IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2009 / 22ND ASHADHA 1931 WP(C).No. 10711 of 2008(A) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ----------------------- 1. T.K.PORINCHU, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL LTD. SHORNUR ROAD, TRICHUR. 2. K.G.PISHARADY, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL LTD. SHORNUR ROAD, TRICHUR. 3. P.B.MOIDU, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL LTD. SHORNUR ROAD, TRICHUR. 4. A.P.JOSE MASTER, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL LTD. SHORNUR ROAD, TRICHUR. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES (G), TRICHUR. 3. THE TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL LTD. SHORNUR ROAD, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY. 4. THE ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE OF TRICHUR DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE HOSPITAL LTD. SHORNUR ROAD, TRICHUR, REPRESENTED BY THE CONVENER SRI.E.K.DEVANANDAN. W.P.(C) NO.10711/2008 5. M.G.SUKUMARAN, MALAYIL HOUSE, OLARIKKARA, PULLAZHI P.O., TRICHUR. 6. PROF.MURALIDHARAN, MENACHERY TOWERS, BENZAD, TRICHUR. ADDL. R7 TO R9 ARE IMPLEADED. 7. SEBY JOSE PELLISSERY , S/O.P.D.KOCHU OUSEPH MASTER, AGED 40 YEARS, PELLISSERY HOUSE, AMMADAM, THRISSUR. ADDL. R7 IS IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 2.4.08 IN IA. 4634/08. 8. C.B.JAMAL, SON OF BEERAN, CHULLIPADATHU HOUSE, P.O.ERIYAD, KODUNGALLUR TLAUK, THRISSUR. 9. P.M.SARATHKUMAR, SON OF P.K.MADHAVAN, PARAKATTU HOUSE, P.O. KARAYAMATTOM, VALAPPAD, CHAVKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR. ADDL. R8 & R9 ARE IMPLEADED VIDE ORDER DT. 2.4.08 IN IA. 4683/08. ADDL. R 10 TO R 21 ARE IMPLEADED 10. N.V.SUNDRAN, MEMBER NO.14826, NADVILAVALAPPIL HOUSE, VELLANIKKADU P.O. 11. BOBAN CHAKKALAKAL, MEMBER NO.13939, S/O. JOSE, CHAKKALAKAL HOUSE, PALAKKAL, PALLISSERY P.O. 12. O.D. JOSE, MEMBER NO.13210, S/O. DEVASSY, OLLUKARAN HOUSE, P.O.AMRADAN, PARALAN VILLEY. 13. K.K.ASHOKAN, MEMBER NO.15624, S/O. KOCHUNNY, KOLATTU HOUSE, P.O. CHERPU WEST. 14. C.K.VINOD, MEMBER NO.15638, S/O. C.K.KUNJUTTY, CHITTIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O. CHERPU WEST. 15. C.P.PAUL, MEMBER NO.16180, S/O. PORINCHU, CHITTILAPPILLY KUNJAPPU HOUSE, ARANATTUKARA. 16. K.V.DASAN, MEMBER NO.12374, KOMBATH HOUSE, NEDUPUZHA P.O., THRISSUR. 17. K.H.USMANKHAN, MEMBER NO.2249, KOTTAR HOUSE, P.O.PONKUNNAM, TRICHUR TALUK. W.P.(C) NO.10711/2008 18. K.K.SEETHA RAMAN, EMBER NO.16050, KANNANGANATHU HOUSE, M.G.ROAD, TRICHUR 4. 19. T.R.SANTHOSH KUMAR, MEMBER NO.16422, THERAMBATH HOUSE, EAST FORT P.O., TRICHUR – 5. 20. A.R.RAMACHANDRAN, MEBER 13618, AYINIKUNNATH HOUSE, KIZHAKKUMPATPUKARA, EAST FORT P.O. 21. HAPPY MATHAI, MEMBER NO.13877, S/O. MATHAI, POOTHAKADAM HOUSE, LOURDPURAM, EAST FORT P.O. ADDL. R10 TO R21 ARE IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DT. 13/07.2009 IN IA 1357/2009. BY SPL. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.P.A.ANEETHA FOR R1-2 BY ADVS.MR.K.A.SREEJITH FOR ADDL.R MR.P.C.SASIDHARAN FOR R4 SMT.DAISY A.PHILIPOSE FOR R5 MR.M.SASINDRAN FOR R6 MR.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR ADDL.R7-8 SMT.I.SHEELA DEVI FOR ADDL.R10 TO 21 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2009, THE COURT ON 13/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) NO.10711/2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 20259/05 DT. 7.7.05. P2:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. 20667/05 & R.P. NO.674/05. DT. 2.9.05. P3:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRB. 4146/-5 DT. 17.1.06. P4:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC. NO.851/06 DT. 2.2.06. P5:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC. NO.1074/06 DT. 23.2.06. P6:- COPY OF THE SURPRISE CHECK REPORT DT. 27.7.05. P7:- COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC. NO.851/06 DT. 12.9.07. P8:- COPY OF THE NOTICE NO.M.T.(1) 40795/07 DT. 22.11.07. P9:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.CRB. 1913/08 DT. 19.3.08. P10:- COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC. NO.26372/07 DT. 18.12.07. P11:- COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.[PL(5)/ 536/04-05 DT. 4.5.06. P12:- COPY OF THE ORDER NO.M.T.(1) 49795/07 DT. 31.12.07. P13:- COPY OF THE AGENDA NOTE DT. 23.5.05. P14:- COPY OF THE NOTICE PUBLISHED IN MATHRUBHUMI DAILY DT. 13.10.08 BY THE SECRETARY OF THE SOCIETY. ANNEXURE A1:- COPY OF THE TOUR DIARY FOR THE MONTH OF 1/08. A2:- COPY OF THE TOUR DIARY FOR THE MONTH OF 2/2008. A3:- COPY OF THE TOUR DIARY FOR THE MONTH OF 3/08. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS R1(a):- COPY OF THE FILE NOTE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT TO SUBMIT NECESSARY QUOTATION. R1(b):- COPY OF THE FINAL REPORT. R1(c):- COPY OF THE PAGES OF MINUTES BOOK DT. 8.4.05. W.P.(C) NO.10711/2008 R7(a):- COPY OF THE MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 5.4.05. R12(a):- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE CONVENER, CO- OPERATIVE JANADIPATHYA VEDI DT. 20.1.09 BEFORE THE SECRETARY. E12(b):- COPY OF THE STAFF STRENGTH OF THE BANK. TRUE COPY P.S. TO JUDGE TSS ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ===================== W.P.(C) NO.10711 OF 2008 (A) ===================== Dated this the 13th day of July, 2009 J U D G M E N T Four members of the Board of Directors of the 3rd respondent have filed this writ petition praying to quash Ext.P12 order passed by the 1st respondent, disqualifying them. The grounds on which disqualification is ordered are the irregularities in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the Society held on 08.04.2005 when 50B class shares were allotted, the irregularities in the meeting held on 23.05.2005, when 1253 A class shares and also the irregularities in the purchase of a Dialysis machine and Arthroscopic machine. 2. Facts of the case are that complaining against the enrolment of 1253 A class members, three members of the then Board of Directors of the Society, of which the petitioners were also members, had approached this court by filing W.P.(C) No. 20259 of 2005. That writ petition was disposed of by Ext.P1 judgment directing the 1st respondent to examine their complaints. However, it was made clear that “no member on the rolls will be removed without notice to them, if seen WPC 10711/08 (A) :2 : necessary”. 3. The 3rd respondent Society sought review of the judgment by filing RP No.674 of 2005 and another member of the Board of Directors also had filed W.P.(C) No.20667 of 2005. Both the aforesaid matters were disposed of by Ext.P2 dated 02.09.2005. The review petition was rejected and the complaints of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20667 of 2005 were directed to be considered by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. It was further directed that the allegation of the review petitioner that the petitioners who had filed the aforesaid writ petition had not participated in the meeting held on 23.05.2005 when it was resolved to enroll 1253 members is false, shall also be considered and enquired into. 4. In pursuance to Exts.P1 and P2 judgments, the 2nd Respondent, the Joint Registrar, conducted an enquiry with notice to all concerned and Ext.P3 order was passed. On enquiry, he found that the Board of Directors in the meetings held on 08.04.2005 and 25.05.2005 enrolled 50 B class members and 1253 A class members and that the said proceedings were perfectly in order. In so far as the acquisition of the dialysis WPC 10711/08 (A) :3 : machine and the arthroscopic machine are concerned, the 2nd respondent recommended a detailed enquiry by a competent agency. 5. At that stage, certain other members of the society approached this court and filed W.P.(C) Nos.851 of 2006 and 1074 of 2006 seeking to stall the election that had fallen due and challenging Ext.P3 order. Those writ petitions were considered and this court passed Ext.P4, a common interim order, directing the Joint Registrar to make a factual verification regarding the allegations concerning the enrollment of 1253 members and submit a report before this Court. It was also directed that the election shall go on as scheduled and that the votes of serial Nos.7828 to 9080 in the voters list shall be put in separate boxes, counted separately and that results shall not be declared without obtaining orders from this Court. Accordingly election was held on 19.02.2006, but however, results were not declared. Cases were again considered by this court on 23.02.2006, when Ext.P5 order was passed. Taking note of the dispute regarding the enrollment of 1253 A class members and also regarding the enrollment of 50 B class members and finding that going by the WPC 10711/08 (A) :4 : results, the outcome of the enquiry ordered as per Ext.P4 and the consequential proceedings are not going to make much difference in the result of the election, this court directed the Returning Officer to declare the results. Accordingly, results were declared and on 28.02.2006, the committee, which included the petitioners herein, assumed charge. 6. The Joint Registrar completed the enquiry ordered as per Ext.P4 and submitted his report dated 14.06.2006 to this court in a sealed cover. Writ Petition (Civil) Nos.851 and 1074 of 2006, came up for final hearing and in the meanwhile, members of the Board of Directors were also impleaded as Addl. Respondents. By Ext.P7 judgment rendered on 12.09.2007, the writ petitions were disposed of directing; “The Registrar of Co-operative Societies (General) will take up all the matters in relation to these cases, affecting the aforesaid Society and render appropriate decision and action, as may be necessary, in accordance with law. The final decision as above shall be arrived at within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Needless to say the necessary parties will be extended opportunity of being heard”. In the nature of the aforesaid disposal the reports provided in sealed cover and the departmental file have not been perused by this Court and are hereby returned to the Learned Special Government Pleader for Co- operation”. WPC 10711/08 (A) :5 : In pursuance to Ext.P7 judgment the 1st respondent issued Ext.P8 notice fixing hearing on 05.12.2007, which was postponed to 12.12.2007, when the parties were heard. 7. Petitioners submit that long thereafter, they were served Ext.P9 order dated 19.03.2008 issued by the 2nd respondent making reference to an order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the 1st respondent in pursuance to Ext.P7 judgment and appointing an Administrative Committee. Ext.P9 states that in the order dated 31.12.2007, the 1st respondent had cancelled the resolutions dated 08.04.2005 and 25.05.2005 enrolling members in the society and that the 1st respondent had held that the four members of the Board of Directors, who are the petitioners herein, had acted against the interest of the society and rendered themselves ineligible to continue as members in view of Rule 44(1)(j) of the Rules and that therefore, the four persons were disqualified as per Rule 44(2)(c) of the Rules. Similarly as a consequence of a cancellation of the resolution dated 08.04.2005 enrolling 50 B class members, it has been held that two members of the Board of Directors representing B Class members have also lost their membership. Accordingly, it is held WPC 10711/08 (A) :6 : in Ext.P9 that the Board of Directors, having a total strength of 11, lost quorum and on that basis an Administrative Committee was appointed. 8. On receipt of Ext.P9 order, on 24.03.2008, 8 members of the Board of Directors of the Society filed W.P.(C) No.9726 of 2008. On 27.03.2008, this court passed an interim order directing the respondents to serve a copy of the proceedings of the Registrar of Societies dated 31.12.2007 which was not served on the petitioners therein until then. Accordingly they were served order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the 1st respondent and it was thereupon that producing the order dated 31.12.2007 as Ext.P12, this writ petition was filed on 28.03.2008 with the aforesaid prayers. 