TBA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. V. State of J&K and others

WP(C)/1660/2021

AI Insights

M/s TBA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. submitted a bid for an Engineering, Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract for junction improvements in Jammu City. Their bid was rejected during the technical evaluation because they submitted the financial bid in hard copy within the technical bid, contrary to the explicit instructions in the RFP that required the financial bid to be submitted online only. The petitioner contested the rejection, arguing that their bid was compliant and requested a review of the decision. The court, referencing the J&K Public Works Department Engineering Manual 2020 and principles of judicial review, upheld the rejection, emphasizing the importance of adhering to tender conditions to ensure fair competition and public interest.

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 800246 (HC-MISC)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-12-2021
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: Tata Cellular v. Union of India, Jagdish Mandal vs State of Orrisa, Galaxy Transport Agencies vs. M/s New J. J. Roadways, Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd., W. B. Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors.
• Laws Referred To: J&K Public Works Department Engineering Manual 2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAVINDER GUPTA; RAJNISH RAINA; HIMANSHU BEOTRA
• Assessee Lawyers: R K G U P T A; UDAY BHASKAR
• Keywords: EPC Contract; Financial Bid; Non-responsive bid; Technical evaluation; Tender Rejection
• Section: 3(8); 3(12); 3.25.2

Judgement Text

" HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU WP(C) No. 1660/2021 CM Nos. 6462/2021 & 6818/2021 Pronounced on :10th .12.2021 M/S TBA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. …. Petitioner(s) Through:- Mr. R.K. Gupta, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Uday Bhaskar, Advocate. V/s State of J&K and others …..Respondent(s) Through:- Mr. Ravinder Gupta, AAG Mr. Rajnish Raina, Advocate. Mr. Himanshu Beotra, Advocate. CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SINDHU SHARMA, JUDGE JUDGMENT 01. The office of Executive Engineer PWD (R&B), Construction Division No.II Jammu issued a fresh short notice inviting tender e-NIT No. 1/Smart City/2021-22/Div.-2 dated 05.06.2021 requesting for proposal for Engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract for junction improvements in Jammu City. The petitioner-Company M/s TBA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. being eligible submitted its bid both technical as well as financial online on 19.06.2021. As per the bid summary, the date and time of opening the technical bid was to be 22.06.2021 at 13:00 Hours in the office of Chief Engineer PWD (R&B) Department, Jammu, the date and time of the financial bid was to be notified after the evaluation of the technical bid. 2 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 02. The Technical Evaluation Committee opened the technical bid of the bidders (1) M/s TBA Infrastructure; (2) M/s Harcharan Dass Gupta; (3) RSB Projects Limited; & (4) MG Contractors Pvt. Ltd. for their evaluation on 15.07.2021. Upon the technical evaluation of the bids, the technical bid of the petitioner-M/s TBA Infrastructure was rejected as non-responsive and the same was uploaded on the portal http://jktenders.gov.in on 15th of July, 2021. As the bid of the petitioner was rejected, therefore, the petitioner requested for reviewing the decision regarding its bid and also for providing reasons for rejecting the technical bid vide letter dated 15.07.2021. 03. In response to the letter of the petitioner dated 15.07.2021, Chief Engineer PW (R&B) Department/respondent No. 3 vide his letter dated 19.07.2021 informed the petitioner that its bid was found to be non- responsive on account of the fact that the petitioner had submitted the financial cost of the bid in hard copy in appendix 3 on Page-438 of the request for proposal (RFP). The members of Technical Evaluation Committee during the technical evaluation of the bids were of the unanimous opinion that if the bid of the petitioner would be considered, it would be in gross violation of point No. 2 of the note in appendix 3 which clearly states that “this format is to be filed online. Any hard copy submission of the financial bid shall lead it to the rejection of the bid\". 04. The financial bid of the other eligible bidders were opened on 16.07.2021 and on evaluation, M/S RSB Projects Ltd. was declared as the lowest bidder having quoted a price of Rs. 29,95,00000/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Crore and Ninety Five Lacs only). 3 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 05. The petitioner is aggrieved of rejection of its technical bid and also for the reasons assigned for its rejection vide letter dated 19.07.2021, as being contrary to the facts, therefore, the same is unsustainable on the following grounds:- (i) According to the petitioner, Appendix-3 appearing at Page No. 438 of the RFP formed a part of the technical bid and it required the bidder to fill up the same online and quote his price inclusive of all taxes. The requirement of tender document was to fill up this appendix by quoting his bid price online, therefore, it is submitted that if there was no requirement of quoting the bid price as per appendix-3 it would not have formed part of bidding document/technical document. (ii) The petitioner had submitted its bid online in all respects and no part of it was provided in hard copy and, therefore, was not in violation of Point No. 2 note in Appendix-3 which is the reason assigned for rejecting his bid. (iii) The petitioner had quoted the bid price in Appendix-3 of the Technical bid but the same was submitted online in the financial part also as the bid document required the bidder to quote his bid in Appendix-3 as well as financial part, therefore, the petitioner acted in strict compliance of the bidding document is unsustainable on whimsical grounds and the same has also been rejected on mala fide grounds. (iv) It is also contended that the petitioner has quoted its bid price of Rupees Twenty nine crore Seventy four lacs Sixty thousand ninety one only which was lesser than the lowest bidder 4 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 selected, as such, his rejection being arbitrary, illegal and is required to be set aside and a direction be issued to the respondent to open his financial bid and allot the contract to him. 06. The respondents in their objections have submitted that as per the Request For Proposal (RFP) & Instructions to Bidder (ITB) document comprising the bid was to be submitted by the bidder online in two separate parts. Part-I was the technical part and Part-II was the financial part. The petitioner uploaded a template disclosing its bid price with technical bid which was not the part of a technical bid which led the same being „non-responsive‟. 07. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG, submits that during technical evaluation, the Technical Evaluation Committee opined that the petitioner had submitted its Price Bid in hard copy along with the Technical Bid, pre-qualification documents in violation to the Instructions to Bidder (ITB), therefore, the bid submitted by the petitioner was declared as non-responsive as per the conditions of RFP and the same was also uploaded on the http://jktenders.gov.in portal. The financial bids of the remaining three eligible bidders were evaluated by the Financial Evaluation Committee and respondent No. 5 was declared as L-1. 08. Mr. Ravinder Gupta, learned AAG has also placed reliance on the J&K Public Works Department Engineering Manual 2020 in terms of which Instructions To Bidders (ITB) and the bidding documents, a document comprising the bid in electronic shall be in two parts i.e., Technical as well as Financial. It has been clearly stated that disclosure of financial bid in the technical bid Part-I shall render the bidder non- 5 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 responsive. The petitioner had uploaded the template in technical bid disclosing his bid price, therefore, the bid of the petitioner had become non-responsive. The Technical Evaluation Committee after considering the same had rightly rejected the bid of the petitioner. 09. Mr. Rajnish Raina, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submitted that Appendix-3 as is apparent from RFP was only a template and a document of the financial part which was clearly written on the appendix, therefore, uploading of the same by the petitioner within its technical bid rendered the petitioner‟s bid non-responsive and the same was, accordingly, rejected. As there was no provision to upload the Appendix-3 in technical part of the bid and the same should have been uploaded separately as a part of the financial bid and as per the instructions, the Technical Evaluation Committee, thus, rightly rejected the same. 10. Mr. Himanshu Beotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 submitted that the petitioner had filled the financial cost of its bid in Appendix-3 which was only a template by writing with a pen and thereafter uploaded the same with the technical bid, thus, violating the mandatory condition of J&K Public Works Department Engineering Manual 2020 and tender bid document, leading to the rejection of its bid in technical evaluation. It is submitted that the petitioner had failed to fulfill the criteria provided by the e-NIT and, accordingly, his bid was rejected as non-responsive. According to him, the petitioner despite being an experienced contractor executing various works, after rejection of its bid has wrongly pleaded ignorance of the same and has preferred the present writ on false and frivolous grounds. 6 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 The financial bid of the bidder, who qualified the technical evaluation, was considered and the respondent No. 5 was declared as L-1. 11. Before proceeding further ahead, to consider the above, it would be useful to consider the principles governing the exercise of power of judicial review of the administrative action by the Court. 12. In Tata Cellular v. Union of India; (1994) 6 SCC 651, the position has been laid down in Para-94 as under:- 94. The principles deducible from the above are : (1) The modern, trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action. (2) The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made. (3) The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If a review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible. (4) The terms of the invitation to tender cannot be open to judicial scrutiny because the invitation to tender is in the realm of contract. Normally speaking, the decision to accept the tender or award the contract is reached by process of negotiations through several tiers. More often than not, such decisions are made qualitatively by experts. (5) The Government must have freedom of contract. In other words, a fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness (including its other facts pointed out above) but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides. (6) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administration and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure. 13. Similarly, in Jagdish Mandal vs State of Orrisa, 2007 14 SCC 517, Hon‟ble the Supreme Court has laid down the following tests 7 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 for judicial interference in exercise of powers of judicial review of administrative action: “A contract is a commercial transaction. Evaluating tenders and awarding contracts are essentially commercial functions. Principles of equity and natural justice stay at a distance. If the decision relating to award of contract is bona fide and is in public interest, courts will not, in exercise of power of judicial review, interfere even if a procedural aberration or error in assessment or prejudice to a tenderer, is made out. The power of judicial review will not be permitted to be invoked to protect private interest at the cost of public interest, or to decide contractual disputes. The tenderer or contractor with a grievance can always seek damages in a civil court. Attempts by unsuccessful tenderers with imaginary grievances, wounded pride and business rivalry, to make mountains out of molehills of some technical/procedural violation or some prejudice to self, and persuade courts to interfere by exercising power of judicial review, should be resisted. Such interferences, either interim or final, may hold up public works for years, or delay relief and succour to thousands and millions and may increase the project cost manifold. Therefore, a court before interfering in tender or contractual matters in exercise of power of judicial review, should pose to itself the following questions:- i) Whether the process adopted or decision made by the authority is mala fide or intended to favour someone. OR Whether the process adopted or decision made is so arbitrary and irrational that the court can say : 'the decision is such that no responsible authority acting reasonably and in accordance with relevant law could have reached.' ii) Whether public interest is affected. 8 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 If the answers are in the negative, there should be no interference under Article 226…...” Keeping in view these principles now reverting back to the facts of the case. 14. The Request for Proposal (RFP) for Engineering Procurement and Construction Contract for junction improvement in Jammu city was initially put to tender on 16.03 2021 but the same was cancelled. A fresh short notice e-NIT No. 01/Smart City/2021-22/Div.-2 dated 05.06.2021 which invited bids for execution of contract works for Engineering Procurement and Construction (EPC) contract for junction improvements in Jammu City. 15. In response to the e-NIT, the following bidders/vendors submitted their bids in terms of the NIT No. : (i) M/S. TBA Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (ii) M/S. Harcharan Dass Gupta (iii) M/S. RSP Projects Ltd. (iv) M/S. MG Contractors Pvt. Ltd. 16. In the technical evaluation, the technical bid of the petitioner was rejected and the financial bid of the remaining three eligible bidder were opened by the Financial Evaluation Committee on 16.07.2021 and respondent No. 5-M/s RSP Project Ltd. was declared as L-1. 17. The contents of the Request for Proposal is divided into four Sections alongwith list of tables and list of figure. Section 3 contains the Instructions to Bidders (ITB) and BID Datasheet (BIDS). This Section is further divided into four parts:- A. General B. Bidding Documents C. Preparation of Bids 9 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 D. Submission of Bids E. Bid Opening and Evaluation Part-B i.e., Bidding documents reads as under:- 3.8 Content of Bidding Document Section 3.8.1: the set of bidding documents comprises the documents listed below and corrigenda/addenda issued:- Section Particulars Section 2 Notice Inviting Tender (NIT) Section 3 Instructions to Bidders (ITB) & Bid Date Sheet (BDS) Section 4 Qualification Information Section 5 Conditions of Contract Section 6 Contract Data Section 7 Schedule-A : Project Location Schedule-B : Detailed Scope and Specifications Schedule-C : Environmental & Social Impact Assessment Compliance Schedule-D : Project Milestone Schedule-E : Drawings Schedule-F : Indicative Bill of Quantities Section 8 Contract Forms Section-8 contains the Contract forms. It contains as many as 19 Appendix (Forms). These include from details of bidder to Bid submission forms financial Bid/Price schedule to Power of Attorney and so forth for completion certificate. The document which has resulted in the rejection of the bid of the petitioners i.e., Appendix-3 is also included in the same, it reads as under:- Appendix-3 is Financial Bid/Price Schedule To be filled ONLINE only; this is only a TEMPLATE) Sl. No. Particulars of work Qty Rate Estimated cost. (INR ₹)(inclusive of all taxes) Bidder‟s Quoted Price (inclusive of all taxes) 1 Engineering, Procurement and Construction Contract for junction Improvements (23) 1 3111.57 Lakh Total (Round off) 10 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 Total Amount = Rs. ___________ Total Amount = (in words) Note: 1. If there is a discrepancy between the figures and words, the price quoted in words shall prevail. 2. This format is to be filled online only. Any hard copy submission of the Financial Bid shall lead to the rejection of the Bid. 3. Bidder has to quote the price inclusive of all taxes. 4. GST shall not be paid extra. Signature of Authorized Representative Name & Designation Name of Bidder: Business Address Date: Seal of the Bidder 18. The question which arises for consideration is whether Appendix-3 as per the RFP was part of the technical bid as stated by the petitioner, and whether the rejection of technical bid of the petitioner as non-responsive on the ground that he had submitted the financial cost of the bid in hard copy in Appexdix-3 and the same was in violation of Point No. 2 of Note in Appendix-3 was justified. 19. Part-C of Section-3 of the RFP contains the documents comprising the bids and reads ad under:- C. PREPARATION OF BIDS 3.12 Documents comprising the Bid Clause:3.12.1 The bid to be submitted by the bidder online (refer clause 3.8.2 of ITB) shall be in two separate parts:- Part One: Technical Part 11 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 The Technical part shall contain the following documents, the scanned copies thereof shall be uploaded on the portal:- 1. Bid security declaration on notarized affidavit 2. Proof of Bid document Fee paid 3. Details of Bidder 4. Contractor‟s Letter for Bidding 5. Power of Attorney 6. Format for Evidence of access to or Availability of Credit facility 7. Affidavit regarding Abandoned Works and Undertaking 8. Declaration regarding Blacklisting/Debarring 9. Financial standing of the Bidder 10. Audited and Certified balance sheets of bidder for the latest 3 financial years 11. Experience in works of similar nature and size during last five years 12. Existing Commitments and ongoing works 13. Copies of GST registration certificate/Permanent Account Number (PAN) from Income Tax Department. All the pages of the submitted bid should be stamped and signed by the bidder/his authorized representative. 14. Bids submitted online must be legible, failing which the bid evaluation committee may consider the bid as non-responsive. Part Two: Financial Part (i) The Financial part shall be filled properly in “The letter for Financial Bid” and shall be submitted online only. (ii) Rates shall be quoted in figures as well as in words. If any difference is found in figures and words, the rate in words shall be taken as valid and correct. (iii) All the pages of the submitted bid should be stamped and signed by the bidder/his authorized representative. (iv) Bid sent by e-mail or fax etc. shall not be considered. 20. Part-I contains the Technical Part and Part-II contains the financial part. A bare perusal of Appendix-3 clearly reflects heading Financial Bid/Price Sheet to be filled online this is only a template, therefore, Appendix-III is clearly a part of the financial bid and could not have been submitted with technical bid. Note 2 of this template clearly states that this format is to be filled online only and any hard copy 12 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 submission of it would lead to the rejection of the bid, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that Appendix-3 appearing at Page-438 of the RFP format as part of the technical bid which was rightly uploaded is misconceived and without any basis, as such, the same is, accordingly, rejected. 21. The bid of the petitioner was, thus, declared non-responsive by the Technical Evaluation Committee which examined the bids and determined their responsiveness, the bid of the parties were denied for their responsive in terms of Clause 3.25.2 of RFP: As per Clause 3.25.2-A responsive bid is one which conforms to all the terms, conditions, and requirement of the bidding documents, without material deviation or reservation. A material deviation or reservation is one. a) which affects in any way the scope, quality, or performance of the works; b) which limits in any way, inconsistent with the bidding documents, the employer‟s rights or the Bidder‟s obligations under the Contract; or c) whose implementation would affect unfairly the competitive position of other Bidders presenting responsive bids. 22. The bid of the petitioner was inconsistent with the bidding document and since it failed to fulfill all the conditions and requirements of the bidding document. Therefore, the Technical Evaluation Committee rightly rejected the bid of the petitioner. This brings us to the next question whether the reasons assigned for rejection of the bid by the respondents vide letter dated 19.07.2021 were justified, i.e., the petitioner had submitted the financial cost of the bid in Appendix-3 on Page-438 of RFP and the same was considered in violation of Point No. 2 of Note-2 of 13 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 Appendix-3 which states, “this format is to be filled online. Any hardcopy submission of the financial shall lead to the rejection of the bid”. 23. The official respondents in their objections have submitted that the petitioner had uploaded the templates disclosing his bid price i.e., Appendix-III which was a document of technical part as there was no provision of uploading Appendix-III in the technical part of the bid and it was to be uploaded separately in the financial bid, therefore, the document in the technical part became a hard copy as the bidder has disclosed his quoted bid price in the technical bid. 24. Mr. Beotra, on the other hand, while supporting the arguments of Mr. Gupta and Mr. Raina, submitted that the petitioner had used a template and disclosed his financial bid in the technical bid but by filling the same by a pen and, thereafter uploading the same whereas this documents was to be filled and uploaded online only, as such, the document became a hard copy and was entitled to be rejected. 25. The technical bid of the petitioner was rejected as non responsive as per the terms and conditions of the RFP. The petitioner had in contravention to the provisions of RFP submitted his technical bid. The reasons for rejection given in communication reads as under: “In this context you are informed that you has been found non-responsive on account of the fact that you have submitted the financial cost of the bid in hard copy in Appexdix-3 on page No. 438 of RFB. Though the expression used is „hard copy‟ which may not be as is used in common parlance i.e., the information from computer which is printed on paper. However, in the present case, the fact remains that the petitioner had filled Appendix-3 with a pen 14 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 and then uploaded the same with technical bid instead of submitting the same with financial bid and as the same was not in accordance with prescribed manner of submitting the bid, therefore, the respondents rejected the petitioner‟s bid as non-responsive. There being no doubt of the non-responsive of the bid as the petitioner had not submitted his bid as per RFP, therefore, it was for the authority to interpret the same, which may differ from the common perception but it does not change the fact that the bid was non-responsive. It is settled proposition of law that the authority which authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement and thus, its interpretation should not be second guessed by Court in judicial review proceedings as has been held in 2020 (14) Scale 349; Galaxy Transport Agencies, Contractors, Traders, Transports and Suppliers vs. M/s New J. J. Roadways, Fleet Owners and Transport Contractors and others. 14. In a series of judgments, this Court has held that the authority that authors the tender document is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirement, and thus, its interpretation should not be second-guessed by a Court in judicial review proceedings. In Afcons Infrastructure Ltd vs Nagpur Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. 