¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1807

∑˝§◊Ê¢∑§ w~ ]

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ‡ÊÈ∑˝§ﬂÊ⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}ó•Ê·Ê…∏U w~, ‡Ê∑§ v~yÆ

÷Êª 1

⁄UÊíÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§ •ÊŒ‡Ê

‚Ê◊Êãÿ ¬˝‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ Áﬂ÷Êª

◊¢òÊÊ‹ÿ, ◊„UÊŸŒË ÷ﬂŸ, ŸÿÊ ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U

ŸÿÊ ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wx ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ ∞»§ z-vy/wÆv|/v (∞∑§).ó⁄UÊÖÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∞ÃŒ˜ÔmÊ⁄UÊ ◊ÊŸŸËÿ ãÿÊÿ◊ÍÁÃ¸ Shri Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan ◊ÈÅÿ

ãÿÊÿÊÁœ¬ÁÃ, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ©Uëø ãÿÊÿÊ‹ÿ Á’‹Ê‚¬È⁄U ∑§Ê ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ Æ|-Æz-wÆv} ‚ wx-Æz-wÆv} (v| ÁŒŸ) ∑§Ê ¬ÍáÊ¸ ﬂÃŸ ÷ûÊÊ¥ ‚Á„UÃ ‹ÉÊÈ∑Î§Ã

•ﬂ∑§Ê‡Ê ∑§Ê ‹Ê÷ ‹Ÿ ∑§Ë SﬂË∑Î§ÁÃ ¬˝ŒÊŸ ∑§⁄UÃÊ „ÒU.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ¬Ê‹ ∑§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ÃÕÊ •ÊŒ‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U,

ß¸Á◊‹ ‹∑§«∏UÊ, Áﬂ‡Ê· ‚Áøﬂ.

‚¢øÊ‹∑§, ◊Èº˝áÊ ÃÕÊ ‹πŸ ‚Ê◊ª˝Ë, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U mÊ⁄UÊ ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ˇÊòÊËÿ ◊Èº˝áÊÊ‹ÿ, ⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¢ŒªÊ¢ﬂ ‚ ◊ÈÁº˝Ã ÃÕÊ ¬˝∑§ÊÁ‡ÊÃówÆv}.

¬¢¡ËÿŸ ∑˝§◊Ê¢∑§

“¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U/ŒÈª¸/Æ~/wÆvx-wÆvz.”

“Á’¡Ÿ‚ ¬ÊS≈U ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã «UÊ∑§

‡ÊÈÀ∑§ ∑§ ŸªŒ ÷ÈªÃÊŸ (Á’ŸÊ «UÊ∑§

Á≈U∑§≈U) ∑§ ¬˝·áÊ „UÃÈ •ŸÈ◊Ã. ∑˝§◊Ê¢∑§

¡Ë. w-ww-¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ª¡≈U/x} Á‚.

‚. Á÷‹Êß¸, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ xÆ-z-wÆÆv.”

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ

¬˝ÊÁœ∑§Ê⁄U ‚ ¬˝∑§ÊÁ‡ÊÃ

Áﬂ·ÿó‚ÍøË

÷Êª v.ó(v) ⁄UÊÖÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§ •ÊŒ‡Ê, (w) Áﬂ÷Êª ¬˝◊ÈπÊ¥ ∑§ •ÊŒ‡Ê,

(x) ©Uëø ãÿÊÿÊ‹ÿ ∑§ •ÊŒ‡Ê •ÊÒ⁄U •Áœ‚ÍøŸÊ∞¢, (y)

⁄UÊÖÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§ ‚¢∑§À¬, (z) ÷Ê⁄UÃ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§ •ÊŒ‡Ê •ÊÒ⁄U

•Áœ‚ÍøŸÊ∞¢, ({) ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ •ÊÿÊª, ÷Ê⁄UÃ ∑§Ë •Áœ‚ÍøŸÊ∞¢,

(|) ‹Ê∑§-÷Ê·Ê ¬Á⁄UÁ‡ÊCÔU.

÷Êª w.óSÕÊŸËÿ ÁŸ∑§Êÿ ∑§Ë •Áœ‚ÍøŸÊ∞¢.

÷Êª x.ó(v) ÁﬂôÊÊ¬Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ÁﬂÁﬂœ ‚ÍøŸÊ∞¢, (w) ‚Ê¢ÁÅÿ∑§Ëÿ

‚ÍøŸÊ∞¢.

