CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR v. The Regional Dire

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED : 15.12.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRUW.P.NOs.19931, 19932, 19847 to 19849 and 20220 to 20222 of 2009andM.P.NOS.1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1,2,1 and 2 of 2009D.Subramaniam and Sonsrep. By its Partner,D.S.SekarNo.104, Choolaimedu High Road,ONGC Colony,Chennai-600 024... Petitioner in W.P.No.19931 of 2009S.Ramalingam.. Petitioner in W.P.No.19932 of 2009Y.Devendra Prasad.. Petitioner in W.p.No.19847 of 2009Smt.J.Chandrika.. Petitioner in W.P.No.19848 of 2009Smt.A.Saradammal.. Petitioner in W.P.No.19849 of 2009S.Palaniappan.. Petitioner in W.P.No.20220 of 2009N.Boopathy.. Petitioner in W.P.No.20221 of 2009Smt.Andal.. Petitioner in W.P.No.20222 of 2009Vs.1.The Regional Director, Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.(I.R.C.T.C) South Zone, No.6-A, The Rain Tree Place, No.9, Mchnicals Road, Chetpet, Chennai-600 031. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.The Divisional Railway Manager, D.R.M.(C's) Office, Chennai-600 003.3.The Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway, Chennai-600 003.4.The Director, Tourism and Catering, Railway Board, New Delhi... Respondents in W.P.Nos. 19931, 19932,19847 to 19849 of 20091.The Divisional Railway Manager, Commercial Branch Southern Railway, Chennai-3.2.The Deputy General Manager, RD/IRCTC/SZ, No.9, Mc Nichals Road, Chennai-31.. Respondents in W.P.Nos.20220 to 20222/2009W.P.Nos.19931, 19932, 19847, 19848 and 19849 of 2009 are preferredunder Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issueof a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the entire records,leading to the issue of proceedings bearing No.2009/IRCTC/SZ/MAS-IFdated 24.09.2009 on the file of the first respondent and to quash thesame and to direct the respondents 1 to 4 herein to follow therevised catering policy 2005 bearing No.2005/TG-III/600/5 dated21.12.2005 and proceedings bearing No.2005/TG-III/600/5 dated09.3.2006 on the file of the fourth respondent and to follow thereservation policy enunciated therein and to renew the license infavour of the petitioners in respect of the Vegetarian LightRefreshments Stall (VLR) Main Unit situated at Platform No.1, MadrasPark Station (WP.19931/09) and Trolley (Vegetarian Tea Stall)situated at Egmore Railway Station, Chennai(WP.19932/09) and fruitand fruit juice stall situated at Platform Nos.2 and 3 and 8 and 9 inthe Central Railway station, Chennai (WP.19847/09) and fruit andfruit juice stall situated at Platforms Nos.6 & 7 and 10 and 11 inthe Central Railway Station, Chennai and also VLR stall situated atPlatform Nos.1 and 2 in St. Thomas Mount Railway station, Chennai(WP.19848/09) and Kailash Ice Cream stall situated at Platforms 3 and4 and 5 and 6 in the Egmore Railway Station, Chennai (WP.19849/09)respectively. W.P.Nos.20220 and 20222 of 2009 are preferred under Article 226 ofthe Constitution of India praying for the issue of a writ of mandamusto direct the respondents to allow the petitioners to run the stallon the similar conditions of extension as granted to some of thestalls. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ For Petitioners : Mr.V.Manohar in W.P.Nos.20220 and 20222 of 2009 Mr.K.Sridhar in W.P.Nos.19847 to 19849 of 2009 W.P.Nos.19931 ad 19932 of 2009For Respondents : Mr.R.Thiagarajan, SC for M.V.C.Suresh Kumar for IRCTC Mr.M.Vellaisamy for Southern RailwaysCOMMON ORDERHeard both sides. 2.These batch of writ petitions are filed by petitioners, whoare having licensed stalls for vending eatables or refreshments invarious railway station platforms owned by the Indian Railways.3.In the first five writ petitions, the prayer of thepetitioners is to set aside the order, dated 24.09.2009 of the firstrespondent and consequently, to direct the respondents follow therevised Catering Police, 2005, dated 21.12.2005 and the proceedings,dated 9.3.2006 issued by the Director, Tourism and Catering, RailwayBoard, New Delhi and to follow the reservation policy as well as torenew their licences in respect of the stalls run by them.4.The first two writ petitions were admitted on 13.09.2009and a status quo order was granted. The next three writ petitionswere admitted on 29.9.2009 and an interim stay and injunction wasgranted on the same day. In all these writ petitions, a commoncounter affidavit was filed by the Indian Railway Catering andTourism Corporation Ltd. (for short IRCTC). 