2016(16) SCC 818, the Apex Court has held as under:- “....15. We may add that the owner or the employer of a project, having authored the tender documents, is the best person to understand and appreciate its requirements and interpret its documents. The constitutional Courts must defer to this understanding and appreciation of the tender documents, unless there is mala fide or perversity in the understanding or appreciation or in the application of the terms of the 15 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 tender conditions. It is possible that the owner or employer of a project may give an interpretation to the tender documents that is not acceptable to the constitutional Courts but that by itself is not a reason for interfering with the interpretation given.” 26. This apart, the J&K Public Works Engineering Manual, 2020 is instructions to Bidder in document comprising the BID in the Note states as under:- “Disclosure of financial bid in technical bid part-1 shall render the biding non-responsive.” Therefore, the bid of the petitioner was non-responsive on this ground also and accordingly, rejected. 27. It was also submitted that there was ambiguity in Appendix-3 and the format provided in the financial bid, therefore, the petitioner quoted the same in both the bids. This argument too is without any merit. Since RFP clearly states the documents which were to be scanned, or uploaded, and to be filled. In case any clarification was required, the petitioner could have approached the respondents as per Clause 3.09 which provides clarification on Bidding Documents and Pre-Bid Meeting. The petitioner was required to be careful in submitting his bid. 28. The tender evaluating committee had rejected the bids on the ground that they are not in strict compliance of the requirement of the tender document after determining the substantial responsiveness of the bid on the basis of bidding document rejected the same and the same cannot be negated by the Court substituting by its own opinion in these proceedings. 16 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 29. It is settled proposition that the commercial transactions require expertise and the experts after considering all the material and the terms and conditions of RFP have rejected the bid of the petitioner and this Court in exercise power of judicial review cannot substitute its view over their view, more so when the award of contract is in public interest. 30. Lastly, it was argued that the petitioner has quoted an amount of Rs.29,74,66,091/- i.e., Rs. 22,33,909/- lesser than the bid of respondent No. 6, therefore, it is in the interest of public, that the financial bid should be opened and he should be allotted the contract. 31. While considering a similar case, in W. B. Electricity Board vs. Patel Engineering Co. Ltd. & Ors. 2001 AIR SC 68, the Hon‟ble Apex Court has held as under: “....The submission that remains to be considered is that as the price bid of respondent Nos.1 to 4 is lesser by 40 crores and 80 crores than that of respondent Nos.11 and 10 respectively, public interest demands that the bid of respondent Nos.1 to 4 should be considered. The project undertaken by the appellant is undoubtedly for the benefit of public. The mode of execution of the work of the project should also ensure that the public interest is best served. Tenders are invited on the basis of competitive bidding for execution of the work of the project as it serves dual purposes. On the one hand it offers a fair opportunity to all those who are interested in competing for the contract relating to execution of the work and on the other hand it affords the appellant a choice to select the best of the competitors on competitive price without prejudice to the quality of the work. Above all it eliminates favouritism and discrimination in awarding public works to contractors. The contract is, therefore, awarded normally to the 17 WP(C) No. 1660/2021 lowest tenderer which is in public interest. The principle of awarding contract to the lowest tenderer applies when all things are equal. It is equally in public interest to adhere to the rules and conditions subject to which bids are invited. Merely because a bid is the lowest the requirements of compliance of rules and conditions cannot be ignored. It is obvious that the bid of respondent Nos.1 to 4 is the lowest of bids offered. As the bid documents of respondent Nos.1 to 4 stands without correction there will be inherent inconsistency between the particulars given in the annexure and the total bid amount, it cannot be directed to be considered along with other bid on the sole ground of being the lowest.” 32. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there is no merit in this writ petition, which is, accordingly, dismissed alongwith connected application(s). (Sindhu Sharma) Judge JAMMU 10th .12.2021 MICHAL Whether the judgment/order is speaking : Yes Whether the judgment/order is reportable : Yes RAM MURTI 2021.12.15 18:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "