State of Kerala v Kollam Labour Contract Co-Operative Society Ltd (WP(C).Nos. 9913 of 2018 and 8937 of 2018)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.9913 OF 2018(L)** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **THE STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER,HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT,SOUTH CIRCLE,KAMALESWARAM,MANACAUD.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695009.** ## **BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** **1 THE KOLLAM LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD NO. Q 1004 ROOM NO.29,STADIUM BUILDING,KOLLAM-691001.REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. 2 SMT.S.SAVITHRIRETIRED DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER (104) SIVASREE,SREEKARIYAM.P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM695017. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NANDAKUMARA MENON (SR.) R1 BY ADV. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF R1 BY ADV. SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR SRI. BINAL K NATH; SRGP** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).8937/2018(N), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** **TUESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2020 / 6TH PHALGUNA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.8937 OF 2018** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **KOLLAM LABOUR CONTRACT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD.NO. Q 1004** **STADIUM COMPLEX, KOLAM 691 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KIRAN G.S., RESIDING AT 'JAYASREE', KOTTAKKAKOM WARD, KOLLAM - 691 013.** **BY ADVS. SRI.S.MUHAMMED HANEEFF SRI.M.H.ASIF ALI** ## **RESPONDENT/S:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REP.BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT, FISHERIES**| ||**AND PORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001.**| |**2**|**THE CHIEF ENGINEER**| ||**HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, KAMALESWARAM,**| ||**MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 009.**| |**3**|**THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER**| ||**HARBOUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SOUTH CIRCLE,**| ||**KAMALESWARAM, MANACAUD P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM -**| ||**695 009.**| |**4**|**THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER**| ||**HARBOUR ENGINEERING DIVISION, VIZHINJAM P.O.,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 521.**| |**5**|**THE JOINT REGISTRAR GENERAL**| **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **3** **CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, KOLLAM - 691 001. [DELETED]** **6 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 001, REP.BY ITS SECRETARY. [DELETED] [RESPONDENT NO.5 AND 6 ARE DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AS PER THE ORDER DATED 12/04/2018 IN WP(C) AS THEY ARE UNNECESSARY PARTIES TO THE WRIT PETITION].** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25.02.2020, ALONG WITH WP(C).9913/2018(L), THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **4** ## JUDGMENT As both these writ petitions involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. For the sake of convenience the reference to facts and Exhibits is from W.P(C).No.9913 of 2018. 2. The issue involved in these writ petitions stems from the contracts that were entered into between the State Government and the Kollam Labour Contract Co-operative Society Limited (‘the Society ‘for short). While the works entrusted to the Society were completed in 2002 and 2008 respectively, within the extended time granted by the Government under the supplemental agreements entered into with the contractor Society, a dispute arose with regard to the liability of the Government to effect payments to the contractor Society. When payments were not made, the Society filed ARC 121/2002, before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies who, in turn, referred the matter to the Joint Registrar of the Co-operative Society Kollam. In the said ARC, a preliminary question was raised by the State Government as regards the jurisdiction of the Joint Registrar to entertain a monetary dispute under the provisions of Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act. The Joint Registrar/Arbitration Court, decided the issue of jurisdiction in favour of the Society and thereafter, proceeded to dispose the ARC itself on merits by deciding the issues on merit partially in favour of the Society. Against the said order of the Arbitration Court in ARC 121/2002, both the State Government ## **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **5** and also the Society, preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority. The appeal filed by the State Government was numbered as 8035 of 2005 and the appeal preferred by the Society was numbered as 8033 of 2005. The appeals were considered together and disposed by a common order, which set aside the award of the Arbitration Court, after deciding the issue of jurisdiction raised by the State, in favour of the Society. The matter was remanded to the Arbitration Court for a fresh decision on the merits of the case. 3. It would appear that on remand, the Arbitration Court, notwithstanding the specific finding of the Appellate Authority that it had the jurisdiction to entertain the dispute, proceeded to pass an award holding that it did not have such jurisdiction to entertain the dispute that was raised in the ARC. Against the said finding of the Arbitration Court, the Society preferred an appeal No.AP 4 of 2008 before the Appellate Authority. This time around, the Appellate Authority set aside the order of the Arbitration Court and once again reiterated that the Arbitration Court had jurisdiction under Section 69 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, to decide the issue raised in ARC 121/2002, and directed the Arbitration Court to decide the issue on merits afresh as directed in its earlier order. The State Government, aggrieved by the said order of the Appellate Authority, preferred W.P(C) No. 32053 of 2009 before this Court, challenging the findings of the Appellate Authority. By Ext.P3 judgment dated 31.1.2014, this Court directed the Arbitration Court to finalize the ARC 121/2002 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Although, the State Government preferred an appeal against Ext.P3 judgment before the Division Bench of this Court, **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** the said appeal came to be dismissed by this Court. It is relevant to note that at the time of dismissal of the appeal, the Division Bench specifically found as follows at Paragraphs 8 to 11 of the judgment, on the aspects of the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to decide the issue that was raised in the ARC 121/2002. “8 . The second contention raised by the learned Government Pleader is that the dispute to be resolved under Sec. 69 of the Act can only be by or against a person and not by or against the Government and according to him if the Society has a monetary claim, the remedy of the Society is only before a civil court. In support of this contention, the learned Government Pleader also placed reliance on the judgments in Moti Lal and others v. The Government of the State of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in AIR (38) 1951 Allahabad 257 and Ramrichpal Agarwalla and others v. Thc State of West Bengal reported in AIR 1958 Calcutta 257. 9.In our view, the correctness of the contention of the learned Government Pleader will have to be tested in the light of the provisions contained in Sec. 2(i) which defines dispute, Sec. 69(1)(f) and Sec. 100 of the Act. These provisions are extracted below for reference. Section 2(i). 2.Definition- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires- (a) x x x x x x x x (I) "dispute" means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society. whether such claim be admitted or not". Section 69(1)(f)- 69. Disputes to be decided by Co-operative Arbitration Court and Registrar.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, if a dispute arises- (a) x x x x x x x x (f)between the society and a person, other than a member of the society, who has been granted a loan by the society or with whom **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **7** the society has or had business transactions or any person claiming through such a person" ## Section 100. “100. Bar of jurisdiction of courts.- No civil or revenue court shall have any jurisdiction in respect of any matter for which provision is made in this Act." As per Sec. 2(i) of the Act, dispute means any matter touching the business, constitution, establishments or management of a society capable of being the subject of litigation and includes a claim in respect of any sum payable to or by a society, whether such claim be admitted or not. Therefore, to be a dispute, it must be touching upon anyone of the aspects mentioned in the section and should be capable of being the subject of litigation and it also includes a claim in respect of sum payable to or by a society, Sec. 69(1)(f) of the Act starts with a non-obstante clause shows that a dispute between the society and a person, who is not a member of the society with whom the society had business transactions is also covered by the said section. It is also stated in Sec.69(1)(h) of the Act that the monetary dispute shall be decided by the Registrar and no other court or authority shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or other proceedings in respect of such dispute. Sec.100 of the Act also shows that in respect of matters for which provision is made in the Act, jurisdiction of the civil or revenue court stands excluded. **10** .A combined reading of Sec. 2(i) of the Act with the provisions of Sec. 69 discloses that in respect of any matter touching upon the business, constitution, establishments or management of a Society which is capable of being the subject of litigation including the claim for sum payable by a society is a dispute and that if such is a monetary one and with a person, who is not a member of the society, 18 to be adjudicated by the Registrar and no other court shall have jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceedings in respect of such a dispute. The exclusion of jurisdiction provided in Sec. 69(1)() of the Act is further clarified and reiterated in Sec. 100 of the Act also. **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** 11.Having thus seen the effect of the statutory provisions, let us now see the facts of this case. The respondent is a Labour Contract Cooperative Society. The society has entered into a contract with the appellants for the execution of the works made mention of in Exts. P-1 to P-3. Arising out of the execution of the award, the respondentsociety made various monetary claims against the appellants and it was that dispute which gave rise to this controversy. These facts therefore show that the disputes raised by the society which touch upon the business of the society is one which is capable of being subject of litigation, and is a claim in respect of amounts payable to the society. It therefore squarely falls within the ambit of Sec. 2(i) which defines the dispute. If the controversy is a dispute as stated in Sec. 2(i), then in view of language of Sec. 69 of the Act which starts with a non-obstante clause, it is to be adjudicated by the Registrar as provided under the said section This is all the more so. in view of the fact that even according to the Government, the remedy available to the respondent is before a civil court In this context, we cannot also ignore the fact that acceptance of the contention raised by the learned Government Pleader would lead to a situation where in view of Sec. 100 of the Act, the respondent-Society will be left without any remedy.” 4. The State Government thereafter, preferred an SLP against the judgment of the Division Bench before the Supreme Court. The Said SLP came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court which however, left it open to the State Government to urge all contention including the issue of maintainability of the claim before the Arbitration Court, to which the matter had been remanded by the Appellate Authority. Taking cue from the liberty reserved to it by the order of the Supreme Court, the State Government once again canvassed the issue of jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to entertain the dispute raised in ARC 121/2002, before the Arbitration Court. In the ## **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **9** meanwhile, another dispute was also raised by the Society as ARC No. 10990/2014 before the Arbitration Court. On a writ petition moved by the Society (W.P(C) No. 1256/2014), this Court by its judgment dated 28/5/2014 directed the Arbitration Court to try both the ARC Nos. 121/2002 and 10990/2014 together, since the issue dealt with in both were substantially similar. The Arbitration Court thereafter, proceeded to pass Ext.P1 award, where the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to entertain the dispute raised by the Society was found in favour of the Society. The decision on merits was also in favour of the Society and the Government was found liable to pay amounts to the Society for the works done by them. The Arbitration Court also directed payment of interest at the rate 18% per annum on the amounts outstanding to the Society in both the ARC’s. 5. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Arbitration Court, the Society as well as the State Government carried the matter before the Appellate Authority through separate revision petitions filed before the said authority. By a common order, produced as Ext.P6 in the writ petition, the Appellate Authority rejected the revision petition preferred by the Government and modified the rate of interest that was granted to the Society by the Arbitration Court. It is impugning the said common order of the Appellate Authority that these writ petitions have been filed before this Court, with writ petition No. 9913/2018 being filed by the State impugning the appellate order as well as the order of the Arbitration Court on the aspect of jurisdiction as well as on merits, and writ petition No.8937/2018 being filed by the Society, aggrieved by the reduction of interest ordered by the **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **10** Appellate Authority in Ext.P6 order. Although, other grounds have also been raised in W.P(C) No. 8937/2018, they are not urged before me at the time of hearing. 6. I have heard the learned Senior Government Pleader Sri. Bimal K Nath appearing on behalf of the petitioner in W.P(C) No. 9913/2018, Sri Mohammed Haneef, the learned counsel for the petitioner appearing in W.P(C).8937/2018 and learned Senior Counsel Sri. Nandakumar Menon appearing on behalf of the 1[st] respondent Society in W.P(C) No. 9913/2018. 7. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case as also the submissions made across the Bar, I find from a perusal of the pleadings, and the arguments of learned counsel on either side, that in the writ petition preferred by the State Government, the challenge to the order of the Arbitration Court and the Appellate Authority is premised mainly on the contention regarding jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to decide the issue that was raised in the ARC's aforementioned. Grounds 'F to K' in the writ petition alone deal with the contentions on the merits of the case decided by the Arbitration Court. In that context, it is relevant to note that the issue with regard to the jurisdiction of the Arbitration Court to consider the issue raised in the ARC's had been considered by this Court in the earlier round of litigation and, as already noted, it was found by the single Judge as also by the Division Bench in appeal that the Arbitration Court had the jurisdiction to decide the issues raised in the ARC. The specific finding of the Division Bench as extracted above, did not lose its precedential value on **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** ## account of the dismissal of the SLP preferred by the State Government against the said judgment. It is trite that the mere dismissal of an SLP against the judgment of the High Court does not result in a merger of the decision of the High Court with that of the Supreme Court, more so when the SLP is dismissed without any reasons. The judgment of the Division Bench does not cease to have a precedent value in relation to the issue that is to be considered. [ See: Khoday Distilleries v. Sri. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane Ltd. ( 2019) 4 SCC 376]. It follows, therefore, that the finding of the Arbitration Court with regard to the existence of jurisdiction to consider the issues raised in ARC 121/2002 and 10990/2014, cannot be found fault with especially in view of the categorical findings in Ext.P4 judgment of the Division Bench of this Court. 8. This brings me to the next issue with regard to the challenge on the merits of the case decided by the Arbitration Court and the Appellate Authority. In the writ petition filed by the State, the challenge on the merits of the case are contained in grounds F,G,H,I,J and K. The said grounds read as under: “F. It is submitted that the 1st respondent had executed nine supplemental agreements in favour of State whereby the 1st respondent agreed that no claim will be made against the State. The 1st respondent completed the work in the extended period of the above supplemental completion based on agreements, Therefore, above agreements were acted upon. All the claims raised by the 1st respondent are The against the above supplemental agreements. Tribunal arbitrarily entertained the claims raised by the 1at respondent disregarding the terms of above contracts, thereby committed serious illegality. **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **12** G. The finding of the Tribunal below that the arbitrator had gone through various pages of Exhibits therefore,Ext.P1 is in effect etc.. are bad. The observation that the veracity of documents produced by respondent are not disputed by the petitioners herein etc. are against facts. H. In Ext.P1 the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society set aside the report prepared by the Chief Technical Examiner/Controller and Auditor General and Public Account Committee. As per S.69 of the Act the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society is not authorized to set aside report of the Public Account Committee, comprising 7 members of Kerala Legislative Assembly or the Controller and Auditor General etc... The Tribunal ought to have held that Joint Registrar of Co-operative Society exceeded the jurisdiction and therefore, Ext.P1 is ultra vires. I. The findings of the Tribunal below regarding the issue No.4 & 5 that is in respect of extra weight is against specific terms of Exhibit P2 contract and Exhibit P7 supplemental agreement. The Tribunal who ought to have held that in view of Exhibit P7 supplemental agreement the claims of the first respondent's society are not maintainable. J. The Tribunal below who ought to have held that the arbitrator exceeded jurisdiction by set aside the Exhibit P8 report of the Pubic Account Committee of Kerala Legislative Assembly and the report issued by Therefore Exhibit P1 the Controller Audit General. order is ultra vires. K, The findings by the Tribunal below regarding the. claim of interest is against the clause 34 of general specifications and additional conditions of Contract in Exhibit P2.” 9. When I read the award of the Arbitration Court (Ext.P1) and the **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **13** order of the Appellate Authority in the revisions preferred against the said award (Ext.P6), I find that the factual aspects urged in the writ petition ,as grounds for seeking interference with Ext.P6 order of the Appellate Authority, were not urged before the Appellate/Revision Authority. It would be relevant to emphasise on the findings of the Appellate/Revision Authority in Ext.P6 order as regards the non-furnishing of any evidence by the State Government in the proceedings before the Arbitration Court as also the revisional forum. The findings in Paragraphs 11 to 21, particularly in paragraphs 13,16 and 17, clearly indicate that the findings on the merits of the case in favour of the Society were rendered, taking note of the absence of any material produced by the Government before the Arbitrator and the Appellant/Revision Authority. In fact, the Appellate/Revision Authority laments on the careless attitude on the part of the Government in not producing the relevant documents before the Arbitrator. When the findings on merit have been entered into in favour of the Society primarily based on the absence of any contra-evidence produced by the Government to substantiate its contention, I am of the view that it may not be open to the Government to question the concurrent finding on facts before this Court in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This is more so, because the Government cannot be conferred an advantage of by-passing two levels of adjudication, and raising a contention that there was no consideration of material by the lower authority, when no such material was placed before the said authorities at all. I therefore, find that the prayer sought for in W.P(C) No. 9913 of 2018 filed by the State Government cannot be granted. The said writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **14** dismissed. 10. As regards writ petition No. 8937 of 2018, as already noticed, the challenge therein, to the common order passed by the Appellate/Revision Authority, is only to the limited extent of questioning the action of the Appellate/Revision Authority in reducing the rate of interest that was granted on the belated payments due to it, from 18% to 12%. It is the case of the petitioner Society that it had borrowed amounts from the District Cooperative Bank at interest rates above 18% and hence, it is justified in claiming higher interest rates from the State Government on the delayed payments effected by the State Government. The argument proceeds on the basis that it was on account of the delay in getting payments from the State Government, for the work done for the State Government, that the petitioner Society was constrained to borrow money from the District Co-operative Bank at higher rates of interest. It is contended that insofar as the grant of interest is to compensate the petitioner Society for the delay in effecting payment, it is rightly entitled to the higher interest rate that it had to bear on amounts borrowed by it for discharging its obligations under the contract. Persuasive though the said submission may appear at first blush, I am afraid I cannot accept the same. As a matter of fact, the Appellate/Revision Authority has, in my view, correctly appreciated the legal position and found that merely because the petitioner Society had chosen to avail loans from the District Co-operative Bank at higher rates of interest, the State Government could not be fastened with the same rate of interest in respect of the delay occasioned by it in effecting payments to the Society. I am therefore of the **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** ## **15** view that the finding in the order of the Appellate Authority that the petitioner Society in W.P(C).No.8937 of 2018 is entitled only to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the respective date of completion of the work till the date of payments, requires no interference. The said writ petition in its challenge against the said finding of the Appellate/Revision Authority is also therefore dismissed. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed with consequential reliefs to the parties. Sd/- A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE SJ **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **16** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 9913/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1** **A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2016 IN ARC.NO.10990/2014 AND ARC NO.121/2002 PASSED BY THE ARTIBITRATOR I.E THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY(GENERAL)KOLLAM.** **EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BY 1ST RESPONDENT WITH 3RD PETITIONER DATED 06.06.1994.** **EXHIBIT P3 TRUE C0PY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P. (C)NO.32053/2009.** **EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.A.NO.812/2014** **EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN SLP NO.543/2016 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER IN REVISION PETITION 36/2016 AND 3/2017.** **EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENTS. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE PUBLIC ACCOUNT COMMITTEE REPORT.** **WP(C).Nos.9913 & 8937 OF 2018** **17** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 8937/2018** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD. 24.11.2011 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P(C)NO.2118/2010.** - **EXHIBIT P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DTD.28.05.2014 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.(C)NO. 1256/2014.** - **EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON AWARD DTD. 23.03.16 IN ARC NO. 121/02 AND ARC NO. 10990/14.** - **EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE DATA PREPARED AND ENTERED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. D1655/94/EE DTD.27.09.95.** - **EXHIBIT P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NO. 034344/89/SE DTD.29.09.95.** - **EXHIBIT P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER BEARING NOO. 3090/W1/93/CE DTD. 08.11.95 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **EXHIBIT P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION NO. 36/16 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF ITS APPENDIX.** - **EXHIBIT P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DTD.12.07.17 REVISION PETITION NOS.NO.36/16 AND 3/17 PASSED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER BEARING NO. 893/2017/F&PD DTD.21.11.2017.** **EXHIBIT P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 1285158/B2/17/F7PD DTD.11.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.**