5.W.P.Nos.20220 to 20222 of 2009 were filed by the licensees,seeking for a direction to respondents to allow them to run theirstalls on the basis of similar extension granted to some of thestalls. When these matters came up on 04.11.2009, the earlier writpetitions were directed to be posted along with these writ petitions.They were heard together and a common order is being passed.6.The petitioners, who are undaunted in filing writ petitionsafter writ petitions before this court with one pretext or other, hascome out with the fourth round of litigation. Initially, the cateringand tourism activities were directly handled by the Railways and weregranting licences to locate the stalls in platforms for sellingeatables, refreshments and bookstalls and other activities.Subsequently, on policy decision taken by the Ministry of Railways,the Management of the entire catering activities were handed over tothe IRCTC in phased manner. As per the said policy, non departmentalstatic units run by the Southern Railway were taken over by the IRCTCwith effect from 15.11.2005. Prior to the year 2000, the contract for https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ catering unit in various railway stations were not issued on thebasis of tender system having two packet system, i.e. Invitingtechnical and financial bids. The stalls were allotted on the basisof calling for applications through press notification. The erstwhilelicesees were managing the stalls as composite units. 7.With effect from 20.10.2000, a new catering policy forRailways were introduced. By the said policy, two packet system ofcalling for tenders were introduced. The licence fees was fixed atthe rate of 12% of the total sale turnover. Further, eligibilitycriteria and minimum turn over was also introduced. Pursuant to thepolicy, the IRCTC, South Zone too over the major and minimum units ofA,B and C class stations of Southern Railway. When the new policy wasintroduced with effect from 20.10.2000, the conditions imposed werechallenged before the High Court of Kerala by the CateringAssociation and the other licensees. 8.The Kerala High Court in W.A.No.3044 of 2001 by itsjudgment, dated 3.12.2001, upheld the policy. The said judgment waschallenged before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in CivilAppeal No.4898 of 2002 and a batch of cases, by its judgment, dated29.3.2005 had upheld the policy. In the operative portion of theorder of the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court observed as follows:"Nothing stated herein shall preclude theIndian Railways/IRCTC from granting adhocextensions in the interest of general publictraveling in the trains. Such extensions howevershall not create any legal right in thelicensees favour. The appellants shall depositarrears of license fee if any within a period oftwo months from today. In case the appellantsfail to deposit the arrears as directed theIndian Railways/IRCTC would be at liberty toterminate the licensees forthwith and to makerecovery of the arrears in accordance with law."9.Thereafter, the Railway Board by its letter, dated24.6.2005 and 30.06.2005 directed the Railways to hand over all thestatic units to IRCTC. The Railways in turn directed all the GeneralManagers to hand over the units in A, B and C category stations. TheChief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway by a furthercommunication, dated 02.11.2005 directed all the divisions on theSouthern Railways to hand over the static units in A, B and Ccategory stations to IRCTC with effect from 15.11.2005. The IRCTCtook over all the static units major and minors units from all thedivisions barring 21 units in the Chennai Division due to the filingof the writ petitions by some of the licensees before this Court. Thepetitioners in some of the present writ petitions were parties to thebatch of writ petitions. 10.This Court by a common order, dated 8.12.2005 disposed ofthe said batch in the following terms: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ "With regard to WP Nos.36263 and 38630 of2005 where the petitioners have not filed anyaffidavit of undertaking, considering theundisputed fact that these petitioners have alsoentered into rider agreement dated 15.07.2003wherein the license expired on 31.03.2001 wasextended till 31.03.2006 or till such time IRCTCtakes over which ever is earlier, these writpetitions are dismissed. However granting libertyto the petitioners in these writ petitions togive an undertaking before the respondent withina week from the date of receipt of the copy ofthis order that they would vacate theirrespective stalls on or before 31.12.2005 or onthe date on which IRCTC confirms to thesuccessful bidders to take over their respectivestalls which ever is later, in which event, therespondent shall pass orders permitting thepetitioners in terms of the understanding givenby them. If the petitioners in WP No.36263 and38630 of 2005 failed to give such undertakingwithin the time stipulated above the respondentis at liberty to proceed in accordance with law."11.Inspite of this order, the Divisional railways retainedthese units under their management without handing over the same toIRCTC. Thereafter, the Railway Board issued a circular No.8 of 2005dated 16.03.2005 bringing their new catering Policy of 2005. Underthe said policy, in respect of minor units, 75% of minor units shouldbe awarded to IRCTC through open tender and 25% of the minor units tobe allotted by the Divisional Railway Manager. The said circular wasissued when the earlier batch of writ petitions are pending. Theywere disposed of only on 08.12.2005. Thereafter, Commercial CircularNo.56 of 2005, dated 21.12.2005 followed by another CommercialCircular No.59 of 2005, dated 28.12.2005 were issued revising theCatering Policy. 12.Some of the petitioners have contended that the change inpolicy had created new rights and therefore, they are entitled tocontinue to run the stalls. In the earlier as well as in the revisedpolicy, reservation of 25% of minor units in A, B and C categorystations was introduced. It was resolved that out of total number ofminor units, 75% of the Units will be treated as general minor unitsby IRCTC and the balance 25% will be allotted by the DivisionalRailway Mangers and will be handed over to the IRCTC for management.It was also stipulated that reservation in the minor units will beensured for all reserved categories as per the percentage earmarkedin the policy. The Railway Board, by its letter, dated 9.3.2006stipulated that IRCTC will draw a Master Plan of the units requiredin the divisions and make segregation of General Minor Units (forshort GMU) and Special minor Units (for short SMU) as per thepercentage earmarked and approved by the Divisional Railway Managers.Thereafter, 75% of stalls segregated as GMU will be awarded byinviting open tender as per two packet system by the IRCTC. The https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Divisional Railway Manager will allot and hand over 25% of stallsidentified as SMU. 13.A joint procedure order (JPO) was issued in respect of 5divisions in the Southern Railways and the units were thusidentified. Subsequently, when IRCTC invited tenders for 75% GMU intheir divisions at Trivendraum, Palghat, Madurai and Trichy, the samewas the subject matter of challenge in W.P.No.42960 of 2006 and batchof cases (P.K.Shefi Vs. IRCTC) and in W.P.No.33881 of 2006 andconnected cases by A.M.Shamsu and others Vs. IRCTC and others. ThisCourt dismissed the writ petitions and upheld the tender. Liberty wasgiven to the licensees that they can claim allotment of stalls underreserved category of 25%. 14.Subsequently, the IRCTC raised an issue that the jointprocedure order, dated 6.10.2006 was not in conformity with theRailway Board Regulations and therefore, revised the minutes that wasdrawn and recast the units once again. In the meanwhile, one Tambaramto Chennai Beach Soda Water Stall and Book Stall Association filed awrit petition before this court in W.P.No.2652 of 2007, challengingthe order of IRCTC, dated 11.1.2007, by which they were directed toclose down their stalls. In the writ petition filed by the saidAssociation, an interim order, dated 2.11.2007 was granted. Inparagraphs 5 and 6 of the interim order, it was directed as follows:"5.The members of the petitionerAssociation has filed affidavits giving anundertaking that they will hand over the vacantpossession of the Soda Water Stall on the lastdate on which the IRCTC fixed the opening of thetender.6.In view of this undertaking, therespondents are directed to permit the members ofthe petitioner association to run the Soda WaterStall upto the last date on which IRCTC fixed theopening of the tender. However, the members ofthe petitioner association are permitted toparticipate in the tender Taking note of the factthat the others have paid the revised rate and ason date, no license exists in favour of thepetitioner, the members of the petitioner'sassociation are directed to pay the revised rateof rent as fixed by the GDP w.e.f. 1.1.2007. Thearrears from the period 1.1.2007 to 31.10.2007has to be paid within a period of three weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.In the event of failure on the part of themembers of the petitioner Association, either topay the enhanced rent or the arrears for theperiod from 1.1.2007 upto 31.10.2007, the interimdirection granted will stand automaticallyvacated." https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

15.Subsequently, the writ petition filed by A.M.Shamsu andthe other writ petitions in W.P.No.33881 of 2006 came to be disposedof by a final order, dated 21.11.2006. In paragraph 27 of the order,this court observed as follows:"27.00.Thus, it can safely be statedthat there is no arbitrariness and illegality inthe proposed policy of the respondents. In theconsidered opinion of this Court, the Courtcannot restrict the power of the Government ofIndia and the Indian Railways, to change theearlier policy and to formulate a new policy,when the said policy is for betterment of thesociety. The various clauses of the policyclarify that the railways intend to provide moreand more benefits to the passengers, travellingin the trains, and streamline any systematizethe existing catering facilities on the railwayplatforms and in the railway compartments.Therefore, I am not inclined to accept thecontention that the new policy is a violation ofthe fundamental rights."16.The other writ petitions filed by P.K.Shefi and otherscovered by W.P.No.42960 of 2006 and a batch of cases, challenging thetender notice were also disposed of by a common order, dated28.12.2006. In the meanwhile, A.M.Shamsu and the Indian RailwayCatering Stalls Association filed Writ Appeals in W.A.Nos.2, 210 and211 of 2007. The Division Bench confirmed the order of the learnedJudge by a common judgment, dated 25.3.2008. It was held that theorder of the learned Judge was wrong insofar as following cateringpolicy of the year 2000 and not 2005. But, however, the writ appealswere dismissed as infructuous. 17.Subsequently, the joint procedure order was recast. Allthe stalls were handed over to the control of the IRCTC with effectfrom 13.11.2008. Because of transition and in order to avoiddifficulties to passenger and public, temporary extensions weregranted to the licensees on payment of requisite license fee with aclear stipulation that the temporary extension will not confer anylegal right to licensees. This was on the basis of the observationsof the Supreme Court in C.A.No.4897 of 2002 in N.B.Krishna Kurup Vs.Union of India and others and in a batch of cases. In that order, itwas observed by the Supreme Court as follows:"Nothing stated herein shall preclude theIndian Railways/IRCTC from granting adhocextensions in the interest of general publictravelling in the trains. Such extension, however,shall not create any legal right in the licensee'sfavour. The appellant(s) shall deposit arrears oflicense fee, if any, within a period of two monthsfrom today. In case the appellant(s) fail todeposit the arrears, as directed, the Indian https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Railways/IRCTC would be at liberty to terminatethe licenses forthwith and to make recovery of thearrears in accordance with law."18.Thereafter, as per the joint procedure order, dated23.12.2008 approved by the Divisional Railway Manager on 5.1.2009,135 minor units comprising of 103 existing units (functional andclosed), six departmental units and 26 sites at Mass Rapid TransitSections were identified. The GMUs and SMUs were segregated as perthe Railway Board's letter. All the erstwhile licensees including thepetitioners, who were originally allotted under the general category,started claiming that they belonged to reserved categories and thattheir cases must be considered against the reserved categories. 19.In the meanwhile, General Minor Units were floated byIRCTC. Once again, some of the petitioners have filed writ petitionsin W.P.No.3513 of 2009 and batch cases, challenging the tendernotification issued by the IRCTC. Those writ petitions were disposedof by an order, dated 25.3.2009 with a direction to dispose of theirpending representations or any fresh representations filed by them.The financial bids were opened on 13.4.2009. By this process, therevenue of Railways were increased to Rs.3.8 crores as against 60lakhs of license fees which were collected for the 66 stalls whichwere finalised. 20.Once again some of the petitioners filed W.P.No.11136 of2009 and batch cases challenging the order dated 13.11.2008withdrawing temporary absorption given to those petitioners. Thisbatch of writ petitions was once again dismissed by this court on24.8.2009 based upon the other writ petitions filed in W.P.Nos.7270of 2009 and connected cases were also dismissed on 19.6.2009. Inparagraph 5 of the said order, it was observed as follows:"5.Now, it is not disputed by the learnedcounsel for the petitioners that an undertakinghas been given by the petitioners. But, the onlystand taken by the learned counsel for thepetitioners is the cancellation of the jointproceedings. As rightly pointed out by the learnedSenior Counsel appearing for the first respondent,when the Railway Board itself has given adirection to proceed with the tender in the matterof this nature, now, basing on the DivisionalOfficers' proceedings which is an internalcommunication, the petitioners cannot takeadvantage of this. That apart, already, thecontract has been over and only temporaryextension was given and it is for the Railwaymanagement to decide the policy with regard tothis and even as per the orders of the Hon'bleApex Court, temporary extension of contract willnot confer any right on the petitioners.Consequently, I do not find any reason tointerfere with the impugned orders. Hence, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ writ petitions are dismissed. No costs.Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitionsare closed."In the same judgment, in paragraph 3, the petitioners' undertaking tohand over the stalls on 31.12.2005 or on the date for which the IRCTCconfirms to the successful tenderer to take over the stalls whicheveris later, were also recorded. 21.Some of the petitioners preferred Writ Appeals inW.A.Nos.1136 to 1138 of 2009. The same were also dismissed by thedivision bench (presided by H.L.Gokhale, C.J.), by its judgment,dated 20.8.2009. In paragraph 9, the division bench observed asfollows:"9.The grievance of the appellantappears to be that by virtue of the renewal madein the year 2005, the licensee should beregularised and granted permanent license. Inour opinion, the said contention cannot beaccepted. First of all, grant of license isgoverned by the revised catering policy, whichwe have quoted earlier. Of course, the existinglicensee is entitled to make an application forrene3wal and on consideration of theapplication, the renewal could be granted upto amaximum period of three years. As the license ofthe appellant had expired during the month ofDecember, 2005, the licensee if at all couldclaim the benefit of clause 10.5 and suchbenefit could be only for a period of threeyears. Beyond the said period of three years,there is no right conferred on any licensee toseek either for further renewal or for grant oflicense."22.After holding that the petitioners have no right tocontinue the stalls, in paragraph 11, it was observed as follows:"11.We may also point out that the policyas such is also not questioned, except claimingthat the appellant is entitled to the grant ofpermanent license which, in our consideredopinion, cannot be accepted. Till such time theprocess for the grant of license commenced andstood completed in terms of the revised cateringpolicy, the licensee was granted the renewalperiodically and that too, subject to clauses 10.3and 10.5 of the revised policy, which provide forsuch temporary renewal only for a maximum periodof three years. Inasmuch as the period of threeyears is prescribed, the learned Judge hascorrectly rejected the contention of the licenseeand consequently, dismissed the writ petition.Hence, we do not find any reason to interfere with https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the order passed by the learned single Judge. Thefacts are also identical in respect of the othertwo appellants in Writ Appeal Nos.1137 & 1138 of2009 and for same reason, the said writ appealsare also liable to be dismissed."23.As against the dismissal of this writ appeal, one of thewrit petitioner (Y.Devendra Prasad in W.P.No.19847 of 2009) wentbefore the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.26822 of 2009. When thematter came up on 03.11.2009, he withdrew the Special Leave Petitionwith liberty to challenge the policy in the writ petition filed bythe petitioner. In the light of these developments, the petitionershave come forward either to challenge the order, dated 24.9.2009 orfor a direction to allow them to run the stalls as was done in thecase of others. 24.It must be noted that the writ petitioner in W.P.No.19847of 2009 Y.Devendra Prasad in his writ appeal and the writ petitionerS.Ramalingam in w.P.No.19932 of 2009, when they had filed writappeals (W.A.Nos.1136 and 1137 of 2009) have raised all these issuesin their memorandum of grounds before the Division bench. Thedivision bench did not agree with those contentions. By a final orderdated 20.8.2009, the writ appeals were rejected. Therefore, thepresent writ petitions are nothing, but a rehash of what has beencontended all along. Many of the writ petitioners have come beforethis court for the third time with one pretext or other. The attemptby the petitioners to cling on to the stalls over which they have nolicence nor they have participated in the fresh tender. Hence thequestion of granting them any relief will not arise.25.The following tabular statement will show the previouscases filed by the petitioners and the result in each writ petition,writ appeals and SLP:-Sl.No.PresentW.P.No.Name of petitionerPrevious W.P.NumberPrevious W.P.Prayer andResult119931 of 2009D.Subramaniam andSons36272/200536282/20053514/2009To quash theorder dated5.11.2005 andhanding over toIRCTC .(Dismissed on08.12.2005 – Tovacate thestall31.12.2005)Dispose of therepresentationOrder dt.25.3.2009 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Sl.No.PresentW.P.No.Name of petitionerPrevious W.P.NumberPrevious W.P.Prayer andResult219932 of 2009S.Ramalingam36283/20057270/ 200908.12.200519.6.09dismissed319847 of 2009Y.Devendra Prasad36277/20057271/200908.12.200519.6.09dismissed419848 of 2009Smt.J.Chandrika36271/200536274/200511136/200911138/200908.12.200524.08.2009Dismissed519849 of 2009Smt.ASaradammal36281/20058/12/05620220 of 2009Palaniappan17955/2005To forbear fromclaimingarrears oflicense fee byorderdt.12.5.2005 -Dismissed on31.10.2008720221 of 2009Boopathy17963/2005-do-820222 of 2009Smt.K.Andal17960/2005-do-Foot Note No.1: For Sl.Nos.2 and 3 - W.A.Nos.1137 and 1136 of 2009 - CJ and DMJ dismissed on 20.8.2009Foot Note No.2: For Sl.No.3 - SLP(C) No.26822/2009 dismissed as withdrawn on 20.8.2009.26.Thus, the present writ petitions are nothing but anexercise in futility. The question of challenge to a policy or thepolicy being unconstitutional may not arise as already thesecontentions have been rejected in several of the proceedings both bythis court as well as by the Supreme Court. If the petitioners, whowere originally allotted under the general category, wanted toconsider their cases under the reserved category, they cannot hold onto the stalls and claim that they are entitled to be allotted tothose units without following any procedure. If at all they have anyclaim against the reserved category, they should make appropriateapplications as and when such units were notified and their claimswill have to be considered only along with other similarly placed https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ persons. 27.The writ petitions are clear abuse of process of law. Thepetitioners have successfully thwarted the steps taken by theRailways and the IRCTC in respect of Chennai Division. These writpetitions have been filed with different prayers suiting theoccasions. Some of the parties managed to get interim orders and thusdelayed the process of respondent Railways in implementing theirpolicy, which was upheld by this court more than once. 28.In the light of the above, all the writ petitions willstand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneouspetitions also stand dismissed.Sd/-Asst.Registrar/True Copy/Sub.Asst.RegistrarvvkTo1.The Regional Director, Indian Railways Catering and Tourism Corporation Ltd.(I.R.C.T.C) South Zone, No.6-A, The Rain Tree Place, No.9, Mchnicals Road, Chetpet, Chennai-600 031.2.The Divisional Railway Manager, D.R.M.(C's) Office, Chennai-600 003.3.The Chief Commercial Manager, Southern Railway,Chennai-600 003.4.The Director, Tourism and Catering, Railway Board, New Delhi.5.The Divisional Railway Manager, Commercial Branch Southern Railway, Chennai-3.6.The Deputy General Manager, RD/IRCTC/SZ, No.9, Mc Nichals Road, Chennai-31+ 5 CCs to Mr.Sridhar,Advocate,SR.68431 to 68435+ 2 CCs to Mr.V.G.Suresh Kumar,Advocate,SR.68497+ 3 CCs to Mr.V.Manohar,Advocate,SR.68488W.P.NOs.19931, 19932,CK(CO)19847 to 19849 andEM/18.12.09 20220 to 20222 of 2009