59 r FAO No837 of 2010 IOSMI m1 FAO No837 of2010 08MI Dateofdecisionl 70102010 HarkewalSinghand another 0eee Appellants Versus me l GurmeetKaur and others Respondents 1 CORAM HONBLE MRISTICE JORA SINGH Present Mr Gautam Dutt Advocate with Mt S Tiwana Advocate for the appellants Mr S Sallar Advocate for therespondents JORA SINGH J Harkewal Singhand Smt Gurmeet Kaur directed this appeal againstorder dated 1 2010 passed by the Deputy 0 CommissionerecummElectionTribunal FatehgarhSahib By the said order election of Harkewai as Sarpanchof Gram PanchayatvillageSaimfalpur was cancelled and the postof Sarpanch was declared vacant Election petitionunder Section 74 to 78 of the PunjabState Election Commission Act 1994 lereinafter referred as the ActI was filed by Gurmeet Kaur ParamjeetSinghand JagroopSinghagainst Harkewal Singhand HarjitKaur on the allegationthat petitioners were 1 elected as Panches of Gram PanchayatviliageSaimfalpurBlock Sirhind District FatehgarhSahib in the Panchayatelection held on 2652008 RespondentsNol and 2 namelyHarkewal Singhand HarjitKaur were also elected as Panches in the said election Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 60 0 3 FAO No837 of 2010 1O8MI e2e Respondent No3 namelyMr R Nanda was deputedas Returning Officerat villageSaimfalpurOn 11 2008 there was oath ceremony of the Panches as per schedule t5ythe State Government Post of Sarpanchof viliageSaimfalpurwas reserved for C Candidate ReturningOftlcer issued notices to the Panches to be presenton 172008 for election of Sarpanchat Government ElementarySchooI villageSaimfalpurat 100 a but on 1712008 onlythe petitioners werepresentas per directionbythe returning OMcer ReturningOmcer was also presentbut respondentsNol and 2 did not turn up 0 Chowkidar was also sent to summon respondentsNol and 2 That Returning Officer had obtained the signaturesof the petitioners on typedpapers and made inquiryabout their choice for the post of I Sarpanchreserved for C Candidate Gurmeet Kaur Panch was the Z onlyeligiblecandidate for the postof Sarpanchbeingthe choice of 2 majority of Panches present Candidature of Gurmeet Kaur was also by No2 and 3 ReturningOmcer gotthe presence I c8 marked of all the petitioners on the proceedingregisterand stated that he will declare Gurmeet Kaur as Sarpanchof villageSaimfalpur as per proceedingsheld in the meetingdated 1732008 but Gurmeet Kaur tl was not declared as Sarpanchof thevillage On 1812008 petitioners approached the SDM Fatehgarh Sahib with a requestto declare Gurmeet Kaur as Sarpanchof the viliage Petitioners No2 and 3 had submittedtheir amdavitsin support of GurmitKaur but no action was takenbythe ReturningOmcer That the petitionershad also approachedthe Deputy Commissioner FatehgarhSahib by submittingapplicationdated 2272008 The DeputyCommissioner FatehgarhSahib had also assured the petitioners that the ReturningOmcer is duty bound to conduct election of Sarpanch in free and fair manner Applicationwas Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 61 0 3 FAO No 3837 of 2010 108MJ e3e markedto SM FatehgarhSahib to make inquiryand submit repon within seven daysbut no action was taken by the ReturningOmcer Therewas no inquiryby SDM FatehgarhSahib Petitioners then Oled CiviiWrit Petition No 13564 of 2008 and the election petitionwas of vide order 1 82008 with a direction to the PresidingOmcer todeclare the result of election of Sarpanch On 142008 1 ne to know after obtainingphotocopyof the resolution dated 1712008 from DO Omce Sirhind that ReturningOmcer had declared Harkewal Singh No as Sarpanch That resolutiondated 1772008 was by forgingthe signatures of No2 That the act and conduct of the 1 Returning Officeris illegalnull and void and againstthe ruies ofjustice Noticewas issued to the Replywas flled From the pleadingsof the partiesfoliowingissues were framedl 1 Whetherthe election of respondent Nol for the post of ot Gram PanchayatSaimfalpurBlock 1 4 Sirhindis illegainull void and Iiableto be set aside7 i OPP l 2 VVhetherthe petitionerNl is Iiableto be deciared as 1 1 Sarpanch of villageSaimfalpurBlock Sirhind District 1 FatehgarhSahib as per wishes of majorityof i panches2 OPP 1 1 3 Whether the hve committed and illegalitieswhile declaring the respondentNo l as Sarpanchby forgingthe signatures of petitioner No7 OPP Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 62 0 FAO No 3837 of 2010 IOSMI e4e 4 VVhether the election has been conducted againstthe wishesof majority of elected panches2 OPP 5 Whetherthe presentpetitionis maintainable7OPP 6 Whetherthe Election Tribunalhas no to tiy thepresentpetition7 OPD 7 Whetherthe petitionis not maintainable2OPR 8 Whether the have concealed true and materialfactsfrom the Court7 OPR Lr 9 vvhetherthe petitionershave not compliedwith the 0 0 provisionsof the act at the time of Olingof petition7 OPR 0 Evidence was Ieadbyboth the panies I AfterhearingIearnedcounsel for the partiesand on perusal Z ofthe Ole election petitionwas acceptedvide the impugnedorder dated 1A201 0 as stated aforesaid Feelingaggrieved againstthe order dated 142010 appeal c8 waspreferredbyHarkewalSinghand HarjitKaur haveheard Iearnedcounsel for the appellantscontesting em and have carefullygone throughthe evidence available on Qm the file Leamedcounsel for the appellantsarguedthat appeilants and the contestingrespondentswere elected as Panches of Gram Panchayat of villageSaimfaipurAfter oath ceremony ReturningOmcer issued notices to the Panches to remain presenton 1712008 Itl Government ElementarySchool Saimfalpurat 1000 m to elect the Sanpanch On 1712008 all the pancheswere present Panches had signedin column No2 of the paper book regarding their presence Name of Harkewal Singh was proposedby HarjitKaur Paramjeet Singhhad also supponedHarkewal Singh Resolution was passed 1 Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document e4 63 f 1 0 FAO No837 of 2010 10SMJ m5e Harkewal Singhas Sarpanchof villageSaimfalpur Election petitionwas filed on the aliegationthat ParamjeetSinghdid not sign columnNo 3 Signaturesof Paramjeet Singhwere forged Harkewal Singhwas wrongly declared elected as Sarpanch of the viilage Expert appearedon behalf of the appellantsHe had comparedthe disputed of ParamjeetSinghin column No of the proceedingbook with the standard of ParamjeetSinghin column No2 and on theelection petitionReportof the expertis that disputedsignatures are with the standard signaturesOppositepanyalso examined an 0 expert and reportof the expeitis to the effect that disputedsignatures I are not with the standard signaturesof ParamjeetSingh 3 to contesting only three Panches namely I JagroopSingh ParamjeetSinghand Gurmeet Kaur were presenton Z 1712008 Harkewal Singhand HarjitKaur were not present Election petitionwas acceptedsimplyon the allegationthat contesting 0 had no need to approachdiHerentauthoritiesfor geMingthe I c8 resultfor the postof Sarpanchdeclared There was no idea to Ole civil writ petitionIll the Honble High Court that means signaturesof Z Paramjeet Singhwere forged Incase HarkewaiSinghand HarjitKaur were not presenton 1732008 then no questionof signaturesof Harkewal Singhaner the of JagroopSinghand that of HarjitKaur after the signatures of Gurmeet Kaur Signatures of ParamjeetSingh are in the end to the election petitiononlyParamjeetSinghdid not sign in columnNo3 of the proceeding book Paramjeet Singhwhen appeared in the Court then in supportof his allegationsubmittedhis amdavit and stated that their signatures were obtainedon blank papers Resolution dated 1772008 was not signedby him Gurmeet Kaur one ofthe contestingrespondentsstated that their signatureswere obtained on Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 64 0 L 1 FAO No 3837 of20108M1 4 blank papers but she did not signany document without readingthe contents Regardingtheir presence their signatureswere obtained on blank papers She did not signcolumn No2 and at page No 6 of the election petitionJagroop respondentaiso stated that in column No2 of the proceedingbook he did not signin English So respondents are not clear as to whether onlyParamjeetSinghdid not signcolumns No2 and 3 Gurmeet Kaurand JagroopSinghare not m clear as to whether theyhad signedcolumn No or not If Gurmeet Kaur and JagroopSinghdid not signcolumn No2 then in the petition 1 0 theyshould have mentionedthat in column No2 of the proceeding book I Gurmeet Kaur and JagroopSinghalso did not signand Paramjeet Singh did not signthe proceedingbook in column No 3 Science regarding I identificationof the signaturesis not a perfectScience INhen a person Z signedat number of piacesat one timethen there is possibilityof some tr difference in the signaturesAfter signingthe resolution it is very easy for Paramjeet Singhthat he did not signthe resolution When Gurmeet c2S Kaur and JagroopSinghdid not signcolumn No2 then how signatures of JagroopSinghat serial Nol and of Gurmeet Kaur at serial No and Z ParamjeetSingh at serial No Arguedthat election petitionwas acceptedsimply on the allegationthat if ParamjeetSinghhad signedthe resolution then there was no idea to approachthe SM and the DeputyCommissioner and file civil writ petition So by forgingthe signaturesof ParamjeetSingh Harkewal Singhwas elected as Sarpanchof the village Approachof the Election Tribunai is not reasonable one Requestedto set aside the impugnedorder Learned counsel for the contestingrespondentsarguedthat after election of the Panches date Oxed was 172008 to elect the Sarpanchamongstthe Panches but on 172008 onlythe contesting were present Appellantswere not present Harkewal Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 65 t FAONo8370f20101OSMI e7e Singh had the supponof onlyone Panch whereas Gurmeet Kaur had the suppoltof two Panches Signatures of ParamjeetSinghin column No3 were forgedto declare Harkewal Singhas Sarpanchof the village In case ParamjeetSinghhad signedthe proceedingbook in column No 3 then there was no idea to approachthe SDM the Deputy Commissioner and to file writ petition Impugnedorder was rightly passedbythe Election Tribunal P Admittedlythere was an election in villageSaimfalpur Appellants as well as the contesting respondents were declared elected 0 as Panches of villageSaimfalpur There were 5 Panches of village I namelyHarkewal SinghHarjitKaur JagroopSingh ParamjeetSingh 4 and Gurmeet Singh After oath ceremony on 11 72008 Retuming 1 m Officer issued notices to the elected Panches to remain presentin Z GovernmentElementatySchool Saimfalpurat 10 on 172008 2 tX to elect the Sarpanchamongstthe Panches According to contesting respondentstheywere presenton 172008 but Harkewal Singhand c8 HarjitKaur were not preser Signatures of the presentpancheswere obtained on blank papers Name of Gurmeet Kaur was proposed ReturningOfficer assured to declare Gurmeet Kaur as Sarpanchof the villagebut she was not declared as Sarpanchof the viilage On 182008 contestingrespondentshad approachedthe SDM FatehgarhSahib with a requestto declare Gurmeet Kaur as Sarpanch of the viliage On 2212008 contesting respondents had approached the DeputyCommissioner FatehgarhSahib with the same requestthat Gurmeet Kaur be declared as Sarpanchof the villagebut she was not declared as Sarpanchof the villageJltimateiy Civil Writ Petition No 13564 of 2008 was tlled in the Honble HighCourt Direction was given on 182008 to the Returning Officer to declare the result of the election for the postof Sarpanch Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 66 0 j FAO No 3837 of 2010 IOSMJ e8e Accordingto the appellantsall the Panches were present on 1772008 Signatures of the Panches were obtainedin column No2 of the proceedingbook Name of Harkewal Singhwas proposedby HarjitKaur and was seconded by ParamjeetSingl Resolution was passed Signatures of HarjitKaur Harkewal Singhand Paramjeet Singhwere obtainedin c0IumnNo3 Now the disputeamongstthe partiesis as to whether 1 signatures of ParamjeetSinghin column No2 are forgedand fabricated C2 or ParamjeetSinghIn connivance of the second partyapproached 0 1 differentauthoritiesand filed civil writ petitiondenyinghis signatures lll I column No of the proceedingbook 0 have gone throughthe proceeding book dated 1712008 I In column No2 of the proceeding book all the panchessignedone aRer Z the other JagroopSinghsignedat serial Nl Harkewal Snghsigned 2 at serial No2 Gurmeet Kaur signedat serial No HarjitKaur signedat I serial NoA and Paramjeet Singhat serial No That means firstly c8 JagroopSinghhad signedthen Harkewal Singhhad signed then Gurmeet Kaur had signedthen HarjitKaur had signedand aner the 1 Z signatures of HarjitKaur ParamjeetSinghhad signedin column No2 of am the proceeding book If Harkewal Singhand Haoit Kaur were not presenton 1772008 then there was no questionof signaturesof Harkewal Singhafter the signaturesof JagroopSinghin column No2 and of HarjitKaur after the signatures of Gurmeet Kaur No case of the contestingrespondents that after the signaturesof JagroopSinghserial No2 was keptblank and after the signaturesof Gurmeet Kaur serial No 4 was keptblank then againstserial No 5 ParamjeetSinghhad signed In column No after the resolution was passed Orstly Harkewal Singhhad signedthen HarjitKaur had signedand Iastly Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document J 67 0 1 FAONo8370f2010108M1 e9e Singhhad signedat serial No Signaturesof Paramjeet Singhat serial No in column No are disputed one In supportof the election petitionParamjeetSinghOied his affidaviton the allegationthat election of the pancheswas held on 2652008 Sarpanchwas to be elected on 172008 He alongwith Gurmeet Kaur and Jagroop Singh was present in Government School at SaimfalpurHarkewal Singhand HarjitKaur were not presentSignaturesof presentpancheswere obtained on bIank Cel papersResolution dated 1772008 does not bear his signaturesAs 0 0 per affidavit one thing IS clear that signaturesof the contesting respondents were obtainedon blank papers but this fact is not correct 0 one Signatures of the panches were obtainedin the proceeding book I in columnNo2 of the resolution dated 12008 JagroopSingh Z GurmeetKaur and ParamjeetSinghare Iiterate Then questionis why IJI theysignedon blank papers regardingtheir presence ParamjeetSingh 4 crosseexamination admittedthat no complaint was filed againstthe ill c8 Returning Oftlcer Regarding election of the Sarpanchon 1712008 intimationwas givento all the Panches Regarding their presence their Z signatures were not obtained Againsaid that their signatureswere obtained on the form in English As per examinationwinwchiefsignatures of contestingrespondents were obtainedon blank papers but from crossexamination version of ParamjeetSinghis that their signatures were not obtained regardingtheir presence then he changedhis version and stated that their signatures were obtained on a paper in English Paramjeet Singhin the Iast Iinesof his crossmexaminationstated that he did not sign column No2 of the proceeding book dated 172008 Parmajeet Singhis not clear whether his signaturesregarding presence were obtained on blank papers or on printedform in English Whether he signedcolumn No or not Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 68 1 FAO No837 of 2010 10SMI 40e JagroopSingh respondentstated that column No2 of the resolution dated 172008 was not signedby him Regardinghis presencehis signatureswere obtained on a form in English but resolution dated 1772008 is not in English Proceedingbook dated 1712008 is in Punjabi On the one hand allegationof the contesting is that regardingpresence theyhad signedblank papers or printedproforma in Englishthat means contestingrespondents did not signcolumn No2 of the proceedingbook but at the time of arguments Ieamedcounsel for thecontesting respondents arguedthat signatures of 0 contesting respondents were obtained in column No Only three pancheswere presentnamelyJagroopSingh Gurmeet Kaur and Paramjeet Singhand in column No Paramjeet Singhdid not signthe e book Z Third contestingrespondentnameiy Gurmeet Kaur appearedand Itl examinationnechief stated that on 172008 she Il I alongwith Paramajeet Singhand JagroopSinghwas presentat the time c25 of election of Sarpanch HarjitKaur and Harkewal Singhwere not presentShe is matric pass and never signedany blank paper Then V Z stated that regarding their presence their signatureswere obtained on Oa blanlcpapers She did not signcolumn No 2 of the proceedingbook dated 1712008 and page No of the election petitionLastly stated that regarding presence of the panchestheir signatureswere obtained on a printedpaper in Engiishbut contents of the paper were not read over and explained to ther Gurmeet Kaur is mah She never signed blank papers Whenever she signedany paper then signedthe paper after goingthroughits contents Then questionis whythe contesting respondentssignedblank papers regardingtheirpresenceAccording to the contesting respondentstheyhad signedon a printedproformain EnglishAt the time of election petitionno eHortwas made to summon Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 69 r 0 t0 FAO No38370f20101O8M1 e11 the printedproformain Englishsignedby the contestingrespondents No complaint was filed againstthe ReturningOcer Nothingon the Ole that ReturningOfficer was related to Harkewal Singhand HarjitKaur When ReturningOfficer was not inimical towards the contesting respondents and had no friendship withtheappellantsthen there was no idea to obtain the signatures of the presentpancheson blank papers or on the printedproformain Engiish All the contestingrespondents In 1 courtstated that theydid not signcolumn No2 of the proceedingbook dated 172008 but in the election petitionallegationis that column 0 0 No was not signedby ParamjeetSingh No allegationof the I contestingrespondentsthat theydid not signcolumn No2 of the proceedingbook No allegation that Gurmeet Kaur and JagroopSingh did not signcolumn No2 of the proceedingbook Gurmeet Kaur denied Z her signatureson page No 6 of the election petition In case Gurmeet 2 Kaur can denyher signatures at page No 6 of the election petitionthen I it is very easy for her to state that she did not signcolumn No2 of the proceedingbook or her signatureswere obtained on blank papers or printedproformain English If signatures of contestingrespondents m Z were obtained on blank papers then whytheyremained silent They 0 should have tlledcomplaints to diHerentauthoritieson theallegation that their signatures were obtained on blankpapers Ex P4 is the affidavitof Gurmeet kaur on the main Ole In paraNo 7 of the affidavit allegationof Gurmeet Kaur is that resolution dated 172008 was preparedby the signaturesof the deponentand ParamjeetSingh That means Gurmeet Kaur is also denyingher signatureson the resolution dated 172008 but in the election petitionthe allegationof the contesting respondentswas that onlythe signaturesof Paramjeet Singhwere forgedand fabricated and not of Gurmeet Kaur Ex PellC is the submittedbefore the Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 70 0 f FAO No837 of 2010 10SM1 12e Deputy Commissioner FatehgarhSahib In the no allegation thattheydid not signthe resolutiondated 1712008 producedtheir expet1Experthad comparedthe signatures of ParamjeetSinghwith his standardsignatures and opined that disputedsignatures are taliyingwith the standardsignatures respondentsalso producedexpertfor comparisonof the signatureswith the standard signatures of ParamjeetSingh 1 Reportof the expettis that disputedsignaturesin column No of the resolution are not tallying with the standard signaturesAfter election IP complaintswere sent to the SDM and the DeputyCommissioner FatehgarhSahib Writ petitionwas also filed by the contesting While Olingwrit petitionParamjeetSinghwas expectedto signdifferently so that after the examinationof an expenreportis to the effect that disputedsignaturesare not tallyingwith the standard of ParamjeetSingh Somethingcould be said if expert by the contesting would have comparedthe standardsignaturesof the contesting Singh earlierto the filingof the petitionwith the disputed When the resolution is signedthen it is very easy to deny the signatures4fterdenyingthe signatures election petition was Oled bysigningdifferentlywith this idea that ultimateiywhen there is an expertthen the disputedsignaturesare not to tallywith the standard If Gurmeet Kaur can denyher signaturesat page No 6 of the election petitionthen she can also denyher signatures in column No2 of the resolution At the time of argumentscontention of the Iearned counsel for the respondents was that no disputeregardingthe in column No2 of the resolutionbut the disputeis regarding of Paramjeet Singhin coiumn N3 But in Coun contesting failed to forgetthat theyare denyingtheir signaturesIll 1 Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 71 1 0 1 FAONo8370f20101OSMI n13e P columnNo2 of the resolution Election Tribunal acceptedthe election petitionon the allegationthat ReturningOmcer in connivance with HarkewalSinghand HarjitKaur declared him as Sarpanchof the village If allegationwas valid then there was no need for Gurmeet Kaur and othersto approach diHerentOfficersfor getting the result for the postof Sarpanchdeclared and there was no need of OlingCivil Writ Petition Returning Oftlcer in connivance with Harkewal Singhhad forgedthe signatures of ParamjeetSinghon the resolutiondated 1712008 but no 1 reason how the Returning Officer was conniving with Harkewal Singh 0 when there is no complaintagainstthe ReturningOmcer by the contesting respondentsAfter electionthere is a possibility of Paramjeet 9 Singh connivingwith the second party Aner signingthe resolution in I column No it is vety easy for Paramjeet Singhto side with other two Z panchesand approachdifferent authorities that his signatures were lX forgedor their signatures were obtainedon blank papers If signatures I Il ofthe contesting were obtained on blank papersthen why 021 theyremainedsilent Theyshould raise hue and cry Complaints should be sent to differentauthoritiesNhen thecontestingrespondents 2 Z werewell educated and theysignedon printedform in Englishthen they 0 could very easy asked the ReturningOmcer to producethe printedform in Englishwith their signatures Till todayno complaintagainstthe Returning Officer No effon was made to summon the printedform Ill Englishwith the signaturesof the contestingrespondentAt one stage contention of the contestingrespondents was that onlysignaturesof ParamjeetSinghwere forgedbut the affidavitof Gurmeet Kaur before the Election Tribunal was that her signatures as weli as thesignatures of ParamjeetSinghwere forged Then expertshould have requestedto compare the disputedsignatures of JagroopSinghGurmeet Kaur and ParamjeetSingh Ill column No 2 with their standard or specimen Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 72 FAO Noe3837 of 2010 10SMI e14 But no explanationwhy signaturesof JagroopSingh Gurmeet Kaur and ParamjeetKaur Ill column No3 were not got compared For the reasons recorded above I am of the opinionthat impugned order suffers from in6rmityahd illegalityand the same IS orderedto be set aside AppellantNol Harkewal Singhwas rightly declaredelected as Sarpanchof Gram Panchayatof villageSaimfalpur 1 Accordinglyappealis accepted 0 eeee Octoberl 2010 1 rishu JUDGE I J I 4 Z 2 I c8 r 17 Z r t0 1 Uo 1 to Anita 2013.04.20 14: 21 True Scanned Copy Of The Original PHHC,Chandigarh JOYTI RANI 2016.03.28 15:56 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document