State of Kerala v. Johnson Payyappilly (W.A. No. 736 of 2020)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAJI P.CHALY** **FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE 2020 / 22ND JYAISHTA, 1942** **WA.No.736 OF 2020** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C) 11210/2020(A) OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 9.6.2020** ## **APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN WPC:** **1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, MOTOR VEHICLES DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.** **2 THE TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, TRANS TOWER, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.** **3 THE FARE REVISION COMMITTEE, REPRESENTED BY TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER, MEMBER SECRETARY, TRANS TOWER, VAZHAUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 014.** ## **BY SRI.RANJITH THAMPAN, ADDL. ADVOCATE GENERAL** ## **RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN WPC:** ## **JOHNSON PAYYAPPILLY,** **AGED 60 YEARS, S/O. PAULOSE, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, MURINGOOR, KINFRA PARK P.O. CHALAKKUDY 680 309, GENERAL SECRETARY , ALL KERALA BUS OPERATORS FORUM, CHALAKKUDY UNIT, REG. NO. 199/2012, P.J. COMPLEX, NIRMALA COLLEGE ROAD, CHALAKKUDY - 680 307.** ## **BY ADV.SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K. GOPAL** **THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12.06.2020, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 12[th] day of June, 2020 ## **S.Manikumar, C.J.** Instant writ appeal is filed against an interim order made in W.P. (C)No.11210 of 2020 dated 9.6.2020, by which the writ court has granted permission to the respondent/stage carriage operators to collect fare, as per Ext.P1 notification dated 19.5.2020 issued by the Government. 2. Writ court has further directed the Fare Revision Committee represented by the Transport Commissioner, Thiruvananthapuram (respondent No.3 therein) to consider Ext.P4 representation preferred by the respondent and place their recommendations before the State of Kerala represented by the Principal Secretary to the Government, Motor Vehicles Department, Thiruvananthapuram (appellant herein) within a further period of four weeks from the date of recommendations of the Fare Revision Committee. 3. Though the writ petition is filed by a single stage carriage operator, a reading of the interim order made in W.P.(C)No.11210 of 2020 dated 9.6.2020, impugned in this appeal, indicates that, the writ court has made the said interim order applicable to all the private stage carriage operators. **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **3** 4. Writ court has permitted the respondent/writ petitioner and others covered by Ext.P1 notification to operate their services as per the rates fixed in Ext.P1. 5. Writ court has also ordered that during the period provided therefore to consider the representation, the private stage carriage operators should strictly adhere to the Government directives regarding passenger capacity that may be issued from time to time in public interest. In the order, it is also made clear that in the event of any violation of the said directives by the writ petitioner or other like stage carriage operators, it will be open to the respondents to deny the said operator the benefit of this order, and to proceed against the operator(s) concerned by invoking the penal provisions of the law against them and their vehicles. 6. Inviting the attention of this court to decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in **Rameshchandra Kachardas Porwal and Others v. State of Maharashtra and Others** reported in 1981 KHC 601; **M/s.Shri Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. and Others v. Union of India** and Others reported in 1990 KHC 837; **S.Narayan Iyer v. Union of India** reported in 1976 KHC 842 and **District Collector Satara and Another v. Mangesh Nivrutti Kashid** reported in 2019 KHC 6992 and decision of this court in **State of Kerala v. Sebastian** reported in 1995 KHC 73, **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **4** Mr.Ranjith Thampan, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that Exts.P1 and P2 notifications have been issued in exercise of the powers under sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and that they are subordinate legislation. 7. According to him, a subordinate legislation can be challenged only on limited grounds namely, (i) That it is contrary to the parent Act, namely Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (ii) Incompetence of the authority in issuing the notifications and (iii) Violation of fundamental rights. According to the learned Additional Advocate General, petitioner has not pleaded and substantiated any one of the above said grounds, except to plead prejudice and loss in revenue or earning to the private stage carriage operators. 8. Inviting the attention of this court to tabular column, giving particulars of the fare from 2018 till the date of interim order, learned Additional Advocate General submitted that if the interim order is given effect to, then there is a possibility of collecting more fare from the passengers. It is also his contention that the standards of social distancing has been relaxed by the Government. 9. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that interim order granted has the effect of granting the main reliefs prayed for in the writ petition. He further submitted that without adverting to the **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **5** above said contentions interim stay has been granted. 10. Responding to the above said submissions, Mr.Sajeev Kumar K. Gopal, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that due to the Covid pandemic and consequently social distancing, not many passengers take the pleasure of travelling in buses, though the Government might have relaxed the social distancing standards. 11. He further submitted that in order to safeguard public health, for the safety of the drivers and passengers, stage carriage operators have to incur more expenses for disinfecting the buses, use of sanitisers and other precautionary measures. According to him, the contention of the appellants that there will be possibility of collecting more fare from the passengers is not well founded. 12. Inviting the attention of this court to the operative portion of the interim order made in W.P.(C)No.11210 of 2020 dated 9.6.2020, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the writ court has directed strict adherence to the Government directives regarding passenger capacity that may be issued from time to time in public interest and therefore, the number of passengers likely to utilise the services of stage carriages will be less. In the result, there would be loss of revenue to the stage carriage operators. 13. Inviting the attention of this court to ground No.3 of the **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **6** memorandum of grounds filed along with the writ appeal, learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that Fare Revision Committee has already taken up the matter and conducted hearing of the stakeholders and therefore, the said process should reach a logical conclusion and consequential orders. According to him, no prejudice would be caused to the appellants and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the interim order. 14. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. ## 15. Prayers sought for in the writ petition are: “(i) Issue a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writs, orders or directions calling for the records leading to Ext.P2 and to quash the same (ii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, orders or directions directing the 1[st] respondent to permit the stage carriage operators to operate the services in accordance with the fares notified in Ext.P1 and (iii) Issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writs, orders or directions directing the 1[st] respondent to consider Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner as the General Secretary of All Kerala Private Bus Operators Forum forthwith and further direct the 3[rd] respondent committee to consider the issue regarding revision of fares of the stage carriages during this period of Covid 19 restrictions forthwith.” ## 16. Perusal of the statement of facts filed in support of the writ **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **7** petition shows that the petitioner is a stage carriage operator. He is also the General Secretary of All Kerala Private Bus Operators Forum. Though a representation (Ext.P4) is stated to have been made by the writ petitioner in the capacity as General Secretary of All Kerala Private Bus Operators Forum, writ petition has been filed only in his individual capacity. Writ petition has not been filed on behalf of All Kerala Private Bus Operators Forum represented by the General Secretary. Though the writ petition has been filed in his individual capacity, interim order has been passed extending the benefit to all private stage carriage operators. 17. Perusal of the statement of facts filed in support of the writ petition, does not indicate that writ petition has been challenged on any of the grounds available to maintain a writ petition against the subordinate legislation namely, (i) That it is contrary to the parent Act, namely Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (ii) Incompetence of the authority in issuing the notifications and (iii) Violation of fundamental rights. Respondent has not advanced any arguments on the above. Be that as it may, it is an issue to be adjudged in the writ petition. But as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Advocate General, writ petitioner has only expressed the difficulties faced by the private operators, operating the vehicle during the restriction in the lock down period and the resultant loss in revenue on account of the adherence to social **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **8** distancing and other issues. At this juncture we may only observe that loss of revenue or earning is an admitted factor, to all. Writ court has considered only the prima facie hardship, vis-a-vis, the constitutional validity to subordinate legislation. At this juncture, we only observe that, prejudice and hardship cannot be a reason to quash a subordinate legislation, so long as the validity can be sustained on the grounds of competence, not contrary to the parent Act or violative of the fundamental rights. At this juncture, we may only observe that writ court has not adverted to the above. 18. On the aspect as to whether there is any possibility of the writ petitioner and other private stage carriage operators to collect more fare, pursuant to the interim order, is a matter of fact which has to be adverted to. Prayer No.1 is to quash Ext.P2 notification dated 2.6.2020. Though Ext.P1 notification dated 19.5.2020 is permitting the stage carriage operators to collect more fares, Ext.P1 notification has been superseded by the Government by issuing Ext.P2 notification dated 2.6.2020. We deem it fit to extract both Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 notifications: ## “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ## **Transport (B) Department** ## NOTIFICATION G.O.(P)No.26/2020/Tran. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 19[th] May, 2020. S.R.O.No.333/2020 **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **9** WHEREAS, the Government have issued directions to the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities in the State regarding the fixing of fares and freights for stage carriages vide notification issued under G.O.(P)No.4/2018/Tran. dated 26[th] February, 2018 and published as S.R.O.No.109/2018 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.468 dated the 26[th] February, 2018; AND WHEREAS, the stage carriages in the State cannot operate services in accordance with the directions issued under the said notification due to the various restrictions imposed on transportation in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic; AND WHEREAS, the stage carriages can be operated keeping social distancing among the passengers in the buses and carry passengers only not more than fifty per cent of the seating capacity of the stage carriage; AND WHEREAS, it is not viable and the operators of stage carriages cannot operate the buses as per the existing directions issued under the said notification during the period in which the social distancing is to be maintained; AND WHEREAS, the Government of Kerala, after considering all aspects, including the necessity of keeping social distancing in the buses and as such loss of income to the bus operators due to the lesser number of passengers that can be carried in a stage carriage, and that it is necessary to stay the operation of the said notification during the period of social distancing and also to modify the said directions issued to the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities in the State during the said period; NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988) and staying the operation of the **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **10** directions, other than clause F thereof, issued under the said notification, during the period of social distancing, the Government of Kerala hereby make the following amendment to the said notification, namely:- ## AMENDMENT In the said notification, after clause I, the following clause shall be inserted, namely:- ## “ **J. Fare during lock down and social distancing period in relation to Covid 19 pandemic** . Notwithstanding anything contained in previous paragraphs and clauses A to E and G to I, the provisions there under shall not apply during the period of lock down or the restrictions and requirement of keeping social distancing declared by the Government in the wake of Covid 19 pandemic and as such the Government of Kerala hereby direct the State Transport Authority and Regional Transport Authorities as follows:- ## DIRECTIONS Subject to the regulations, guidelines, norms or orders issued by the Government in relation to the Covid 19 pandemic, the State Transport Authority or the Regional Transport Authorities, as the case may be, shall fix the rates of fares of the Stage Carriages in the State as follows, with effect from 00.00 houses on the 20[th] day of May, 2020. ## (a) **Minimum Fares** The minimum fare for which a ticket will be issued for all Ordinary / Mofussil services, including City / Town services, shall be 12.00 rupees and the maximum distance that can be travelled in minimum fare of 12.00 rupees shall be fixed as 5 km. ## (b) **Calculation of Fares** Over and above the minimum distance, fares will be **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **11** calculated at the existing PER KM rate rounding off the fraction to the nearest rupee, to the lower rupee when the fraction is between 1 and 49 paise and to the next higher rupee when the fraction is between 50 and 99 paise. The PER KM rates are to be applied over and above the minimum fare. For example, for a distance of 10 kms the fare of Rs.12.00 will apply for a distance of first 5 kms and for the rest of the distance i.e, next 5 kms., the revised rate of Rs.1.10 PER KM will apply. Thus the fare for the second 5 kms will be Rs.5.50. This shall be added to the minimum fare of Rs.12.00 and total amount of Rs.17.50 shall be rounded to Rs.18.00. ## (c) **Students Concessions and other concessions** Full time regular students not engaged in any other calling or profession studying in any recognised educational institution for a recognised course and full time students not engaged in any other calling or profession studying privately in any institution and who have registered their names in any of the Universities in India as a student for a particular course or private study admitted by a University in Kerala, travelling in a stage carriage for a distance not exceeding 40 kilometers for a single journey for the purpose of attending classes, from residence to institution shall be eligible for concession in City /Town and Ordinary/ Mofussil Services and Limited Stop Ordinary Services during the entire period of such course including all holidays. All such students and those other passengers eligible for any concession of fares shall be liable to pay 50% of the full fares applicable to the distance to be travelled by them. For rounding off the fractions to nearest rupee, the method specified in sub-clause (ii) above will be applicable: “Provided that the student or such other passenger shall **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **12** produce Identity Cards in the Form prescribed by the Government or such other competent authority which allowed the concession.”. By order of the Governor, ## K.R. JYOTHILAL, Principal Secretary to Government.” *********** ## “GOVERNMENT OF KERALA ## Transport (B) Department ## NOTIFICATION G.O.(P)No.29/2020/Tran. Dated, Thiruvananthapuram, 2[nd] June 2020. S.R.O.No.366/2020 WHEREAS, the Government have issued directions to the State Transport Authority and the Regional Transport Authorities in the State regarding the fixing of fares and freights for stage carriages vide notification issued under G.O.(P)No.4/2018/Tran. dated 26[th] February, 2018 and published as S.R.O.No.109/2018 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.468 dated the 26[th] February, 2018; AND WHEREAS, the Government of Kerala, after considering all aspects, including the necessity of keeping social distancing among the passengers in the buses in relation to the Covid 19 pandemic and the loss of income to the bus operators due to the lesser number of passengers that can be carried in a stage carriage, had stayed the operation of the said notification during the period of social distancing; AND WHEREAS, the Government, after considering the above aspects, modified the said directions issued to the State Transport **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **13** Authority and Regional Transport Authorities in the State during the said period by amending the said notification as per notification issued under G.O.(P)No.26/2020/Tran. dated 19[th] May, 2020 and published as S.R.O.No.333/2020 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.1218 dated 19[th] May, 2020; AND WHEREAS, the Government have decided to relax the lock down restrictions and decided to permit to carry passengers in all the seats available in the stage carriages; NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 67 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (Central Act 59 of 1988), the Government of Kerala hereby revoke the directions issued under clause J of the parent notification as inserted by notification published as S.R.O.No.333/2020 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.1218 dated 19[th] May, 2020 and restore the directions in force prior to the 20[th] day of May 2020 as issued under the notification published as S.R.O.No.109/2018 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.468 dated 26[th] February 2018 with effect from the 2[nd] day of June, 2020 subject to the regulations, guidelines norms or orders issued by the Government in relation to the Covid 19 pandemic and consequently make the following further amendment to the parent notification, namely:- ## AMENDMENT In the notification issued under G.O.(P)No.4/2018/Tran. Dated 26[th] February 2018 and published as S.R.O.No.109/2018 in the Kerala Gazette Extraordinary No.468 dated the 26[th] February, 2018, clause J shall be omitted. By order of the Governor, C.M.AJAYAMOHAN, Additional Secretary to Government.” **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **14** 19. As stated supra, among other reliefs, the petitioner has sought for a mandamus directing the State of Kerala represented by Principal Secretary to Government, Motor Vehicles Department, Thiruvananthapuram, to consider Ext.P4 representation submitted by the petitioner in the capacity as the General Secretary of All Kerala Private Bus Operators Forum forthwith and further to direct the 3[rd] respondent committee to consider the issue regarding revision of fares of the stage carriages during this period of Covid 19 restrictions forthwith. 20. Though attention of this court was invited to ground No.3 of the memorandum of grounds, wherein the appellants have considered the request of the petitioner for revision of fare and have already forwarded to the Fare Revision Committee, that the said committee has conducted a hearing of the stakeholders and therefore, contention has been made by the respondent that the meeting of the committee should come to a logical conclusion, perusal of the grounds of appeal makes it clear that when the representation of the writ petitioner has been made, the same has already been forwarded and that hearing has also been conducted. 21. Appellants have stated that hearing of KSRTC, students and other public have to be conducted. According to the appellants, Committee may take more than a month's time to finalise the **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **15** recommendations after hearing the stakeholders. Action of the appellants in forwarding Ext.P4 representation to the Fare Revision Committee, also indicates that prayer No.3 has been considered and that a report has to be drawn. 22. Thus, going through the impugned order, it could be deduced that virtually, writ court has granted prayer No.3 and also fixed a time limit of four weeks for consideration. We are unable to deduce from the interim order as to whether the writ court, has considered as to who are all the stakeholders and how much time is required to provide an opportunity to the above said stakeholders, and to pass orders. Writ court in the interim order has merely stated that “heard the learned Government Pleader”. 23. By virtue of the interim order, writ court has also granted prayer No.2 namely, directing the appellants/respondents to permit the stage carriage operators to operate the services in accordance with the fares notified in Ext.P1, pending disposal of the consideration of the representation (Ext.P4). 24. As Ext.P4 representation has been directed to be considered, we are prima facie of the view that there is no need for the writ court to have directed the appellants to permit the stage carriage operators to operate the services in accordance with the fares notified in Ext.P1. **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **16** Prayers 2 and 3 have been granted by the writ court. In the foregoing paragraphs of this judgment, we have also recorded the fact that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in his individual capacity, and not representing the entire private stage carriage operators. Question which ought to have been considered is whether, writ court in the absence of filing a writ petition in the representative capacity, can grant the relief to all those similarly placed by way of an interim order. What remains to be considered is only quashing of Ext.P2 notification dated 19.5.2020 which has been issued superseding Ext.P1. Now by virtue of the interim order, Ext.P2 cannot be given effect to. 25. From the above discussion, what we could deduce from the interim order is that granting of interim order amounts to granting the main reliefs sought for in the writ petition except prayer No.1. At this juncture, apart from various decisions, we refer to a few decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the grant of interim order, which are extracted hereunder: (i) In **Deoraj v. State of Maharashtra** reported in AIR 2004 SC 1975, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at para 12, held as follows: "Situations emerge where the granting of an interim relief would tantamount to granting the final relief itself. And then there may be converse cases where withholding of an interim relief would tantamount to **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **17** dismissal of main petition itself; for, by the time the main matter comes up for hearing there would be nothing left to be allowed as relief to the petitioner though all the findings may be in his favour. In such cases the availability of a very strong prima facie case - of a standard much higher than just prima facie case, the considerations of balance of convenience and irreparable injury forcefully tilting the balance of case totally in favour of the applicant may persuade the Court to grant an interim relief though it amounts to granting the final relief itself. Of course, such would be rare and exceptional cases. The Court would grant such an interim relief only if satisfied that withholding of it would prick the conscience of the Court and do violence to the sense of justice, resulting in injustice being perpetuated throughout the hearing, and at the end the Court would not be able to vindicate the cause of justice. Obviously such would be rare cases accompanied by compelling circumstances, where the injury complained of is immediate and pressing and would cause extreme hardship. The conduct of the parties shall also have to be seen and the Court may put the parties on such terms as may be prudent." (ii) The Hon'ble Supreme Court in **State of U.P v. Ram Sukhi Devi** , [(2005) 9 SCC 733] held that final relief cannot be granted by way of interim relief. Paragraph 8 of the aforesaid decision is extracted hereunder:- "To say the least, approach of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench is judicially unsustainable and indefensible. The final relief sought for in the writ **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **18** petition has been granted as an interim measure. There was no reason indicated by learned Single Judge as to why the Government Order dated 26.10.1998 was to be ignored. Whether the writ petitioner was entitled to any relief in the writ petition has to be adjudicated at the time of final disposal of the writ petition. This Court has on numerous occasions observed that the final relief sought for should not be granted at an interim stage. The position is worsened if the interim direction has been passed with stipulation that the applicable Government Order has to be ignored. Time and again this Court has deprecated the practice of granting interim orders which practically give the principal relief sought in the petition for no better reason than that of a prima facie case has been made out, without being concerned about the balance of convenience, the public interest and a host of other considerations. [See Assistant Collector of Central Excise, West Bengal v. Dunlop India Ltd. (1985 (1) SCC 260 at p. 265), State of Rajasthan v. M/s Swaika Properties (1985 (3) SCC 217 at p.224), State of U.P. and Ors. v. Visheshwar (1995 Supp (3) SCC 590), Bharatbhushan Sonaji Kshirsagar (Dr.) v. Abdul Khalik Mohd. Musa and Ors. (1995 Supp (2) SCC 593), Shiv Shankar and Ors. v. Board of Directors, U.P.S.R.T.C. and Anr. (1995 Supp (2) SCC 726) and Commissioner/Secretary to Govt. Health and Medical Education Department Civil Sectt., Jammu v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Kohli (1995 Supp (4) SCC 214).] No basis has been indicated as to why learned Single Judge thought the course as directed was necessary to be adopted. Even it was not indicated that **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **19** a prima facie case was made out though as noted above that itself is not sufficient. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case we have interfered primarily on the ground that the final relief has been granted at an interim stage without justifiable reasons. Since the controversy lies within a very narrow compass, we request the High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable preferably within six months from the date of receipt of this judgment." 26. By directing the representation to be considered within four weeks, writ court has incidentally stayed the operation and implementation of Ext.P2 notification so as to enable the petitioner and others covered by Ext.P1 notification to enjoy the benefits. When Ext.P4 representation dated 3.6.2020, writ court ought not to have permitted the private stage carriage operators to collect fares as per Ext.P1, as the same has been superseded. Constitutional validity of Ext.P2, on the grounds raised in the writ petition requires adjudication. 27. We direct the pay revision committee to proceed with the hearing of the stakeholders namely, KSRTC, students and such other interested persons, finalise the recommendations and submit the same to the Government, as expeditiously as possible. 28. We have considered the material on record and taken note of **W.A.No.736 of 2020** **20** the consensus of the learned counsel for the contesting parties, to dispose of the writ appeal itself. Giving due consideration to the material on record and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we deem it fit to interfere with the interim order, allow the writ appeal by setting aside that portion of the interim order made in W.P.(C)No.11210 of 2020 staying the operation and implementation of Ext.P2 notification and permitting the stage carriage operators to collect fares as per Ext.P1 notification. Writ appeal is allowed accordingly. Sd/- **S.Manikumar, Chief Justice** Sd/- **Shaji P.Chaly Judge** ## **vpv** /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE