Writ Petition No. 3764 of 2013 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3764 OF 2013 (GM-KIADB) BETWEEN M/S EMBEE AGRO FOOD INDUSTRIES (PVT ) LTD NO.604/B, CHANNAGIRI ROAD, DAVANAGERE REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR M S ANIMISHA S/O M B SOMASHEKHARA GOWDA AGED 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.981 SHIVAKUMARA NILAYA, TARALABALU BADAVANE DAVANAGERE TOWN 577005 (BY SRI. A V GANGADHARAPPA., ADVOCATE ) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT COMMISSIONER, INDUSTRIES AND COMMERCE DEPARTMENT MULTISTORIED BUILDING BANGALORE 560001 ...PETITIONER 2. KARNATAKA UDYOG MITRA (A GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA ORGANISATION) REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR AND MEMBER SECRETARY STATE LEVEL SINGLE WINDOW CLEARANCE COMMITTEE 3RD FLOOR, KHANIJA BHAVANA RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE 560 001 3. KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER NO.14/3, SECOND FLOOR, RASTROTHANA PARISHAT Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 BUILDING NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BANGALORE 560 001. 4. DEVELOPMENT OFFICER KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS DEVELOPMENT BOARD KARUR INDUSTRIAL AREA, HARIHARA ROAD DAVANAGERE 577 005 5. AMIT SRI KRISHNA AGARAVAL AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS STAR AGRI WAREHOUSE AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LTD., G-102, MOLSHREE, RESIDENCY PLOT NO.21, MISSION COMPOUND, AJMEER ROAD, JAIPUR RAJASTHAN 3O2006 6. STAR AGRI WAREHOUSE AND COLLATERAL MANAGEMENT LTD. NO.609, CRYSTAL PARADISE, VEERA DESAI ROAD, NEAR JANAKI CENTRE ANDHERI WEST, MUMBAI 400053 (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1; SMT. SUKRUTA R., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. ASHOK N. NAYAK., ADVOCATE FOR R3 & R4; SRI. S.S. HAVERI., ADVOCATE FOR R5 & R6) …. RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER DIRECTING R1 TO R4 TO ALLOT AND HAND OVER THE REMAINING EXTENT OF FIVE ACRES OF LAND BEARING PLOT NO.45-A AT HANAGAWADI INDUSTRIAL AREA, HARIHARA TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT AS PER THE REQUEST LETTER PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-H AND ETC. THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 25.03.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 CAV ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. Issue a writ in nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 4 to allot and hand over the remaining extent of five acres of the Industrial area, Harihara Taluk, Hanagawadi letter Davanagere district as per the request produced as Annexure-H; land bearing plot No.45-A at aa. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or order quashing the No. allotment KIADB/AS/DVG/20434/3036-2012-13 dated 22/1/2012 issued by the respondent in favour of respondent No. 6 a true copy of which is produced as Annexure-U; bearing letter b. A Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing respondents 1 to 4 not to allot and hand over the possession of the remaining extent of five acres of land bearing plot No. 45-A at the Hanagawadi Industrial Area, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere district to respondents 5 and 6 or any other person or concern; c. Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case including the costs of this writ petition. 2. The Petitioner is a private limited company; the government of Karnataka held the Global Investors Meet in February 2010 at Bangalore, inviting industrial entrepreneurs to participate in the said - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 meet. The Petitioner participated in the said meet and expressed its intention to invest money for the establishment of Agro Food Industries, namely manufacturing of Rice from Paddy and also electric power generated from paddy husk with the investment of Rs.25 crores. 3. The Petitioner had requested to provide at least 10 acres of land for the establishment of the industry and an additional 2 acres of land for the establishment of Power Generation Utility. The report was accepted by Respondents No.1 to 3, respondent No.2–Karnataka Udyog Mitra (KUM) by its letter dated 12.03.2010 informed the Petitioner of the approval of the project and allotted 10 acres of land at Hanagawadi Industrial Area, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere District. In another letter dated 31.03.2010, the Petitioner was informed of the allotment of 2 acres of land in plot No.44-A of Hanagawadi Industrial Area to set up the power generation unit. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 4. The Petitioner contends that Respondents No.1 to 4 had informed that at present 5 acres will be made available along with 2 acres, remaining 5 acres would be made available within a short period. It is claimed that the Petitioner was asked to give a letter to that effect and accordingly on 23.06.2010, the Petitioner submitted a letter to respondent No.4 agreeing to take possession of 5 acres of land requesting for allotment of the balance extent of 5 acres, as and when the industry commences production. 5. In pursuance thereof, on 28.07.2010, the respondent No.3-Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board (KIADB) allotted 5 acres of land in plot No.45-A of Hanagawadi Industrial Area with a tentative price of Rs.22,75,000/- per acre. In pursuance of which, the Petitioner deposited 5% of the initial deposit and EMD of Rs.8,00,000/- contending that there was a delay in handing over of the 5 acres. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 6. The Petitioner made a representation to the Principal Secretary, Government of Karnataka on 14.01.2011 requesting a direction from the Development Officer KIADB-respondent No.4 to take action for delivery of plot No.45-A. 7. The Petitioner, as and when demand was made, made payment of the balance amount of Rs.1,13,75,000/- being the cost of 5 acres of land. The Petitioner alleges that the said land in plot No.45-A was uneven and the Petitioner levelled the said land by filling up and clearing the shrubs and wild plants and thereafter put up construction of the industry. 8. The Petitioner alleges that the remaining 5 acres was not allotted to the Petitioner but was allotted to Respondents No. 6. Respondent No.5 was a director in Respondent No.6 on 22.01.2012, and it is alleged that the said letter is a concocted and backdated one. The said land has been allotted to the Petitioner, the question of allotment being made to - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 Respondent No.6 would not arise. Thus, the Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs of quashing the allotment made to Respondent No.6 and for a mandamus directing the Respondents No.1 to 4 to allot and hand over the remaining extent of 5 acres. 9.
Legal Reasoning
9.1. There is no dispute as regards allotment of land made to the Petitioner on the approval of the project. The KUM has categorically directed KIADB to allot 10 acres, but only an allotment of 2 acres and 5 acres has been made to the Petitioner. For the Petitioner to establish the project properly, 12 acres of land is required. The KIADB has not allotted 5 acres to the Petitioner but instead allotted it to respondent No.6 grave loss, harm and injury is being caused to the Petitioner. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 9.2. His submission is that, it is the respondents who were not ready to hand over 5 acres and in that background the letter dated 23.06.2010 was written by the Petitioner. As such, the respondents ought to have allotted the 5 acres of land to the Petitioner. 9.3. He submits that the so-called allotment made to Respondent No.6 on 22.01.2012 is a concocted document. In that regard, he submits that the application of Respondent No.6 was submitted on 10.10.2012 and 16.10.2012 the question of allotment being made on 22.01.2012 is completely misconceived. The said allotment letter is backdated, the Petitioner had approached this Court by filing the above petition on 21.01.2013 it is to deprive the Petitioner of the rights vested with the Petitioner that such an allotment letter has been backdated to a date prior to the filing of the writ petition. Thus, he - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 submits that the Petitioner is entitled to the entire 10 acres by grant of the reliefs as prayed for. 10. Sri.Ashok N Nayak., learned counsel for the KIADB- Respondents No.3 and 4 submits that; 10.1. There is no request made by the KIADB to restrict the allotment to 5 acres, the KIADB was in possession of the 10 acres of land to be allotted to the Petitioner. It is the Petitioner who requested for allotment of only 5 acres and made payment of the said amount in the year 2010-11. 10.2. The Petitioner not having come forward to make payment of the balance amount, and not having sought for the allotment of the balance land, the KIDAB has gone ahead and allotted that 5 acres to another entrepreneur, who satisfied the requirements. It was for the Petitioner to have accepted the allotment of the entire 10 acres, the Petitioner not having - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 accepted the same, but having requested vide its letter dated 23.06.2010 that at present the Petitioner needs only 5 acres allotment and future 5 acres would be required for expansion. The Petitioner chose to restrict the allotment to 5 acres with a future right of allotment of 5 acres being reserved. No such reservation being permissible under law, the Petitioner cannot by making payment for only 5 acres bloch the entire 10 acres. The Petitioner cannot now, after an allotment has been made to a third-party bona fide entrepreneur seek for cancellation of that allotment and allotment of the said land to the Petitioner. 10.3. As regards the alleged backdating of the document he submitted that the allotment letter is only for 5 acres. The lease-cum-sale agreement has also been executed for 5 acres on 01.04.2011, the Petitioner did not raise any grievance at that point of time. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 11. Sri.S.S.Haveri., learned counsel appearing for Respondents No.5 and 6 submit that; 11.1. There is no backdating of the allotment letter, the date as entered is a typographic error, all the details other than the date are proper and correct. Allotment of 5 acres has been made to the Respondent No.6 at a rate of Rs.22,75,000/- out of which a sum of Rs.5,66,250/- was paid on 18.10.2012 and the balance of Rs.1,08,08,750/- was required to be paid within 180 days on or before 22.07.2013. 11.2. The concerned authority has signed the allotment letter with the date 22.01.2013 as can be seen from the original document. The standard conditions attached to the allotment letter has also been signed by the concerned authority with the date 22.01.2013 written by hand. Thus, the date on the allotment letter ought to have been 22.01.2013. However, since the allotment was made in January, the - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 person who has typed it has probably typed it as “22.01.2012” instead of “2013”. He therefore submits that the right which has been created in favour of Respondent No.6 by way of such allotment cannot be disturbed. 12. Heard Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa., learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Sri.Mahantesh Shettar., learned AGA appearing for respondent No.1, Smt.Sukruta R., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, Sri.Ashok N.Nayak., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.3 & 4 and Sri.S.S.haveri., learned counsel appearing for respondents No.5 & 6. Perused papers. 13. The points that would arise for determination by this Court are: 1. Can the allotee if restricting the allotment to a smaller extent, claim the larger extent allotted without having paid monies for the same? from the KIADB, 2. Is the allotment made favour of Respondent No.6 in the present case bona fide and genuine? in - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 3. Whether any grounds have been made out by the Petitioner for interference in the matter? 4. What order? 14. I answer the above points as under: 15. Answer to point No.1: Can the allotee from the KIADB, if restricting the allotment to a smaller extent, claim the larger extent allotted without having paid monies for the same? 15.1. The Petitioner, having participated in the Global Investor Meet and the project having been approved, resulting in principle approval for allotment of 10 acres is not in dispute so also, the allotment of 2 acres for establishment of the Power Generation Unit is not in dispute. 15.2. It appears from the records that it is only on account of the letter issued by the Petitioner on 23.06.2010 stating that “at present,” we need 5 acres allotment for immediate activity and future 5 acres for expansion. Hence, kindly allot 5 acres of land in Hanagawadi Industrial Area in first phase and block 5 acres for future - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 allotment in the next year. The necessary 5% initial deposit ID and EMD for 5 acres allotment along with letter under (2) is enclosed herewith for your reference and needful action. 15.3. Thus, it is this letter which forms the basis of the entire dispute between the parties. The Petitioner had indicated that “at present” only 5 acres allotment was needed, and payment was made only for the said 5 acres. A request was made by the Petitioner for blocking 5 acres for future allotment and as such no amount was paid for the said balance 5 acres. The issue would have been different if the Petitioner had made payment for the entire 10 acres and requested the allotment of a balanced 5 acres in the future. What has been done by the Petitioner is restricting the allotment to 5 acres, contending that the balanced 5 acres could be allotted later on in future. - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 15.4. Thus, it is on account of the actions of the Petitioner that a partial allotment for 5 acres was made by KIADB on 28.07.2010, in furtherance of which payments were made subsequently as under; Rt.No. 0026313 138726 Date 17.07.2010 26.02.2011 138766 138820 15.03.2011 24.03.2011 138824 25.03.2011 D.D.No. 038736 022947, 026775, 026788 026870 026929, 026934, 026935 022430 Bank Axis Bank Shiva Bank/Axis Bank --do-- --do-- Amount Rs.5,97,500.00 Rs.25,00,000.00 Rs.25,00,000.00 Rs.55,00,000.00 Shiva Bank Rs.2,77,500.00 Total Rs.1,13,75,000.00 15.5. A perusal of the above table indicates that it is only on 25.03.2011 i.e., only in the month of March-2011 that most of the amount was paid by the Petitioner. The Petitioner in the month of June-2010 when it wrote the letter had only made payment of EMD and all other payments came to be made subsequently. It is on account of payment of Rs.5,97,500/- on 17.07.2010 that the allotment letter dated 28.07.2010 came to be issued. Even after the allotment - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 was made, it is after 8 months that the balance amounts were paid. 15.6. The lease-cum-sale agreement had been executed on 01.04.2011 after the said payment was made, this indicates that the Petitioner did not have the monies to make payment of the balance amount, and it is only after the payment that the lease-cum-sale agreement was executed in respect of 5 acres. It is not in dispute that as regard the balance 5 acres, no amount has been paid by the Petitioner as EMD or otherwise. 15.7. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner has itself restricted the allotment to 5 acres and as such cannot claim 10 acres to have been allotted when the Petitioner itself deferred the allotment of 5 acres to be made in future for expansion. 15.8. Land in KIADB area being high in demand another entrepreneur having submitted an application for allotment of lands viz., - 17 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 Respondent No.6, the KIADB allotted 5 acres of the land which is still remaining unutilized to Respondent No.6 under a letter dated 22.01.2012. 15.9. A perusal of the said letter indicates that the State Level Single Window Clearance Committee in its meeting held on 18.05.2012 had approved the project of the respondent No.6 an amount of Rs.5,66,250/- had been paid by respondent No.6 on 18.10.2012. 15.10. An allotment letter came to be issued dated 22.01.2012 much has been sought to be made out as regard this date being wrong and that the allotment letter has been backdated. It is in that background that respondent No.6 was called upon to place the original of the allotment letter on record which has been produced a memo dated 14.11.2024. A perusal of the original letter indicates that the Development Officer who is the authorized - 18 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 signatory, has signed the said allotment letter and the standard conditions attached to the allotment letter by dating it as 22.01.2013. Thus, I am of the considered opinion that the date found on the allotment letter dated 22.01.2012 is a typographical error and as rightly contended by Sri. Haveri learned counsel for Respondent No.5 and 6 it could be on account of the change of the year from 2012 to 2013, at the time of typing in the month of January 2013, the typist has typed it as “22.01.2012” instead of “22.01.2013” or it could be a pure typographical error of typing 2012 instead of 2013, they typing keys on the keyboard for 2 and 3 being next to each other. 15.11. Apart from this, a perusal of the allotment letter and the other documents which have been produced by Respondent No.6 and the KIADB, it is seen that the project of Respondent No.6 had been approved on 18.05.2012 - 19 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 payment has been made by Respondent No.6 prior to the date of allotment. When all the surrounding circumstance are taken together, it cannot be said that there is a backdating of the allotment letter in my consider opinion, it is only a typographical error. 15.12. Thus, I answer point No.1 by holding that it is the petitioner allotee who has restricted the allotment to 5 acres and has made payment only for 5 acres. The allotment letter indicates the allotment to be for 5 acres, so does the lease-cum-sale agreement. Thus, the Petitioner cannot claim that the allotment is made for 10 acres. 16. Answer to point No.2: Is the allotment made in favour of Respondent No.6 in the present case bona fide and genuine? 16.1. This aspect has also been considered while answering point No.1. The respondent No.6 project has been cleared by the Single Window - 20 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 Agency as regards which payment has been made by respondent No.6 and subsequently an allotment letter issued. 16.2. The only contention of the Petitioner is that it is concocted and backdated. This aspect has been considered hereinabove and have come to a categorical conclusion that there is no concoction or backdating of the allotment letter. It is only a bonafide typographical error committed in typing “year”. 16.3. Thus, I answer point No.2 by holding that the allotment made in favour of respondent No.6 is bona fide and genuine. 17. Answer to point No.3: Have any grounds been made out by the Petitioner for interference in the matter? 17.1. Though looked at it technically, the Petitioner has restricted the allotment to 5 acres and the balance 5 acres has been allotted to respondent No.6. - 21 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 17.2. What would have to be seen by this Court is also that the Petitioner has established its project on the 5 acres allotted and has been carrying on his business in the said 5 acres. The Petitioner has also set up the Power Manufacturing Unit in the other 2 acres that have been allotted. The project of the Petitioner is for establishment of a Rice Mill, the photographs which have been produced indicate that a large extent of the Rice Mill has already been established and is in operation, the same on enquiry is confirmed by Sri.Ashok N.Nayak., learned counsel for KIADB. 17.3. On the filing of the above petition, an interim order was passed by this Court as prayed for in the petition. Thereby restraining the respondents not to allot or hand over possession of the 5 acres of land in plot No.45- A Haganawadi Industrial Area, Harihara Taluk, - 22 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 Davangere District to respondents No.5 and 6 or any other person concerned. 17.4. It is in that background that the said 5 acres has not been handed over to Respondent No.6 and has continued to be unutilized till date. In such circumstances being of the considered opinion that interest and justice would be served by allotting these remaining 5 acres to the Petitioner itself with Respondent No.6 being allotted land in any other nearby industrial area formed immediately after the Hanagawadi Industrial Estate. 17.5. Learned counsel for the KIADB Sri.Ashok N.Nayak., was directed to obtain instruction make his submission, if any other land would be available for allotment to Responent 6. Sri.Ashok N.Nayak., learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 on receiving instructions has submitted that lands are available and could be allotted to Respondent No.6. - 23 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 17.6. Sri.S.S.Haveri., learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6, after obtaining instructions made his submission that Respondent No.6 is willing to take allotment in the nearby industrial area subject to Respondent No.6 not being required to make payment of any further amount and the amount at which the land has been allotted to Respondent No.6 not being changed. 17.7. Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa, learned counsel for the Petitioner, was called upon to enquire from the Petitioner as to whether the Petitioner would be willing to avail allotment of the balance 5 acres at the current market value and to file an affidavit in that regard. An affidavit dated 06.03.2025 has been filed of Sri.Prabhudev Lingabasappa Churi, the Managing Director of the Petition Company stating that the Petitioner is willing to accept the 5 acres of land abutting the land of the Petitioner at the present value - 24 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 as already fixed by the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board in respect of similar area of industrial plot in Hanagawadi Industrial Estate. 17.8. It is in that background that Sri.Ashok N.Nayak was directed to place on record the current tentative allotment value in Hanagawadi industrial area. Sri.Ashok N. Nayak., learned counsel for respondents No.3 & 4 submit that in respect of the other industrial area where allotment is proposed to be made can be made to respondent No.6 at the tentative value of Rs.83.5 lakhs per acre. Thus, if respondent No.6 were to be allotted 5 acres of land without making payment of any further amount, then the KIADB would be put to a loss unless the Petitioner made payment of the very same amount. 17.9. It is in that background that equity would have to be done to all the parties, as such an - 25 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 opportunity would have to be given to the Petitioner to make payment of the amounts fixed for the land which would be allotted to respondent No.6 so that 5 acres abutting the land of the Petitioner can be allotted to the Petitioner. 17.10. Hence, I answer point No.3, by holding that equity would require this Court to interfere in the matter. 18. Answer to point No.4: What order? 18.1. In that view of the matter, I pass the following;
Arguments
Sri.A.V.Gangadharappa., learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, would submit that;
Decision
ORDER i. ii. The writ petition is partly allowed. The allotment letter dated 22.1.2012/22.01.2013 issued by the respondent No.3 in favor of respondent No.6 is kept under suspension for a period of four months from today. iii. The Petitioner is provided an opportunity to make payment towards the land which would - 26 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 be allotted to Respondent No.6, taking into account the amounts already paid by Respondent No.6 the differential amount to be paid within a period of four months, the due amounts to be communicated by Respondent No.3 to the Petitioner within 30 days from today. iv. If the said payments are made within the aforesaid period, respondent No.3 is directed to allot 5 acres in the neighbouring industrial estate to respondent No.6 within four weeks of such payment. v. On the aforesaid payment made by the Petitioner and the allotment made to respondent No.6, Respondent No.3 is directed to allot the remaining 5 acres unutilized land in plot No.45-A of Hanagawadi Industrial Area, Harihara Taluk, Davanagere District to the Petitioner within a period of four weeks of the allotment being made to Respondent No.6. vi. In the event of the Petitioner not availing the benefit of the above order and not making payment of the differential amount towards the plot to be allotted to respondent No.6 within a period of the aforesaid four months from today, - 27 - NC: 2025:KHC:16114 WP No. 3764 of 2013 the benefit would stand rescinded, and the above writ petition would stand dismissed. vii. The above order having been passed taking into account the peculiarity of the facts herein, the same shall not be treated as a precedent. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1