9. Now, I shall deal with the contentions raised. The petitioners contended that Ext.P12 has been issued relying entirely on the report submitted by the Joint Registrar on an enquiry held under Section 65 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the KCS Act’ for short) and the Ext.R1(b) report submitted by the Joint Registrar pursuant to Ext.P4 common order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos.851 WPC 10711/08 (A) :7 : and 1074 of 2006. In so far as these reports are concerned, it is the case of the petitioners that both these reports were not disclosed to them at any point of time and therefore, these reports could not have been relied on against them. 10. It was contended that by Ext.P12, resolutions passed on 08.04.2005 and 25.05.2005 were set aside without issuing notice to the committee as required under Rule 176 of the KCS Rules. It was also argued that when the resolutions were set aside, 1253 A class members and 50 B class members of the society were removed and that their removal could not have been ordered otherwise than in compliance with the directions in Ext.P1 and Ext.P7 judgments and Rule 16 of the Rules. According to the petitioners, in Ext.P12 they have been found to be disqualified to continue their membership on the ground that, according to the 2nd respondent, they had rendered themselves liable to be expelled from the membership of the Society as provided in Clause 11C of the Bye-laws. It is contended that power under Clause 11C is vested only in the general body and that the said power could not have been usurped by the Registrar. It is also their case, that notice proposing disqualification as provided WPC 10711/08 (A) :8 : under Rule 44(3) was not given to the affected parties. 11. Counsel also contended that by Ext.P12 order, Ext.P3 order passed by the Joint Registrar is cancelled. It is contended that the Joint Registrar was exercising the powers of the Registrar and therefore Registrar, being only an authority of equal jurisdiction, could not have cancelled Ext.P3 order of the Joint Registrar. According to him the power of cancellation conferred on the Registrar is only under Rule 176 of the Rules, which could not have been exercised in relation to Ext.P3. It was his contention that both in Ext.P6 report of the Vigilance Department and in Ext.P12, it was reported that those who were complaining against the resolution passed by the Society on 25.05.2005 themselves had participated in the meeting and had received the sitting fee, and therefore their case of absence in the meeting and fabrication of documents were unworthy of acceptance. He also contended that once the fact that the meeting was held on 25.05.2005 is accepted, there is no basis for the conclusion that records were fabricated for giving membership to 1253 applicants. Counsel also contended that there was no allegation of any irregularity in relation to the meeting held on 08.04.2005 WPC 10711/08 (A) :9 : when 50 B class members were enrolled. 12. On behalf of the Administrator, it was pointed out that the writ petition itself is liable to be dismissed as alternate remedy of appeal provided under Section 83(1)(j) of the Act was available to the petitioners. It was argued that the mere non disclosure of the reports relied on in Ext.P12 will not invalidate the order for violation of principles of natural justice, unless the petitioners have succeeded in pleading and proving that by the said omission, prejudice has been caused to them. It was also argued that once grounds to suffer expulsion from membership as provided under Clause 11C of the bye-laws is made out, that is sufficient to attract disqualification under Rule 44(1)(j) and that no formal order of expulsion was necessary for ordering disqualification. 13. On behalf of the 5th respondent, one of the complainants, it was asserted that they did not participate in the meeting of the committee held on 25.05.2005. According to the learned counsel, the power exercised by the Registrar while issuing Ext.P12 was the power under Rules 16(4) and 44(3) of the Rules. Therefore the mere fact that the Rule 44(1)(j), is quoted in WPC 10711/08 (A) :10 : the order does not render the order illegal for that reason. Regarding the plea of the petitioners that the reports under Section 65 and Ext.R1(b) were not disclosed to them, counsel contended that following Ext.P7 judgment of this Court, the whole issue was to be considered by the Registrar and it was open to the Registrar to rely on those documents. In so far as Ext.P6 vigilance report is concerned, counsel contended that it is an incomplete report prepared without notice to the 5th respondent. Regarding the contention of the petitioners that Ext.P3 could not have been cancelled by the Registrar exercising his powers under Rule 176 of the Rules, learned counsel contended that Ext.P3 was under challenge in WP(C) No.851 of 2009 and that in Ext.P7 judgment, this court directed the Registrar to consider the entire issues which included the validity of Ext.P3 order as well. 14. On behalf of the 6th respondent, another complainant, it was argued that if for any technical reason, Ext.P12 is interfered with, that will result in the members who were enrolled on 08.04.2005 and 25.05.2005 continuing as members of the society. It was stated that since for the reasons stated in Ext.P12 their admission to the society was illegal, interference with WPC 10711/08 (A) :11 : Ext.P12 will only result in resurrection of illegal membership. According to the learned counsel, the Agenda item of the meeting held on 23.05.2005 which was adjourned and held on 25.05.2005 did not contain admission of members, but the same was smuggled in, misusing the residuary item enabling introduction of items with the leave of the President. According to the counsel, introduction of a policy matter into the agenda in the manner it has been done is impermissible and reliance was placed on the judgment in Kodiyathur Panchayat v. District Panchayat Officer, Calicut (1977 K.L.T. 80). Answering the contention that in Ext.P12 it has been found that respondents 5, 6 and others who complained against the meeting of 25.05.2005 had participated in the said meeting and had received the sitting fee and therefore are estopped from contending otherwise, the learned counsel contended that the said finding is factually erroneous. According to him, even in the absence of an appeal filed by them against the said finding, they are entitled to canvass its incorrectness. To this context, counsel placed reliance on the judgment in Ravinder Kumar Sharma v. State of Assam (2000 (2) K.L.J. NOC 13). WPC 10711/08 (A) :12 : 15. Learned Special Government Pleader supported Ext.P12 order. According to her, the Registrar was to consider the entire issues with regard to the enrollment of 50 B class members and 1253 A class members and also regarding the acquisition of the Dialysis machine and Arthroscopic machine. These issues were to be considered pursuant to Ext.P7 judgment in the light of Ext.P3 order, Ext.R1(b) report and the report under Section 65 of the Act. It is stated that in pursuance to the judgment, by Ext.P8, hearing was scheduled on 05.12.2007, which was adjourned to 12.12.2007, when objections were filed by all and the parties were also heard. It is stated that considering the aforesaid material and the other evidence before him, the Registrar passed Ext.P12 order. Reference was made to paragraphs 18 to 20 regarding the admission of 1253 A class members, the findings in paragraphs 20 to 24 regarding the 50 B class members and also paragraph 24 regarding the acquisition of the equipments. It was stated that in view of the findings in Ext.P12, the Registrar was competent to take action in terms of Rule 44 of the KCS Rules. Another plea raised was that since Ext.P8 notice was given, there was no necessity to give any further notice as contemplated in WPC 10711/08 (A) :13 : Rule 44 (3) of the Rules before issuing Ext.P9. 16. On behalf of the additional 7th respondent, the invalidity of the admission of members was the point canvassed. It was also contended that the petitioners should pursue the appellate remedy as available to them. 17. Before proceeding to deal with the contentions raised by the parties, I feel it appropriate to deal with a very disturbing issue arising in this writ petition in relation to the conduct of Sri. Suresh Babu, Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies, who passed Ext.P12 order. 18. In paragraph 13 of the writ petition, it is averred that “the decisions stated to have been taken on 31.12.2007 was not actually taken on the day as stated in the order. The officer, who heard the matter contacted by the counsel who appeared on behalf of the petitioners even on 10th of March 2008. The reply given then was to the effect that the order is not ready. Challenging Ext.P9 order the petitioners filed writ petition before this court on 24.03.2008. On that day parties were ready to resist the said writ petition with the order so passed by the WPC 10711/08 (A) :14 : Registrar on 31.12.2007 even though the copy of the said order was not served on the petitioners, who are the really affected by the order. Finally this court had to pass an order dated 27.03.2008 directing the Special Government Pleader to furnish a copy of the order dated 31.12.2007. On 27.03.2008, petitioners have received the order despatched from the office of the Registrar on 25.03.2008”. 19. Taking note of the above averments in the writ petition, the files were ordered to be produced and this court passed order dated 04.06.2008 to retain the files in the safe custody of this court. It was also directed that Sri. Suresh Babu, shall file an affidavit as to when he drafted, approved and sent the original of Ext.P12 order and as to the dates on which he held charge of the post of Registrar of Co-operative Societies. Accordingly, Sri. Suresh Babu filed affidavit dated 07.06.2008 and paragraphs 4 and 5 being relevant, are extracted below for reference: “It is respectfully submitted that I was in charge of the post of Registrar of Co-operative Societies from 20.11.2007 to 31.12.2007. While I was in charge of the post, hearing of the parties were conducted in compliance WPC 10711/08 (A) :15 : with the direction of this Honourable Court in judgment dated 12.09.2007 in W.P.(C)Nos. 851/06, 1074/06 and C.C.83/06. Even though the first hearing of the matter was posted on 28.11.07 due to some inconvenience it was postponed to 12.12.07. All the parties were informed about the postponement. On 12.12.2007 they were heard in detail. All the documents in connection with the matters were collected. After going through all the documents and evidence in connection with the matter I prepared a draft order on 31.12.2007, the last day on which I was in charge of the office. I signed the draft order on that day itself. Then it was sent to the Confidential Assistant for typing. The typing and correction by me of the order took some more time. My busy schedule in connection with the work relating to Legislative Assembly Session and being out of Station for attending campaign in connection with the programme “Sahakarana Navarathna Keraleeyam – Sadasadamanam Kudissika Nivaranam”, Deposit Mobilisation Campaign 2008 and revitalisation of Sahithya Pravarthaka Sahakarana Sangam (SPCS) have caused some delay for looking into the matter by me. The approaching financial year ending also was a reason. The final typed copy of the order was placed before me on 15.3.2008 by the concerned Officials. The same was signed and sent to the Despatch Section on 17.3.2008. It is further submitted that the usual practice followed in Government Department with regard to the date of final order in a proceedings is that of the date on which the draft order is approved. In the present case on 31.12.2007 I approved the draft order. So Ext.P12 order is passed on the date 31.12.2007. The delay in issuing the order was not deliberate or intentional. It was due to my busy schedule and administrative exigency.” (emphasis supplied) 20. Subsequently, Sri. Suresh Babu appeared before this court on 13.06.2008 and was questioned in detail and this court WPC 10711/08 (A) :16 : passed an order directing that the computer which was used for typing Ext.P12 order shall be kept under the control of the Registrar directly to ensure that there was no further deletion of documents or any manipulation of the hard disk and other hardware or software. Again this court passed order dated 16.06.2008, and paragraph 3, being relevant, is extracted below for reference: “On the basis of submissions made on either side, the Additional Director of CDAC, Vellayambalam, Thiruvananthapuram is requested to examine the machine that Jerry used for preparing the version available at pages 861 onwards, having in view what is stated above. Effort