as may be
specified by the regulations, made by the
Authority.

15. It can, thus, be seen that the
Authority has been given ample powers to
formulate such rules of procedure, as it
may require in regard to the transaction of
its
business,
by
making
regulations
providing the same and it shall follow such
rules of procedure at its meetings. There is
no mandate of the Act for collective
decision of members of the Authority on
any matter.

16. A reading of the regulations 18 to
22 of the Regulations, 2019 shows that the
quorum (of three) for the meetings of the
Authority and the provision for transaction
of its business by majority of the votes of
the members in such meeting, is applicable
to the meetings of the Authority for
performing
functions
other
than
the
adjudicatory functions of the Authority. For
conducting adjudicatory proceedings with
respect to the complaints filed with the
Authority, the rules of procedure have been
made under Clause 24 of the regulations as
under:-

"Adjudication proceedings:- 24. (a)
For adjudication proceedings with respect
to complaints filed with the Authority, the
Authority may, by order, direct that specific
matters or issues be heard and decided by
a single bench of either the Chairperson or
any Member of the Authority.

(b) The Authority, is consultation with
the
state
government,
will
appoint
Adjudicating Officers on the Panel of U.P.
RERA for the purposes of adjudicating the
matters of compensation admissible under
the Act.

(c) The aggrieved persons will be
required to file complaints before the
Authority online in form - M. The claims of
compensation will also be included in form
- M itself. While the Authority will decide
all the questions of breaches of the Act,
Rules and Regulations, it will refer the
question relating to the adjudication of
compensation to one of the Adjudicating
Officers on the Panel of U.P. RERA who
will then decide the matter expeditiously
and preferably within 60 days.

(d) The Adjudicating Officers on the
Panel of U.P. RERA will hold their courts
at Lucknow or Gautam Buddhnagar as
decided by the Chairman. The complaints
relating to the districts of NCR will be
heard at Gautam Buddhnagar whereas
complaints from the remaining districts of
the State will be heard at Lucknow."

Even otherwise, there is no challenge
here either to the resolutions passed by the
Authority in the year 2018 for delegation of
its power to a Single Member of the
Authority under Section 81 of the Act or to
the regulation 24 of the Regulations, 2019
framed by the Authority in exercise of its
power under Section 85 of the Act.

17. The constitution of the Authority
as prescribed in Section 21 of the Act is for
the establishment of an Authority as a body
corporate under Section 20 of the Act for
discharge of its various functions with the
power to acquire, hold and dispose of
property, both movable and immovable,
and to contract. This provision does not
restrict power of the Authority to frame
regulations to formulate rules of procedure
for discharge of its statutory functions or
632 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
mandates that the decision of the Authority
should be a collective decision.

18. From a comprehensive reading of
the
Act
and
the
regulations
made
thereunder, it cannot be said that the
Authority
established
by
the
State
Government as a body in the name of Real
Estate
Regulatory
Authority
(RERA)
cannot delegate its power or frame
regulations to carry out various objects and
purposes of the Act, one of which is for
providing mechanism for speedy dispute
redressal by disposal of the complaints.
Section 21 of the Act cannot be read in the
manner as has been read by the learned
counsel for the petitioners.

Further, the Act does not provide for
benches of the Authority for discharge of
its adjudicatory functions in the manner in
which it provides for benches of the
Appellate Tribunal under Section 43(3) of
the Act. The difference is that the
adjudicatory function is only one of the
functions of the Authority in exercise of its
powers to ensure compliance of the
obligations
under
the
Act
whereas
Appellate
Authority
discharges
only
adjudicatory function of hearing appeals
from the decisions of the Authority or the
adjudicating officer.

19. Ample power has been given in
the Act to the Authority to formulate the
rules of procedure, in regard to the
transaction of its business, in discharge of
its functions in exercise of powers
conferred on it under the Act. The power to
delegate and the power to make regulations
both have been given to the Authority so as
to enable it to carry out the purposes of the
Act. The decision of the Authority to
delegate and the regulations framed by it to
create benches for early disposal of the
complaints, can not be said to be
inconsistent with the Act.

20. For the above discussions, the
orders passed by the Single Member of the
Real Estate Regulatory Authority, subject
matter of challenge in this bunch, cannot be
said to suffer from lack of jurisdiction.

21. As far as the view expressed by
the Division Bench of the Punjab and
Haryana High Court is concerned, on
appreciation of the legal provisions, the
said view cannot be accepted. With due
regards to the learned Judges holding the
bench, it may be noted that certain relevant
provisions of the RERA Act have escaped
their attention.

Even otherwise, as noted above, there
is no challenge to the provisions of the
Regulations, 2019 framed by the Authority
(UPRERA) in the instant case.

For the aforesaid, the writ petitions are
found
devoid
of
merits
and
hence
dismissed.
----------
(2021)03ILR A632
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 18.02.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.

Writ-C No. 5604 of 2021

Balram ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Rajnesh Kumar, Sri Ram Sagar Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents: