: 1 : wp.4335.07.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4335 OF 2007 Vishwanath Pandurang Mahadeshwar, Age 47, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Corporator from Ward No.86, Santacruz (East), Resident of C/42, Sai Prasad Gruhanirman Sanstha, 2nd floor, Golibar Naka, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055 and permanent resident of Taluka Kudal, District Sindhudurg. ...Petitioner Versus 1.Caste Certificate Verification Committee through Social Welfare Officer, Mumbai Region, Room No.71, 6th floor, Konkan Bhavan, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614. 2.Municipal Commissioner, Mumbai Municipal Corporation, having his office at Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai – 400 001. 3.Municipal Corporation for Brihan Mumbai, having its office at Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai-1. 4.State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. 5.Suryavansh Balrup Thakur, aged 53 years, residing at 4, Gangabai Chawl, Nadkarni Compound, : 2 : wp.4335.07.sxw Datta Mandir Road, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400 055. ...Respondents WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2263 OF 2007 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4335 OF 2007 Vishwanath Pandurang Mahadeshwar, Age 47, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Corporator from Ward No.86, Santacruz (East), Resident of C/42, Sai Prasad Gruhanirman Sanstha, 2nd floor, Golibar Naka, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055 and permanent resident of Taluka Kudal, District Sindhudurg. ...Petitioner Versus 1.Caste Certificate Verification Committee through Social Welfare Officer, Mumbai Region, Room No.71, 6th floor, Konkan Bhavan, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614. 2.Municipal Commissioner, Mumbai Municipal Corporation, having his office at Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai – 400 001. 3.Municipal Corporation for Brihan Mumbai, having its office at Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai-1. 4.State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. : 3 : wp.4335.07.sxw AND CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1029 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4335 OF 2007 Shri.Suryavansh Balrup Thakur, Age 54 years, Occu.-Social Work, Residing at 4, Gangabai Chawl, Nadkarni Compound, Datta Mandir Road, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055. ...Applicant Versus 1.Vishwanath Pandurang Mahadeshwar, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at C/42, Sai Prasad Grihanirman Sanstha, 2nd Floor, Golibar Naka, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055 and permanent Resident of Taluka Kudal, Dist : Sindhudurga. 2.Caste Certificate Verification Committee through Social Welfare Officer, Mumbai Region, Room No.71, 6th floor, Konkan Bhavan, CBD Belapur, Navi Mumbai – 400 614. 3.Municipal Commissioner, Mumbai Municipal Corporation, having his office at Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai – 400 001. : 4 : wp.4335.07.sxw 4.Municipal Corporation for Brihan Mumbai, having its office at Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. 5.State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Social Welfare Department, ...Respondents Mantralaya, Mumbai – 400 032. (Ori.Respondents) AND WRIT PETITION NO.1148 OF 2008 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.858 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1148 OF 2008 Suryavansh Balrup Thakur, Age 54 years, Occu.-Social Work, Residing at 4, Gangabai Chawl, Nadkarni Compound, Datta Mandir Road, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055. ...Petitioner Versus 1.State of Maharashtra, through Govt.Pleader, High Court, Bombay. 2.Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Konkan Bhavan, 6th Floor, Mumbai. 3.Vishwanath Pandurang Mahadeshwar, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at C/42, Sai Prasad Grihanirman Sanstha, 2nd Floor, Golibar Naka, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055. ...Respondents : 5 : wp.4335.07.sxw WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2395 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1148 OF 2008 Suryavansh Balrup Thakur, Age 54 years, Occu.-Social Work, Residing at 4, Gangabai Chawl, Nadkarni Compound, Datta Mandir Road, Vakola Bridge, Santacruz (East), Mumbai-400 055. ...Applicant Versus 1.State of Maharashtra, through Govt.Pleader, High Court, Bombay. 2.Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.2, Konkan Bhavan, 6th Floor, Mumbai. 3.Vishwanath Pandurang Mahadeshwar, Adult, Indian Inhabitant, Residing at C/42, Sai Prasad Grihanirman Sanstha, 2nd Floor, Golibar Naka, Santacruz (East), Mumbai – 400 055. ...Respondents And Vaishyawani Samaj Madhyavarti Sanstha through Secretary, Anil Hegishte, having its registered office at Rajaram Estate, Near Hotel Vivekanand, Dadasaheb Phalke Road, Dadar (East), Mumbai – 14. ...Intervener/Applicant ...... : 6 : wp.4335.07.sxw Mr.Girish Kulkarni with Mr.Sandeep Waghmare for Petitioner in WP/4335/2007 and for Respondent No.3 in WP/1148/2008. Mr.Kirit J.Hakani with Mr.Rahul Hakani for Petitioner in WP/1148/2008 and for Respondent No.6 in WP/4335/2007. Mr.S.R.Nargolkar, G.P. for Respondents 1 & 4 in WP/4335/2007 & for Respondents 1 & 2 in WP/1148/2008. Mr.R.K.Mendadkar for Intervenor - Vaishyawani Samaj Madhyavarti Sanstha ...... CORAM:- A.M.KHANWILKAR AND R.M.SAVANT, JJ. DATED:- OCTOBER 1, 2010. ORAL JUDGMENT (PER A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.) : 1. All these proceedings are disposed of by this common Judgment, as overlapping issues are involved. For the sake of convenience, we would address the parties as per the description given in the cause title of the leading Writ Petition being Writ Petition No.4335 of 2007. 2. The controversy that arises before us is on account of the invalidation of the caste claim of the Petitioner by the Scrutiny Committee. As a result of which, the Petitioner was required to vacate the Office of Municipal : 7 : wp.4335.07.sxw Corporator from Ward No.86 of Mumbai Municipal Corporation. The Respondent No.5 (Petitioner in WP/1148/08) who has been impleaded subsequently in the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner had contested Election of 2007 from Ward No.86 reserved for Other Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as `OBC’). The Petitioner claims that he belongs to Vaishyawani Caste, which according to him, is notified as OBC. In support of this claim, he relies on the Certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Kudal dated 17th May 1993. Whereas, the Respondent No.5 claims that he belongs to Nai Caste which is admittedly notified as OBC. In the said election, the Petitioner was declared to be a returned candidate and the Respondent No.5 as defeated candidate. The Respondent No.5, therefore, filed election dispute on 17th February 2007 before the Small Causes Court in Mumbai being Municipal Election Petition No.147 of 2007. During the pendency of the said election dispute, the caste claim of the Petitioner was scrutinised by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.II, Konkan Bhavan. The Caste Scrutiny Committee, after evaluating all the documents pressed into service by the Petitioner, eventually held that the Petitioner was unable to establish the fact that he belongs to “Vaishyawani” Caste; whereas the oldest documents which had probative : 8 : wp.4335.07.sxw value would indicate that he belongs to “Wani” Caste. The Committee further opined that “Wani” was not included in the list of OBC notified by the State Government. On this finding, the Caste Scrutiny Committee concluded that the Petitioner does not belong to “Vaishyawani”, OBC. Resultantly, the Caste Certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Kudal dated 17th May 1993 was declared as invalid and confiscated. 3. Essentially, against this decision, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court on 31st May 2007 being Writ Petition No.4335 of 2007. The Petitioner moved for interim relief during the pendency of this Petition which, however, was refused on 31st July 2007, as the Court noted that the Petitioner had already vacated his Office. Thereafter, the Respondent No.2 Municipal Commissioner passed order on 2nd August 2007, stating that the Petitioner has ceased to be Municipal Corporator with effect from 31st July 2007, on which date, the interim protection granted to the Petitioner came to be vacated by this Court. Against the order dated 31st July, 2007 passed by this Court declining to continue interim protection, the Petitioner carried the matter to the Supreme Court by way of SLP (Civil) 13854/2007, which however was dismissed on 20th August 2007. : 9 : wp.4335.07.sxw 4. In the meantime, this Court examined the question regarding validity of Section 5-B of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 along with similar challenge to the amended provisions contained in the Mumbai Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, 1949 as well as Maharashtra Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial Townships Act, 1965, Maharashtra Zilla Parishads and Panchayat Samitis Act and Mumbai Village Panchayats Act, 1950 vide Judgment and order dated 20th December 2007 in Writ Petition No.5691 of 2007 and companion cases. By the said decision, it was held that the said amended provisions in the respective enactments were valid and intravires. 5. It is only thereafter, the Respondent No.5 was advised to file Writ Petition before this Court inter alia to assail the letters issued by the Assistant Secretary of the concerned Department Exhibit `B’ and Exhibit `C’ dated 27th April, 1989 and 18th October, 1989 respectively. Besides, the Respondent No.5 has also challenged the Government Resolution at Exhibit 5 dated 21st August 1996, whereby, the Caste “Vaishyawani” was also included in Entry No.190 of the Government Resolution dated 12th October : 10 : wp.4335.07.sxw 1976. In addition, the Respondent No.5 has challenged the Caste Certificate issued in the name of the Petitioner by the Executive Magistrate Exhibit `D’ dated 17th May 1993, even though the same has already been invalidated by the Caste Scrutiny Committee in terms of its decision dated 30th May 2007. The above challenge was necessitated on account of the issues raised in the leading Writ Petition on behalf of the Petitioner. Whilst this Writ Petition filed by the Respondent No.5 was pending, the Respondent No.5 took out application for interim stay being Civil Application No.858 of 2008. Another interim application has been filed by Vaishyawani Samaj Madhyavarti Sanstha being Civil Application No.2395 of 2008 for intervening in the proceedings. Accordingly, the Writ Petitions as well as Civil Applications proceeded together for hearing. 6. We have heard Counsel appearing for both the private parties in the respective Petitions, the Counsel for the intervener as well as the learned A.G.P. Besides oral arguments, the parties have filed written submission. On consideration of the issues raised by the rival side, in our opinion, the following questions will arise for our determination: : 11 : wp.4335.07.sxw (1) Whether the impugned decision of the Caste Scrutiny Committee suffers from any manifest error, in invalidating the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner by the Executive Magistrate dated 17th May 1993, on the finding that the Petitioner belongs to “Wani” Caste and not “Vaishyawani” as claimed? (2) Assuming that “Vaishyawani” or “Wani” are synonyms, are these Castes or sub-Caste covered by Entry No.190 of the Government Resolution dated 12th October 1976? (3) What is the efficacy of the subsequent letters issued by the Assistant Secretary of the Department dated 27th April 1989 and 18th October 1989; Government Resolution dated 9th August, 1995; Government Resolution dated 21st August 1996 and Government Circular dated 20th June 2008. Will any of these make any difference to the claim of the Petitioner? (4) Whether no relief can be granted to the Respondent No.5, : 12 : wp.4335.07.sxw having failed to challenge the Government Resolution dated 9th August 1995? (5) Whether the Caste Certificate issued by the Executive Magistrate, Kudal dated 17th May, 1993 is without jurisdiction? (6) Whether Respondent No.5 has locus standi to challenge the subject letters issued by the Assistant Secretary and the Government Resolutions/Circular and the Writ Petition so filed by him suffers from laches? 7. These are the broad issues that will have to be answered to address the controversy brought before us. 8. Re : Question No.1 : Reverting to the first question, we may now elaborate as to the basis on which the Caste Scrutiny Committee proceeded to decide the caste claim of the Petitioner. The Petitioner had relied on several documents in support of his caste claim. The first such document is : 13 : wp.4335.07.sxw affidavit filed by Balkrishna Pandurang Mahadeshwar, wherein it is stated that his School record discloses that he belonged to “Vaishya” Caste. It is also stated in the said affidavit that the caste of his elder brother Dattaram Pandurang Mahadeshwar is recorded as “Wani” in his School record. He has also asserted that the Caste of the younger brother i.e. Petitioner herein is recorded as “Vaishya” in the School record. Besides, the Caste of his niece Kumari Pratima Dattaram Mahadeshwar is recorded as “Vaishyawani” in her school record. This affidavit has been discarded by the Committee on the finding that the caste claim cannot be authoritatively decided merely on the basis of the affidavit of the relations. 9. The Petitioner has then relied on the Caste Certificate issued in his favour as also Caste Certificates issued in favour of Balkrishna Pandurang Mahadeshwar, Shantaram Pandurang Mahadeshwar, Smt.Pratibha Dattaram Mahadeshwar. The Committee opined that the said Caste Certificates cannot be treated as documentary evidence in deciding the caste claim of the candidate because, it is for the Scrutiny Committee to verify the genuineness of the caste claim mentioned in the Caste Certificate. : 14 : wp.4335.07.sxw 10. Insofar as the School Leaving Certificate of the Petitioner dated 6th February 1990, the Committee noticed that the Caste mentioned therein was shown as “Vaishya”. That Caste was not notified in the list of OBC in the State of Maharashtra and therefore was of no avail. 11. The Committee has then adverted to the School Certificate of Dattaram Pandurang Mahadeshwar dated 19th January 1996 in which his Caste was shown as “Wani”. The Committee opined that the “Wani” Caste is not listed in the list of OBC in the State of Maharashtra and, therefore, cannot be considered. 12. The Committee then adverted to the School Leaving Certificate of Smt.Pratibha Dattaram Mahadeshwar dated 31st May 1994. In relation to this document, the Committee opined that the same was not prior to 1989. Besides, the said Pratima cannot be considered as forefather of the candidate/Petitioner. She was niece of the Petitioner. As a result, even this document has been discarded by the Court. 13. The Committee then adverted to the Caste Validity Certificate of : 15 : wp.4335.07.sxw Kshitij Vijay Mahadeshwar dated 15th May 1995 and Caste Validity Certificate of Sanjay Dattaram Mahadeshwar issued by the Divisional Caste Scrutiny Committee No.1, Konkan Bhavan, Navi Mumbai. The Committee opined that in view of the exposition in the case of Kumari Madhuri Patil & Anr. vs. Addl.Commissioner, Tribal Development & Ors. reported in (1994) 6 SCC 241, the claim of the Petitioner will have to be considered on its own facts. 14. The Committee then adverted to the Death Certificate of Pandurang Sonu Mahadeshwar dated 15th April 1997. The same has been discarded on the finding that it does not mention the caste of the deceased and it cannot be considered. 15. It has then referred to the letter dated 20th February, 2007 given by the Petitioner addressed to the Divisional Social Welfare Officer, Mumbai along with Government Resolution dated 21st August 1996. Relying on the said document, it was contended on behalf of the Petitioner before the Committee that his claim was legitimate as he belonged to “Vaishyawani” Caste. The Committee, however, opined that the School Leaving Certificate : 16 : wp.4335.07.sxw of the Petitioner would indicate that his caste was “Vaishya” and which fact has been admitted in his own letter dated 20th February, 2007. The Committee went on to observe that in view of the exposition in Madhuri Patil’s case (supra), the Caste notified by the State Government will have to be read as it is. It further held that Caste “Vaishya” cannot be read as “Vaishyawani”. 16. The Committee then adverted to the Government Resolution dated 21st August 1996 which purports to include “Vaishyawani” in Entry 190 of the OBC Caste List along with already notified Castes. The Committee held that “Vaishya” Caste was not included in the list of OBC, for which reason, the Petitioner cannot get any benefit. 17. The Committee then adverted to the letter dated 18th June 1992 issued by the Under Secretary, Government of Maharashtra addressed to the Joint Director (CVC) Maharashtra State, Pune. In the said letter, it is mentioned that if the caste of students or parents are shown as “Vaishya”, in such matter, if the candidate produces the other documents as Vaishyawani then the Caste Certificate should be issued. The Committee : 17 : wp.4335.07.sxw has noted that the said instructions were relevant to the Caste Certificate Issuing Authority and cannot bind the Committee. 18. The Committee has then adverted to the service book record of Sanjay Dattaram Mahadeshwar and noticed that it mentions his caste as Vaishyawani. This document, however, is discarded on the finding that the service book extract cannot be treated as basic or primary document to answer the claim of the Petitioner. It is a secondary evidence. 19. The Committee then placed reliance on the Vigilance Report dated 21st March 2007 given by the Police Inspector. The said report records that the Petitioner has not produced any documentary evidence of his forefathers showing that their Caste was recorded as “Vaishyawani”. 20. The Committee has also considered the affidavit filed by the Petitioner himself which contained the family tree of the Petitioner’s forefathers, but discarded the same on the finding that the affidavit cannot be the basis to decide the caste claim of the Petitioner. : 18 : wp.4335.07.sxw 21. Reference is then made to the Birth Certificate of Shantaram Pandurang Sonu Mahadeshwar dated 3rd August 1949 and of Dattaram Pandurang Sonu Mahadeshwar dated 2nd January 1938, who are the real brothers of the Petitioners. The Committee opined that in the said Birth Certificates, the Caste of elder brothers of the Petitioners herein is shown as “Wani”. However, “Wani” Caste is not notified in the list of OBC in the State of Maharashtra. The Committee also held that the said documents were the oldest documents and have greater probative value than the rest of the other documents. Relying on these documents and the noting in the Vigilance Report, the Committee proceeded to negative the caste claim of the Petitioner. 22. The Committee has also adverted to the Social Status Certificate given by Samaj Sanghatana certifying that the Petitioner belongs to Vaishyawani Caste. This document has been discarded on the finding that it does not have probative value. 23. The Committee has also adverted to the Primary School Leaving Certificate of Pratibha Dattaram Mahadeshwar dated 20th March 2007 in : 19 : wp.4335.07.sxw which her Caste was shown as “Vaishyawani”. This document has been discarded on the finding that the said Pratibha Dattaram Mahadeshwar cannot be considered as forefather of the Petitioner. 24. The Committee, however, preferred to rely on the Birth Certificates of the elder brothers of the Petitioner which stated that their Caste was “Wani” only. 25. Suffice it to observe that the Committee has analysed each document produced by the Petitioner in support of his caste claim and has discarded the same either on the finding that the same was not primary document or relevant for authoritatively answering the caste claim of the Petitioner or that the same had no probative value. The Scrutiny Committee has essentially chosen to rely on the two Birth Certificates of the elder brothers of the Petitioner and the finding in the Vigilance Report. From the Birth Certificates of the elder brothers, it is noticed that their caste was shown as “Wani”. Even the Vigilance Report finds that the Petitioner has failed to produce any documentary evidence of his forefathers showing their caste as “Vaishyawani”. Consistent with this finding, the Committee proceeded to : 20 : wp.4335.07.sxw invalidate the Caste Certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner and held that the Petitioner does not belong to “Vaishyawani”, OBC Caste. 26. Insofar as the opinion recorded by the Caste Scrutiny Committee, we are in agreement with the same. The Committee has analysed the caste claim of the Petitioner in conformity with the legal principle enunciated in the case of Madhuri Patil (supra). The crucial documents are the Birth Certificates of the elder brothers of the Petitioner which are dated 3rd August, 1949 and 2nd January, 1948 respectively. The same had greater probative value than the rest of the documents. The said documents would indicate that the Caste of the Petitioner is “Wani” only. Thus, the claim of the Petitioner that he belongs to Caste “Vaishyawani” has been rightly rejected by the Committee. We do not find any manifest error in the opinion so recorded by the Committee. 27. QUESTION NO.2 : The next question is: whether “Vaishyawani” or “Wani” is a synonym? From the original file maintained by the Department which was produced before us, we have come across the noting made by the concerned Officers that “Wani” is a class and not sub-caste of : 21 : wp.4335.07.sxw “Vaishyawani”; and cannot be treated as sub-caste of “Vaishyawani”. That is the opinion recorded by the Department. That opinion prevailed till the same stood substituted on account of Government Circular dated 15th June 2008 which is founded on the basis of the opinion given by the Bapat Committee Report dated 4th March 2008. We shall deal with this aspect a little later. 28. Suffice it to observe that when the Caste Certificate was issued in favour of the Petitioner by the Executive Magistrate on 17th May 1993, at the relevant time “Wani” was not included in Entry 190 of Government Resolution in force. Even in the Government Resolution dated 9th August 1995 or for that matter dated 21st August 1996, “Wani” has not been separately shown as OBC in the list of State of Maharashtra. 29. The question is: whether Caste “Wani” or “Vaishyawani”, as the case may be, are covered by Entry 190 of the OBC List in the State of Maharashtra? The Entry 190 came into being on account of Government Resolution dated 12th October 1976. The English translation thereof reads thus: : 22 : wp.4335.07.sxw “List of other backward class. GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA Socialwelfare Cultural affairs, Sports and tourism Department Government ResolutionKramank CBC-1470/631 17/De-5 Mantralaya Annex Building, Mumbai-400 032 Date 12 October 1976 Reference (1) Government resolution, Education and Social welfare Department Kramank-CBC-1467-m, Date 13 October 1967 (2) Government Resolution, Social welfare, Cultural affairs, Sports and tourism Department Kramank CBC 1470-1339- De-5 Date 26 July 1976. Government Resolution : As per approval vide Government Resolution of Education and Social welfare Department dated 13 October 1967 Kramank CBC-1470-M and thereafter modified from time to time the list of Other backward Class at serial no.190 now the following castes are to be added “Serial no.190-kathar, katharwani and kanthahar wani’ (excluding Lingayat wani or ladwani) In the name of and order by Governor of Maharashtra Sd/- M.B.Sule Deputy Secretary Government of Maharashtra.” (emphasis supplied) 30. Significantly, this Government Resolution is issued in the name of and order by Governor of Maharashtra. The Entry No.190 which stands incorporated in the original Government Resolution enlisting the Caste included in the OBC List in State of Maharashtra vide Government : 23 : wp.4335.07.sxw Resolution dated 30th October 1967, the same does not include either Caste “Vaishyawani” or “Wani” as such. Going by this Government Resolution, the Executive Magistrate, Kudal, assuming that he had power to issue Caste Certificate in the name of the Petitioner, could not have granted that Certificate - as neither “Vaishyawani” nor “Wani” was included in Entry No.190. 31. Question Nos.3 and 4 : The question is: whether the Executive Magistrate was obliged to issue the Caste Certificate in the name of Petitioner in the light of the letters issued by the Assistant Secretary to the Department of Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism, Government of Maharashtra dated 27th April 1989 and 18th October 1989. From the original record which has been produced before us, it is noticed that the said letters were the outcome of representations made by individuals including a Member of Legislative Assembly. We find that one Sham Sadashiv Sonawane had made representation on 6th February 1989 to clarify as to whether “Kulwantwani” was part of Entry No.190. Similarly, one Vitthal Dattatraya Kamerkar had made representation vide letter dated 24th February 1989 to clarify whether “Vaishyawani” was part of Entry No. : 24 : wp.4335.07.sxw 190. On the same lines, letter was received from local sitting M.L.A. dated 15th April 1989. In the light of these representations, the matter was examined at the Department level and on the basis of the noting made by the concerned Official, the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Social Welfare, Cultural Affairs, Sports and Tourism of Government of Maharashtra by communication dated 27th April 1989 informed the said Sonawane and Kamerkar in the following words: (English Translation) “GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTRA Krs.CBC 1489/6182/[40]/Mavak-5 Social welfare,