Sajith Vijayaraghavan v. State of Kerala

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. NARAYANA PISHARADI** **WEDNESDAY, THE 03RD DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 14TH MAGHA,1942** ## **WP(C).No.11334 OF 2017(N)** ## **PETITIONER/:** **DR.SAJITH VIJAYARAGHAVAN S/O. LATE PROF. P.S. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, AGED 50 YEARS,NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF ELECTRONICS & COMMUNICATION, COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING TRIVANDRUM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 016. RESIDING AT"SAMPOORNA", MUTTAPPALAM, SRINIVASAPURAM P.O, VARKALA,PIN - 695 145.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP (SR.) SMT.ANUROOPA JAYADEVAN SHRI.ASHRUTH NASER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,HOME &**| ||**VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| ||**- 695 001.**| |**2**|**THE DIRECTOR**| ||**VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION**| ||**BUREAU,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**3**|**DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE**| ||**VIGILANCE AND ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU,SPECIAL**| ||**INVESTIGATION UNIT -II,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| ## **R1 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **ADV K GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP-SR ADV, SRI A RAJESH SPL PP VACB** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 1101-2021, THE COURT ON 03-02-2021 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 2 ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, J** ************************ W.P.(C) No.11334 of 2017 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 3[rd] day of February, 2021 ## **J U D G M E N T** The petitioner is the first accused in the case registered as V.C No. 8/15/SIU-II by the Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB), Thiruvananthapuram under Sections 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption of Act 1988 (for short 'the Act') and also under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. During the local audit of the accounts of the Kerala State Centre for Advanced Printing and Training(C-apt) for the period 2013-14 conducted by the Accountant General, Kerala, certain irregularities were noticed. A preliminary enquiry was conducted by the VACB in the matter. Since the preliminary enquiry disclosed commission of cognizable offences under the Act, the above crime was registered by the VACB. 3. The prosecution case against the petitioner, as W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 3 narrated in Ext.P12 first information report (FIR), is as follows:The petitioner (A1) was the Managing Director of the C-apt from the year 2012 onwards. On 12.6.2012, the Executive Committee of C-apt had taken a decision to purchase two Xerox variable data printers for Rs.14,80,000/- each, so as to cater to the demand of the Lottery Department for printing two crores lottery tickets per month. The first accused abused his official position and with ulterior motive, scuttled the issuance of purchase order for the two printers and later he conspired with the second accused, who was a member of the Tender Evaluation Committee, and pursuant to such conspiracy, the first and the second accused fraudulently prepared a cost analysis statement with malafide intention and they deliberately showed hiring of OCE variable data printer as profitable. Thus they deceived the authorities, including the Vice Chairman and the Chairman of the C-apt and made them to believe that it was profitable to hire the printers. Consequently, the first accused was allowed to invite tenders on 18.4.2013 for hiring variable data printer through the third accused who was the Officer in-charge of W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 4 Purchase (Material Division) of C-apt. Later, Accused Nos. 1 to 3 entered into criminal conspiracy with the fourth accused who was the Managing Partner of the establishment by name M/s.Ansala. The fourth accused had illegal nexus with the fifth accused, the Managing Director of the company by name M/s. Xpress Printing Solutions Ltd. Pursuant to such conspiracy, the first accused awarded the contract of hiring of variable data printer to M/s.Ansala on 24.12.2013 for a period of two years at an exorbitant rate of 11.5 paise per ticket, causing a loss of Rs.1,36,05,442/- to C-apt during the period from December 2013 to September 2015 and the accused obtained corresponding pecuniary advantage. Further, the first accused, with dishonest intention, deliberately overpriced the bill amounts (37 paise per ticket instead of 32 paise per ticket) in the invoices raised from C-apt to the Lottery Department, against the terms of the Government Order in that regard and it resulted in payment of tax to the tune of Rs.4,53,000/- which could not be recouped. 4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the relief of quashing W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 5 Ext.P12 FIR. The facts and circumstances leading to the hiring of the variable data printer are narrated in the writ petition to show that the allegations in Ext.P12 FIR do not disclose commission of any cognizable offence by the petitioner. 5. The investigating officer, who is the third respondent in the writ petition, has filed a statement narrating the facts revealed during the investigation of the case conducted. 6. The petitioner filed a reply affidavit in response to the statement filed by the third respondent. Thereafter, the third respondent has filed an additional statement. 7. Heard Sri.K.Gopalakrishna Kurup, learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioner and also the learned Public Prosecutor. 8. The petitioner, the first accused in the case, was the Managing Director of C-apt from 15.3.2012 to 31.12.2015. The second accused was a member of the Tender Evaluation Committee. The third accused was the Officer in-charge of the Purchase (Material Division) in C-apt during the relevant period. The fourth accused was the Managing Partner of the firm W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 6 M/s.Ansala. The fifth accused was the Managing Director of the company by name M/s.Xpress Printing Solutions Ltd. 9. The Executive Committee of C-apt, in its meeting held on 12.6.2012, had accorded sanction for the purchase of two Xerox printers at a price of Rs.14,80,000/- each. When the purchase order was issued on 20.7.2012, M/s.Xerox India Limited, by letter dated 1.9.2012, informed the petitioner that the model for which the purchase order was placed was not available and that the upgraded model with more features could be supplied at the same price. 10. The Tender Evaluation Committee, in its meeting held on 12.10.2012, observed that the offer made by M/s.Xerox India Ltd. for supply of another model is not in conformity with the Store Purchase Rules and therefore, the Committee decided to go for re-tender for supply of the printers. In the same meeting, the Committee decided to hire machines without operators for the printing of lottery tickets until new variable data printers are installed in the C-apt. The Committee entrusted the second accused to prepare a draft specification for hiring of W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 7 machines without operators based on the technical and production details provided by the C-apt and to present it in the next meeting of the Committee. The Committee also entrusted the second accused to prepare a draft specification and terms and conditions for the purchase of new variable data printers and circulate it among the members of the Committee for discussion in its next meeting. 11. In the meeting held on 25.2.2013, the Tender Evaluation Committee considered the draft specification prepared by the second accused for hiring of the printer and approved the same with modifications. The Committee also recommended to forward the same to the Technical Expert Committee of the Printing Department for approval. 12. Thereafter, the petitioner put up a note dated 25.4.2013 to the Chairman (the Minister for Education) through the Vice Chairman (the Additional Chief Secretary, Higher Education Department) for granting sanction for hiring the machine. The Vice Chairman recommended the proposal made by the petitioner and the Chairman approved it on 25.4.2013. W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 8 13. The Executive Committee, in its meeting held on 02.08.2013, accorded sanction for hiring variable data printer from M/s.Ansala for numbering and bar coding in lottery ticket printing works. Accordingly, an agreement was executed between C-apt and M/s.Ansala on 24.12.2013. 14. Prima facie, there is no basis for the allegation against the petitioner that he scuttled the decision taken by the executive committee on 12.06.2012 to purchase two Xerox printers. Purchase order for two printers had been given by the petitioner on 20.07.2012. In the additional statement filed by the investigating officer, it is mentioned that the petitioner deliberately delayed purchase of the printers till 20.07.2012 and by that time, the supply of the model for which the order was placed, was stopped by Xerox company. There was no undue delay in placing the purchase order. The statement of the investigating officer does not reveal that any material has been collected during the investigation to show that it was during the period between 12.06.2012 and 20.07.2012 that Xerox company had withdrawn that particular model from the market. W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 9 15. It is alleged that, pursuant to the conspiracy entered into between the first and the second accused, they fraudulently prepared a cost analysis statement and with mala fide intention, showed that the hiring of the printer for two years would be profitable than purchase of the printers. Ext.R3(b) is the copy of the cost analysis statement allegedly prepared by the first and the second accused. It bears no date. The petitioner would contend that the cost analysis statement was prepared only on 05.03.2014, long after the decision for hiring the printer was taken. Though the period shown as “30.09.2013 to 30.10.2013” in column No.3 in the cost analysis statement may indicate that the contention of the petitioner is probable, this Court cannot take a decision on this factual dispute in the writ petition. However, there is no material before this Court to find that, it was on the basis of the cost analysis statement that the Tender Evaluation Committee took a decision to hire the printer. The copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee held on 12.10.2012 (Ext.P6) does not reveal that any cost analysis statement had been placed before it and it was on W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 10 the basis of such statement that the decision to hire the printer was taken by the Committee. Further, the decision to hire the printer was not taken by the petitioner himself but it was a collective decision taken by the Tender Evaluation Committee in which persons other than the first and the second accused were also members. 16. The copy of the minutes of the meeting of the Tender Evaluation Committee held on 25.02.2013 (Ext.P7) shows that the Committee considered the draft specification and the terms and conditions for hiring of the printer prepared by the second accused and approved the same with modifications and decided to forward them to the Technical Expert Committee of the Printing Department for approval. The petitioner has not produced any document to show that the Technical Expert Committee of the Printing Department had approved the aforesaid specifications for hiring the printer. However, in Ext.P8 note submitted by the petitioner to the Vice Chairman and the Chairman, it is mentioned that the Technical Committee had approved the same. W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 11 17. In Ext.P8 note submitted by the petitioner to the Vice Chairman and the Chairman, it is mentioned that it is not wise to purchase the machines. However, it was not mentioned in this note that earlier a decision had been taken by the Executive Committee to purchase two printers. What happened to that proposal is not mentioned in Ext.P8 note. Therefore, it has to be found that the recommendation made by the Vice Chairman and the decision or approval made for hiring the printer by the Chairman were not on the basis of full particulars disclosed by the petitioner in Ext.P8 note. Whether the petitioner had deliberately suppressed in Ext.P8 note the full particulars of the decision taken earlier for purchase of two printers is a matter of investigation. 18. In the additional statement filed by the investigating officer, it is mentioned that the second accused fixed unnecessary higher technical specifications for the machines to be hired so as to avoid prospective tenders and that the hiring of the printer of such high specification was not required by C-apt. It is not for the VACB to decide whether hiring of the printer of such high W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 12 technical specification was required or not by C-apt. However, as noticed earlier, there is no material produced by the petitioner to show that the specification was approved by the Technical Expert Committee of the Printing Department. At the same time, it is to be noted that the tender notification had been published in two leading news papers, one in English and another in Malayalam. Therefore, it cannot be found that there was no transparency in inviting the tenders. 19. There is an allegation against the petitioner that the rate fixed for printing lottery tickets was exorbitant and it was done with a view to allow M/s.Ansala to get undue pecuniary advantage. It is alleged that instead of the rate of four paise per ticket, which was implemented in C-apt and other public sector institutions, the contract of hiring was made with M/s.Ansala at the rate of 11.5 paise per ticket. Of course, the petitioner would contend that the rate 11.5 paise per ticket was fixed in accordance with the existing government orders. But, in this writ petition, this Court cannot conduct a factual analysis and decide whether the rate fixed by the petitioner was exorbitant or not W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 13 and whether any undue pecuniary advantage had been obtained by him and M/s.Ansala in the transaction. It is also a matter of investigation. 20. The matters to be considered by the Court in quashing a first information report, whether it be in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in an application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'the Code') by the accused, are well-settled. In **State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal: AIR 1992 SC 604** , while enumerating seven circumstances as illustrative under which a first information report could be quashed, the Supreme Court has stated as follows: _“In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised....... “._ W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 14 ## In **Dineshbhai Chandubhai Patel v. State of Gujarat : AIR 2018 SC 314** , it is stated as follows: _“The law on the question as to when a registration of the FIR is challenged seeking its quashing by the accused under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code and what are the powers of the High Court and how the High Court should deal with such question is fairly well settled”._ The passages above are extracted only to indicate that the principles with regard to quashing a first information report are the same, whether it be in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or in an application filed under Section 482 of the Code. 21. The main principle is that, where the allegations made in the first information report, prima facie, disclose the commission of any cognizable offence, the court shall be extremely reluctant to quash the report, thereby preventing the investigating agency from exercising the statutory power of investigation. The power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 15 that too in the rarest of rare cases. The court would not be justified in embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the first information report. But, if the allegations are so patently absurd and inherently improbable that no prudent person can ever reach such a conclusion and where the basic ingredients of a criminal offence are not satisfied, then the court may interfere. ## 22. In **Janata Dal v. H.S.Chowdhary : AIR 1993 SC** ## **892** , the Apex Court has held as follows: _“The High Court being the highest Court of a State should normally refrain from giving a premature decision in a case wherein the entire facts are extremely incomplete and hazy, more so when the evidence has not been collected and produced before the Court and the issues involved whether factual or legal are of great magnitude and cannot be seen in their true perspective without sufficient material”._ ## 23. In **State of Karnataka v. Pastor P. Raju : AIR 2006** ## **SC 2825** , the Apex Court has observed as follows: _“Section 482 Cr.P.C saves inherent powers of the High Court and such a power can be exercised to_ W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 16 _prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This power can be exercised to quash the criminal proceedings pending in any Court but the power cannot be exercised to interfere with the statutory power of the police to conduct investigation in a cognizable offence_ ”. ## 24. In **Vinod Raghuvanshi v. Ajay Arora : (2013) 10 SCC 581** , the Supreme Court has held as follows: _“It is a settled legal proposition that while considering the case for quashing of the criminal proceedings the court should not "kill a stillborn child", and appropriate prosecution should not be stifled unless there are compelling circumstances to do so. An investigation should not be shut out at the threshold if the allegations have some substance. When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie establish the offence. At this stage neither can the court embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the complaint are likely to be established by evidence nor should the court judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made therein”._ ## 25. In T **eeja Devi v. State of Rajasthan : (2014) 15** W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 17 ## **SCC 221** , it has been observed as follows: _“It has been rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that ordinarily power under Section 482 Cr.P.C should not be used to quash an FIR because that amounts to interfering with the statutory power of the police to investigate a cognizable offence in accordance with the provisions of Cr.P.C. As per law settled by a catena of judgments, if the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is not proper and it can be done only in the rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the prosecution is malicious and vexatious”._ ## 26. In **Dineshbhai** (supra), the Apex Court has held as ## follows: _“In order to examine as to whether the factual contents of the FIR disclose any prima facie cognizable offences or not, the High Court cannot act like an investigating agency and nor can exercise the powers like an Appellate Court. The question, in our opinion, was required to be examined keeping in view the contents of the FIR and prima facie material, if any, requiring no proof. At this stage, the High Court could not appreciate_ W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 18 _the evidence nor could draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on. It was more so when the material relied on was disputed by the complainants and visa - se - versa. In such a situation, it becomes the job of the Investigating Authority at such stage to probe and then of the Court to examine the questions once the charge sheet is filed along with such material as to how far and to what extent reliance can be placed on such material. In our considered opinion, once the Court finds that the FIR does disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Code”._ 27. Section 13(1)(d) of the Act (as unamended) provides that, a public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct, if he,-- (i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or (iii) while holding office as a public W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 19 servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest. Insofar as Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act is concerned, its essential ingredients are: (i) that the accused should have been a public servant; (ii) that he should have used corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as such public servant and (iii) that he should have obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage for himself or for any other person. 28. In the instant case, the allegations in Ext.P12 FIR, prima facie, disclose commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. There is specific allegation against the petitioner in the first information report that he misused his position as a public servant and allowed M/s.Ansala to gain undue pecuniary advantage by awarding the contract of hiring the printing machine at an exorbitant rate. This allegation, prima facie, discloses commission of an offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. It is a matter of investigation whether the allegations in Ext.P12 FIR are correct or not. At this stage, this Court cannot analyse the facts and decide disputed questions and enter a W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 20 finding thereon. 29. The records produced by the petitioner to substantiate his contentions cannot be considered and analysed in detail by this Court to ascertain whether the allegations in the first information report are correct or not. In **Union of India v. B.R.Bajaj : AIR 1994 SC 1256** , the Apex Court has observed as follows: _“In the instant case the High Court while interfering at the stage of FIR holding that the FIR did not disclose any offence, as a matter of fact, took into consideration several other records produced by respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and also relied on the affidavit filed by Shri Banerjee and also on a letter written by the Director, State Lotteries. This approach of the High Court, to say the least, to some extent amounts to investigation by the Court whether the offences alleged in the FIR are made out or not”._ 30. The decisions of the Apex Court, which have been referred to in this judgment, lay down the proposition that, if the allegations made in the FIR prima facie disclose a cognizable offence, interference with the investigation is not proper and it W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 21 can be done only in the rarest of rare cases. When a prosecution at the initial stage is to be quashed, the test to be applied by the court is whether the uncontroverted allegations as made, prima facie, establish the offence. At this stage, the Court cannot embark upon an inquiry, whether the allegations in the FIR are likely to be established by evidence. The Court cannot judge the probability, reliability or genuineness of the allegations made in the FIR. The High Court should normally refrain from giving a premature decision after analysis of the facts. At this stage, the High Court cannot appreciate the evidence or draw its own inferences from the contents of the FIR and the material relied on by the accused. 31. Ext.P12 FIR was registered on 04.12.2015. Subsequently, investigation has been conducted by the VACB. When the writ petition came up for consideration before this Court on 14.08.2020, the learned Public Prosecutor had submitted before this Court that, after completing the investigation final report has been submitted to the competent authority seeking sanction for prosecution under Section 19 of W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 22 the Act. At this stage, it is not proper for this Court to quash Ext. P12 F.I.R. 32. The discussion above leads to the conclusion that the prayer for quashing Ext.P12 F.I.R cannot be allowed. The writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 33. Consequently, the prayer for quashing Ext.P12 F.I.R is rejected and the writ petition is dismissed. The interim stay granted by this Court against filing of final report in the case is vacated. The petitioner is at liberty to challenge the final report, if any filed against him, at the appropriate stage. It is made clear that this judgment shall not be construed as having decided any factual issue on merits either way. All pending interlocutory applications are closed. Sd/- ## **R.NARAYANA PISHARADI, JUDGE** al/jsr. W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 23 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O (MS), NO. 73/92/H.EDN. DATED 28.4.1992.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O (MS) NO.69/2011/H.EDN. DATED 28.5.2011.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 21.5.2009 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE DIRECTOR OF STATE LOTTERIES AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE AUDIO VISUAL AND REPROGRAPHIC CENTRE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE 40TH MEETING OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE OF THE C-APT HELD ON 12.6.2012.** - **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 1.9.2012 FROM THE BUSINESS MANAGER, XEROX INDIA LTD.** - **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 12.10.2012.** - **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 25.2.2013.** - **EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PROPOSAL PLACED BEFORE THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF C-APT ON 25.4.2013.** - **EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF C-APT HELD ON 2.8.2013.** - **EXHIBIT 9(A) TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 17.7.2013 FROM THE OFFICER IN CHARGE OF THE MARKETING AND BILING SECTION OF C-APT.** W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 24 |**EXHIBIT P10**|**TRUE COPY OF THE EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF**| |---|---| ||**THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING OF C-APT**| ||**HELD ON 2.8.2013.**| |**EXHIBIT P11**|**TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.12.2013**| ||**BETWEEN M/S. ANSALA, CHENNAI AND THE**| ||**MANAGING DIRECTOR, C-APT.**| |**EXHIBIT P12**|**TRUE COPY OF THE F.I.R AND THE F.I.S IN VC**| ||**8/15 OF S.I.U-II REGISTERED BY THE 3RD**| ||**RESPONDENT.**| |**EXHIBIT P13**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE**| ||**LETTER NO.SGS II(HQ)III/II/8-3361/351 DATED**| ||**12.1.2015 FROM THE OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT**| ||**GENERAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE MANAGING**| ||**DIRECTOR, C-APT (REFERRED TO IN EXT P12),**| |**EXHIBIT P14**|**TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTIONS OF**| ||**LETTER NO.SGS II(HQ)III/II/8-3361/52 DATED**| ||**26.6.2015.**| |**EXHIBIT P15**|**TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER G.O(RT)**| ||**NO.316/12/H.EDN. DATED 15.2.2012.**| |**EXHIBIT P16**|**TRUE COPY OF THE PAGE NO.58 OF THE NOTE**| ||**FILE REGARDING THE PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS THE**| ||**DIRECTOR OF LOTTERIES FOR THE REVISED**| ||**RATES.**| |**EXHIBIT P16(A)**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LEGIBLE COPY OF EXT.P16**| ||**FILE NOTE.**| |**EXHIBIT P17**|**TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE**| ||**DIRECTOR OF LOTTERIES BY THE THEN MANAGING**| ||**DIRECTOR OF C-APT DATED 28.1.2012.**| |**EXHIBIT P18**|**TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 43RD**| ||**MEETING OF THE C-APT HELD ON 30/01/2014.**| |**EXHIBIT P19**|**TRUE COPY OF THE INWARD REGISTER FORWARDING**| ||**THE MINUTES OF 40TH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE**| ||**WITH THE DATED INITIALS OF THE OFFICERS**| ||**CONCERNED.**| W.P.(C) No.11334/2017 25 **EXHIBIT P20 TRUE COPY OF THE LEAVE APPLICATION OF SHRI. AJITHKUMAR, HARDWARE ENGINEER FOR THE PERIOD FROM 02/07/2012 TO 13/07/2012. EXHIBIT P21. TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE TENDER EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING HELD ON 05/03/2014 ALONG WITH THE ANNEXURES 1 TO 3. EXHIBIT P22 TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 46TH MEETING OF THE CA-APT HELD ON 4/2/2015 RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R3A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR (FINANCE) ON 17/07/2013. EXHIBIT R3B TRUE COPY OF COST ANALYSIS BREAKUP. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL** TRUE COPY PS TO JUDGE AL/-