÷Êª y.ó(∑§) (v) ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U Áﬂœÿ∑§, (w) ¬˝ﬂ⁄U ‚Á◊ÁÃ ∑§

¬˝ÁÃﬂŒŸ, (x) ‚¢‚Œ ◊¥ ¬È⁄U—SÕÊÁ¬Ã Áﬂœÿ∑§, (π) (v)

•äÿÊŒ‡Ê, (w) ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, (x) ‚¢‚Œ˜Ô ∑§

•ÁœÁŸÿ◊, (ª) (v) ¬˝ÊM§¬ ÁŸÿ◊, (w) •¢ÁÃ◊ ÁŸÿ◊.

v}Æ|

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1808

ÁﬂÁäÊ •ÊÒ⁄U ÁﬂäÊÊÿË ∑§Êÿ¸ Áﬂ÷Êª

◊¢òÊÊ‹ÿ, ◊„UÊŸŒË ÷ﬂŸ, ŸÿÊ ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U

ŸÿÊ ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ w{ ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ {x}y/vwÆ~/wv-’/¿U.ª./wÆv}.ó⁄UÊíÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ, ∞ÃŒ˜mÊ⁄UÊ •ÁÃÁ⁄UÄÃ ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ •Á÷÷Ê·∑§/•ÁÃÁ⁄UÄÃ ‹Ê∑§ •Á÷ÿÊ¡∑§,

∑§Ê¥∑§⁄U ∑§ ¬Œ ¬⁄U ÁŸÿÈÄÃ üÊË ÁŒ‹Ë¬ Á‚¥„U Ÿ⁄‘U≈UË, •ÁäÊﬂÄÃÊ, Á¡‹Ê-∑§Ê¥∑§⁄U (¿U.ª.) ∑§Ê ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ë •Ê⁄U ‚ ¬Ò⁄UﬂË ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§ Á‹∞ ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ wx-Æx-

wÆv{ ‚ ÃËŸ ﬂ·¸ ∑§Ë ∑§Ê‹ÊﬂÁäÊ ÿÊ {w ﬂ·¸ ¡Ê ÷Ë ¬„U‹ „UÊ, ∑§ Á‹∞ •ÁÃÁ⁄UÄÃ ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ •Á÷÷Ê·∑§ ÁŸÿÈÄÃ ∑§⁄UÃÊ „ÒU ÃÕÊ Œá«U ¬˝Á∑˝§ÿÊ

‚¥Á„UÃÊ, v~|x (∑˝§. Æw ‚Ÿ˜ v~|y) ∑§Ë äÊÊ⁄UÊ-wy ∑§Ë ©U¬äÊÊ⁄UÊ (x) mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝ŒûÊ ‡ÊÁÄÃÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÊª ◊¥ ‹ÊÃ „ÈU∞ ©U‚Ë •ﬂÁäÊ ∑§ Á‹∞ ©Uã„¥U

•ÁÃÁ⁄UÄÃ ‹Ê∑§ •Á÷ÿÊ¡∑§ ÷Ë ÁŸÿÈÄÃ ∑§⁄UÃÊ „ÒU. Á∑§‚Ë ÷Ë ¬ˇÊ mÊ⁄UÊ ∞∑§ ◊Ê„U ∑§Ê ŸÊÁ≈U‚ Œ∑§⁄U ÿ„U ÁŸÿÈÁÄÃ ‚◊ÊåÃ ∑§Ë ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃË „ÒU.

©Uã„¥U ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ mÊ⁄UÊ ÁŸäÊÊ¸Á⁄UÃ ∞ﬂ¥ ‚◊ÿ-‚◊ÿ ¬⁄U ‚¥‡ÊÊÁäÊÃ Á⁄U≈UŸ⁄U »§Ë‚ ∞ﬂ¥ •ãÿ »§Ë‚ Œÿ „UÊªË. ©UŸ∑§Ë ‚ﬂÊ ∑§Ë •ãÿ ‡ÊÃZ ¿U.ª. ÁﬂÁäÊ

Áﬂ÷Êª ◊ÒãÿÈ•‹ ◊¥ ÁŸäÊÊ¸Á⁄UÃ •ŸÈ‚Ê⁄U „UÊªË.

©UÄÃ ‚¥’¥äÊ ◊¥ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê √ÿÿ ◊Ê¥ª ‚¥ÅÿÊ w~-wÆvy-ãÿÊÿ ¬˝‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ, vvy-∑§ÊŸÍŸË ‚‹Ê„U∑§Ê⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Á⁄U·Œ˜, xz|w - ◊È»§ÁS‚‹

SÕÊ¬ŸÊ, vÆ - √ÿﬂ‚ÊÁÿ∑§ ‚ﬂÊ•Ê¥ „UÃÈ •ŒÊÿÁªÿÊ¥, ÆÆ}-‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ •Á÷÷Ê·∑§Ê¥ ∑§Ê »§Ë‚ ◊Œ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ¬˝÷ÊÁ⁄UÃ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ¬Ê‹ ∑§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ÃÕÊ •ÊŒ‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U,

◊ŸË· ∑È§◊Ê⁄U ∆UÊ∑È§⁄U, •ÁÃÁ⁄UÄÃ ‚Áøﬂ.

üÊ◊ Áﬂ÷Êª

◊¢òÊÊ‹ÿ, ◊„UÊŸŒË ÷ﬂŸ, ŸÿÊ ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U

ŸÿÊ ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ z ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ ∞»§ vÆ-vÆ/wÆv}/v{.ó⁄UÊíÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∞ÃŒ˜mÊ⁄UÊ •‚¥ªÁ∆UÃ ∑§◊¸∑§Ê⁄U ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚È⁄UˇÊÊ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊, wÆÆ} ∑§Ë äÊÊ⁄UÊ x ∑§Ë

©U¬äÊÊ⁄UÊ (y) mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝ŒûÊ ‡ÊÁÄÃÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÊª ◊¥ ‹ÊÃ „ÈU∞ ∆U∑§Ê üÊÁ◊∑§, „U◊Ê‹ üÊÁ◊∑§ ∞ﬂ¥ ÉÊ⁄‘U‹Í ◊Á„U‹Ê ∑§Ê◊ªÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§ Á‹∞ ÁŸêŸÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U ÿÊ¡ŸÊ

’ŸÊÃË „ÒU —ó

∆U∑§Ê üÊÁ◊∑§, „U◊Ê‹ üÊÁ◊∑§ ∞ﬂ¥ ÉÊ⁄‘U‹Í ◊Á„U‹Ê ∑§Ê◊ªÊ⁄UÊ¥ „UÃÈ ª¥÷Ë⁄U ’Ë◊Ê⁄UË

ÁøÁ∑§à‚Ê ‚„UÊÿÃÊ§ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ —ó

(•)

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÊﬂäÊÊŸ —ó

(i)

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ê ŸÊ◊ “∆U∑§Ê üÊÁ◊∑§, „U◊Ê‹ üÊÁ◊∑§ ∞ﬂ¥ ÉÊ⁄‘U‹Í ◊Á„U‹Ê ∑§Ê◊ªÊ⁄U ª¥÷Ë⁄U ’Ë◊Ê⁄UË ÁøÁ∑§à‚Ê ‚„UÊÿÃÊ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ” „UÊªÊ.

(ii)

¬¥¡Ë∑Î§Ã ∆U∑§Ê üÊÁ◊∑§, „U◊Ê‹ üÊÁ◊∑§ ∞ﬂ¥ ÉÊ⁄U‹Í ◊Á„U‹Ê ∑§Ê◊ªÊ⁄U ¡Ê ª¥÷Ë⁄U ’Ë◊Ê⁄UË ‚ ¬ËÁ«∏Ã „UÊŸ ¬⁄U ßU‹Ê¡ „UÃÈ L§¬ÿ

zÆ,ÆÆÆ/- ∑§Ë ÁøÁ∑§à‚Ê ‚„UÊÿÃÊ ¬˝ŒÊŸ ∑§Ë ¡ÊÿªË.

(iii)

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÊﬂäÊÊŸ ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ ◊¥ ¬˝∑§Ê‡ÊŸ ∑§ ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ ‚ ¬˝÷Êﬂ‡ÊË‹ „UÊªÊ.

(iv)

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§ •¥Ãª¸Ã ª¥÷Ë⁄U ’Ë◊Ê⁄UË ◊¥ Á∑§«UŸË, ∑Ò¥§‚⁄U, Á‚∑§‹‚‹, ∞ÁŸÁ◊ÿÊ, NŒÿ ⁄UÊª, ∞«˜U‚ ∞ﬂ¥ ‹∑§ﬂÊ ⁄UÊª ‚Áê◊Á‹Ã

„UÊ¥ª.

(’)

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ê ¬ÊòÊÃÊ —ó

(i)

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ê ‹Ê÷ ¬˝ÊåÃ ∑§⁄UŸ „UÃÈ ¿U.ª. •‚¥ªÁ∆UÃ ∑§◊¸∑§Ê⁄U ⁄UÊíÿ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚È⁄UˇÊÊ ◊¥«U‹ ◊¥ ∑§◊ ‚ ∑§◊ ~Æ ÁŒﬂ‚ ¬Íﬂ¸

¬¥¡ËÿŸ „UÊŸÊ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ „ÒU.

(ii)

v} ‚ {Æ ﬂ·¸ ∑§Ë ©U◊˝ ∑§ ∆U∑§Ê üÊÁ◊∑§, „U◊Ê‹ üÊÁ◊∑§ ∞ﬂ¥ ÉÊ⁄‘U‹Í ◊Á„U‹Ê ∑§Ê◊ªÊ⁄U ßU‚ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§ Á‹∞ ¬ÊòÊ „UÊª.

(iii)

∆U∑§Ê üÊÁ◊∑§, „U◊Ê‹ üÊÁ◊∑§ ∞ﬂ¥ ÉÊ⁄‘U‹Í ◊Á„U‹Ê ∑§◊Êª⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ê Á„UÃÊÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ∑§ M§¬ ◊¥ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ ∑§Ë äÊÊ⁄UÊ vÆ ∑§ •¥Ãª¸Ã

¬¥¡ËÿŸ „UÊŸÊ øÊÁ„U∞.

(iv)

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ê ‹Ê÷ ∞∑§ ’Ê⁄U ¬˝ÊåÃ „UÊªÊ.

(v)

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ê ‹Ê÷ ⁄UÊíÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§ ‚◊ÊŸÊ¥Ã⁄U Á∑§‚Ë •ãÿ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ‚ ¬˝ÊåÃ ∑§⁄U ⁄U„UÊ „ÒU, ÃÊ ßU‚ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ê ‹Ê÷ Ÿ„UË¥ Á◊‹ªÊ.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1809

(‚)

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ „UÃÈ •ÊﬂŒŸ ∑§Ë ¬˝Á∑˝§ÿÊ —ó

(i)

Á„UÃª˝Ê„UË ∑§Ê Á∑§‚Ë ÷Ë ëﬂÊß¸U‚ ‚¥≈U⁄U, ∑§êåÿÍ≈U⁄U ‚¥≈U⁄U •ÕﬂÊ ‚¥’¥ÁäÊÃ ˇÊòÊÊÁäÊ∑§ÊÁ⁄UÃÊ ∑§ ‚„UÊÿ∑§ üÊ◊ÊÿÈÄÃ/üÊ◊ ¬ŒÊÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ ¡Ê∑§⁄U ﬂ’‚Êß¸U≈U ◊¥ ÁŒÿ ÁŸŒ¸‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U •ÊÚŸ‹Êß¸UŸ •ÊﬂŒŸ ∑§⁄UŸÊ „UÊªÊ.

(ii)

•ÊﬂŒŸ ¬òÊ ∑§ ‚ÊÕ ‚¥’¥ÁäÊÃ ’Ë◊Ê⁄UË ∑§ ‚¥’¥äÊ ◊¥ Áﬂ∑§Ê‚π¥«U ÁøÁ∑§à‚Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË Á‚Áﬂ‹ ‚¡¸Ÿ/◊ÈÅÿ ÁøÁ∑§à‚Ê ∞ﬂ¥

SﬂÊSâÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ∑§Ê ¬˝◊ÊáÊ ¬òÊ ‚¥‹ÇŸ ∑§⁄UŸÊ •ÁŸﬂÊÿ¸ „UÊªÊ. ‚¥’¥ÁäÊÃ ÁøÁ∑§à‚Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË mÊ⁄UÊ ¡Ê⁄UË Á∑§ÿ ªÿ ¬˝◊ÊáÊ

¬òÊ ◊¥ ‚¥’¥ÁäÊÃ ’Ë◊Ê⁄UË ∑§ ÁøÁ∑§à‚Ê πø¸ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ √ÿÿ ∑§Ê ©UÀ‹π Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊŸÊ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ „ÒU.

(Œ)

SﬂË∑Î§ÁÃ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U —ó ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§ •¥Ãª¸Ã SﬂË∑Î§ÁÃ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U ‚¥’¥ÁäÊÃ Á¡‹ ∑§ ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U mÊ⁄UÊ •ÁäÊ∑Î§Ã •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË/‚„UÊÿ∑§

üÊ◊ÊÿÈÄÃ/üÊ◊ ¬ŒÊÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË/‚„UÊÿ∑§ üÊ◊ ¬ŒÊÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ∑§Ê „UÊªÊ.

(ßU)

Áﬂ‚¥ªÁÃ ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UÊ∑§⁄UáÊ —ó ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ‡ÊÃÊZ/ÁŸÿ◊Ê¥ ∑§ •ÁÃÁ⁄UÄÃ ÿÁŒ ∑§Êß¸U Áﬂ‚¥ªÁÃ ©Uà¬ãŸ „UÊÃË „ÒU, ©U‚ ÁSÕÁÃ ◊¥

‚Áøﬂ, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U •‚¥ªÁ∆UÃ ∑§◊¸∑§Ê⁄U ⁄UÊíÿ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚È⁄UˇÊÊ ◊á«U‹ ∑§Ê ÁŸáÊ¸ÿ •¥ÁÃ◊ ◊ÊŸÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ.

ŸÿÊ ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ ∞»§ vÆ-vx/wÆv}/v{.ó⁄UÊíÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∞ÃŒ˜mÊ⁄UÊ •‚¥ªÁ∆UÃ ∑§◊¸∑§Ê⁄U ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚È⁄UˇÊÊ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊, wÆÆ} ∑§Ë äÊÊ⁄UÊ x ∑§Ë

©U¬äÊÊ⁄UÊ (y) mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝ŒûÊ ‡ÊÁÄÃÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÊª ◊¥ ‹ÊÃ „ÈUÿ ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U •‚¥ªÁ∆UÃ ∑§◊¸∑§Ê⁄U ⁄UÊíÿ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚È⁄UˇÊÊ ◊¥«U‹ mÊ⁄UÊ ‚»§Êß¸U ∑§◊¸∑§Ê⁄UÊ¥ ∑§

Á‹∞ ‚¥øÊÁ‹Ã “‚»§Êß¸U ∑§◊¸∑§Ê⁄U ¬ÈòÊ/¬ÈòÊË ‚Êÿ∑§‹ ‚Ê„UÿÃÊ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ” ’Ê’Ã˜ •ÁäÊ‚ÍøŸÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ ∞»§ vÆ-w/wÆvz/v{, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vv-Æx-wÆv}

∑§Ë ∑¥§Á«U∑§Ê (w) (w.x) ◊¥ ÁŸêŸÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U ∑¥§Á«U∑§Ê ¬˝ÁÃSÕÊÁ¬Ã ∑§Ë ¡ÊÃË „ÒU —ó

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ „UÃÈ ¬ÊòÊÃÊ —ó

w.x

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ¥Ãª¸Ã ∑§ˇÊÊ ¿U∆UﬂË¥ ∞ﬂ¥ ©U‚‚ ©UìÊ ∑§ˇÊÊ•Ê¥ ◊¥ •äÿÿŸ⁄UÃ ¬ÈòÊ/¬ÈòÊË ∑§Ê ‚Êÿ∑§‹ ¬˝ŒÊÿ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ.

w.y

ÿÁŒ ∑§◊¸∑§Ê⁄U ∑§ ’ìÊ ∑§Ê ‚⁄USﬂÃË ‚Êÿ∑§‹ ‚„UÊÿÃÊ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ê ‹Ê÷ Á◊‹ ⁄U„UÊ „ÒU, ÃÊ ﬂ„U ‚»§Êß¸U ∑§◊¸∑§Ê⁄U ¬ÈòÊ/¬ÈòÊË

‚Êÿ∑§‹ ‚„UÊÿÃÊ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ •¥Ãª¸Ã ‹Ê÷ ‹Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ ¬ÊòÊ Ÿ„UË¥ „UÊ¥ª.

©UÄÃ ‚¥‡ÊÊäÊŸ •ÁäÊ‚ÍøŸÊ ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ ‚ ¬˝÷Êﬂ‡ÊË‹ „UÊªÊ.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ¬Ê‹ ∑§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ÃÕÊ •ÊŒ‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U,

ÃË⁄UÕ ¬˝‚ÊŒ ‹Á«∏ÿÊ, •ﬂ⁄U ‚Áøﬂ.

ﬂÊÁáÊÁíÿ§ ∞ﬂ¥ ©UlÊª Áﬂ÷Êª

◊¢òÊÊ‹ÿ, ◊„UÊŸŒË ÷ﬂŸ, ŸÿÊ ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ v~ ¡ÍŸU wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ ∞»§ wÆ-}v/wÆvz/vv/({).óøÍ¥Á∑§, ⁄UÊíÿ ‚⁄U∑§Ê⁄U ∑§Ê ÿ„U ‚◊ÊäÊÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ‹Ê∑§Á„UÃ ◊¥ ∞‚Ê ∑§⁄UŸÊ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ „ÒU,

•Ã∞ﬂ ⁄UÊíÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∞ÃŒ˜mÊ⁄UÊ “¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊíÿ ªÈáÊﬂûÊÊ ¬˝◊ÊáÊË∑§⁄UáÊ •ŸÈŒÊŸ ÁŸÿ◊ wÆvy” „UÃÈ ¡Ê⁄UË ‚◊‚¥Åÿ∑§ •ÁäÊ‚ÍøŸÊ ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§

wy-Æ~-wÆvz ◊¥ ÁŸêŸÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U S¬CU ∑§⁄UÃË „ÒU, •ÕÊ¸Ã —ó

S¬CUË∑§⁄UáÊ

(∞∑§)

©UÄÃ •ÁäÊ‚ÍøŸÊ ∑§Ë ∑¥§Á«U∑§Ê x ¬ÊòÊÃÊ ◊¥ ©U¬∑¥§Á«U∑§Ê (v) ÃÕÊ ©U¬∑¥§Á«U∑§Ê (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ﬂÊÄÿÊ¥‡Ê “•ãÿ ‚◊ÊŸ ⁄UÊC˛UËÿ/

•ãÃ⁄UÊ¸C˛UËÿ ¬˝◊ÊáÊË∑§⁄UáÊ” ∑§ •¥Ãª¸Ã “¡«U ¬˝◊ÊáÊË∑§⁄UáÊ” ÷Ë ‚Áê◊Á‹Ã ◊ÊŸÊ ¡ÊÿªÊ.

ÿ„U S¬CUË∑§⁄UáÊ ßU‚ •ÁäÊ‚ÍøŸÊ ∑§ ¡Ê⁄UË „UÊŸ ∑§Ë ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ ‚ ¬˝ﬂÎûÊ „ÈUÿ ‚◊¤ÊÊ ¡ÊÿªÊ.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ¬Ê‹ ∑§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ÃÕÊ •ÊŒ‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U,

√„UË. ∑§. ¿U’‹ÊŸË, Áﬂ‡Ê· ‚Áøﬂ.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1810

⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ Áﬂ÷Êª

∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U, Á¡‹Ê ∑§Ê⁄U’Ê, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∞ﬂ¢ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬-‚Áøﬂ, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ, ⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ ∞ﬂ¥ •Ê¬ŒÊ

¬˝’¥äÊŸ Áﬂ÷Êª

∑§Ê⁄U’Ê, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ wx ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

¬˝ÊM§¬-∞∑§

(ÁŸÿ◊ vv ŒÁπÿ)

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/vÆ}vv/∑§/÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ/vÆ •/}w/wÆv|-v}.ó÷ÍÁ◊-•¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U ÃÕÊ ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ

∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx ∑§Ë äÊÊ⁄UÊ y ‚„U¬Á∆UÃ ÁŸÿ◊ | ∑§ •¥Ãª¸Ã ŸËø •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê •¡¸Ÿ ‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ „UÃÈ ⁄UÊíÿ

‚⁄U∑§Ê⁄U mÊ⁄UÊ •Ê‡ÊÁÿÃ „ÒU, •ÕÊ¸Ã˜ —ó

Á¡‹Ê

Ã„U‚Ë‹

ª˝Ê◊/Ÿª⁄U

ˇÊòÊ»§‹

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

(v)

(w)

(x)

(y)

(z)

∑§Ê⁄U’Ê

∑§⁄UÃ‹Ê

ªÈÁ◊ÿÊ

x.xÆz „U.

ÃãŒÈﬂÊ„UË √ÿ¬ﬂÃ¸Ÿ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§ Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ

©U¬ Ã„U. ’⁄U¬Ê‹Ë

©U¬⁄UÊÄÃ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§ •¡¸Ÿ „UÃÈ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚◊ÊÉÊÊÃ ÁŸäÊÊ¸⁄UáÊ ∑§ •äÿÿŸ „UÃÈ ¡Ÿ ‚ÈŸﬂÊß¸U ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vy-Æ|-wÆv} ∑§Ê ‚◊ÿ

vw.ÆÆ ’¡ ‚ SÕÊŸ ª˝Ê◊ ªÈÁ◊ÿÊ ÁŸÿÃ ∑§Ë ªß¸U „ÒU. ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ ∑§Ê •ãÿ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ ÁŸêŸÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U „ÒU —ó

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê ‚¥ÁˇÊåÃ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

ÃãŒÈﬂÊ„UË √ÿ¬ﬂÃ¸Ÿ ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§ Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ

¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

•¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ÁŸ¡Ë ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ ¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ó

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

ÄÿÊ ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ •¡¸Ÿ ãÿÍŸÃ◊ „ÒU ?

„UÊ¥

ÄÿÊ ‚¥÷ﬂ Áﬂ∑§À¬Ê¥ •ÊÒ⁄U ßU‚∑§Ë ‚ÊäÿÃÊ ¬⁄U ÁﬂøÊ⁄U

„UÊ¥

∑§⁄U Á‹ÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU ?

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ë ∑È§‹ ‹ÊªÃ

wyz.zw ‹Êπ

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ‚ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‹Ê÷

Á‚¥øÊß¸U „UÃÈ

vÆ.

¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚◊ÊÉÊÊÃ ∑§Ë ¬˝ÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸ ∑§ Á‹ÿ

¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚◊ÊÉÊÊÃ ∑§Ë ¬˝ÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸ ∑§ Á‹∞

©U¬Êÿ ÃÕÊ ©U‚ ¬⁄U „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ √ÿÿ.

‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ ©U¬Êÿ Á∑§ÿ ¡Ê ⁄U„U „Ò¥U. ßU‚ „UÃÈ ∑§Êÿ¸¬Ê‹Ÿ

•Á÷ÿ¥ÃÊ, ¡‹ ‚¥‚ÊäÊŸ ‚¥÷Êª ∑§Ê⁄U’Ê mÊ⁄UÊ ⁄UÊÁ‡Ê z.ÆÆ

‹Êπ ∑§Ê ÷ÈªÃÊŸ ø∑§ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ w{xwÆy ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§

vv-Æ{-wÆv} ∑§ ◊Êäÿ◊ ‚ ¡◊Ê Á∑§ÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU.

vvU

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹ •ãÿ ÉÊ≈U∑§

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

©U¬⁄UÊÄÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ ∑§ ‚¥’¥äÊ ◊¥ Á∑§‚Ë √ÿÁÄÃ/‚¥SÕÊ ÿÊ •ãÿ Á∑§‚Ë √ÿÁÄÃ ∑§Ê ∑§Êß¸U ¡ÊŸ∑§Ê⁄UË/‚È¤ÊÊﬂ ŒŸÊ „UÊ, ÃÊ ÁﬂÁ„UÃ ÁÃÁÕ/‚◊ÿ

∞ﬂ¥ SÕÊŸ ¬⁄U ŒË ¡Ê ‚∑§ªË.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑§ ⁄UÊíÿ¬Ê‹ ∑§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ÃÕÊ •ÊŒ‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U,

◊Ê. ∑Ò§‚⁄U •éŒÈ‹ „U∑§, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬-‚Áøﬂ.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1811

∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U, Á¡‹Ê ⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∞ﬂ¢ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬-‚Áøﬂ, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ, ⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ ∞ﬂ¥ •Ê¬ŒÊ

¬˝’¥äÊŸ Áﬂ÷Êª

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vv ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

¬˝ÊM§¬-∞∑§

(ÁŸÿ◊ vv ŒÁπÿ)

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/v{wÆ/Æ~ •-}w/•.Áﬂ.•./÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ/wÆv|-v}.ó÷ÍÁ◊-•¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U ÃÕÊ ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ

‚⁄U∑§Ê⁄U mÊ⁄UÊ •Ê‡ÊÁÿÃ „ÒU, •ÕÊ¸Ã˜ —ó

Á¡‹Ê

Ã„U‚Ë‹

ª˝Ê◊/Ÿª⁄U

ˇÊòÊ»§‹

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

(v)

(w)

(x)

(y)

(z)

⁄UÊÿª…∏U

‚Ê⁄¥Uª…∏U

¬˝äÊÊŸ¬È⁄U

v.wzÆ „U.

‹Ë‹Ê⁄U √ÿ¬ﬂÃ¸Ÿ Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ

©U¬⁄UÊÄÃ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§ •¡¸Ÿ „UÃÈ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚◊ÊÉÊÊÃ ÁŸäÊÊ¸⁄UáÊ ∑§ •äÿÿŸ „UÃÈ ¡Ÿ ‚ÈŸﬂÊß¸U ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ Æ{-Æ}-wÆv} ∑§Ê ‚◊ÿ

vv.ÆÆ ’¡ ‚ SÕÊŸ ¬˝äÊÊŸ¬È⁄U ¬⁄U ÁŸÿÃ ∑§Ë ªß¸U „ÒU. ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ ∑§Ê •ãÿ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ ÁŸêŸÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U „ÒU —ó

(∞∑§)

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê ‚¥ÁˇÊåÃ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ

(ŒÊ)

¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

(ÃËŸ)

•¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

(øÊ⁄U)

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ÁŸ¡Ë ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ ¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ó

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

(¬Ê¥ø)

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

(¿U—)

ÄÿÊ ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ •¡¸Ÿ ãÿÍŸÃ◊ „ÒU ?

„UÊ¥

(‚ÊÃ)

ÄÿÊ ‚¥÷ﬂ Áﬂ∑§À¬Ê¥ •ÊÒ⁄U ßU‚∑§Ë ‚ÊäÿÃÊ ¬⁄U ÁﬂøÊ⁄U

„UÊ¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ¬⁄U Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ ∑§Êÿ¸ „UÃÈ ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ

∑§⁄U Á‹ÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU ?

„ÒU.

(•Ê∆U)

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ë ∑È§‹ ‹ÊªÃ

~|Æ.vÆ ‹Êπ

(ŸÊÒ)

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ‚ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‹Ê÷

•Ê‚ ¬Ê‚ ∑§ ∑Î§·∑§Ê¥ ∑§Ë Á‚¥øÊß¸U ‚ÈÁﬂäÊÊ ∞ﬂ¥ •ÊÁÕ¸∑§

©UàÕÊŸ.

(Œ‚)

¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚◊ÊÉÊÊÃ ∑§Ë ¬˝ÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸ ∑§ Á‹ÿ

©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U ÃÕÊ ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊-

©U¬Êÿ ÃÕÊ ©U‚ ¬⁄U „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ √ÿÿ.

wÆvx mÊ⁄UÊ Œ‡ÊÊ¸ÿË ªß¸U ÃÕÊ ‚◊ÿ-‚◊ÿ ¬⁄ U ¿U.ª.

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ mÊ⁄UÊ ’ÃÊß¸U ªß¸U ©U¬Êÿ ∑§Ê •ŸÈ¬Ê‹Ÿ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ

‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ √ÿÿ L§¬ÿ ¬Ê¥ø ‹Êπ ÿÊ ﬂÊSÃÁﬂ∑§ √ÿÿ ¡Ê

÷Ë •ÁäÊ∑§ „UÊ.

(ÇÿÊ⁄U„U) ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹ •ãÿ ÉÊ≈U∑§

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

∞ﬂ¥ SÕÊŸ ¬⁄U ŒË ¡Ê ‚∑§ªË.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1812

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vv ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

¬˝ÊM§¬-∞∑§

(ÁŸÿ◊ vv ŒÁπÿ)

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/v{wÆ/vÆ •-}w/•.Áﬂ.•./÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ/wÆv}.ó÷ÍÁ◊-•¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U ÃÕÊ ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ

‚⁄U∑§Ê⁄U mÊ⁄UÊ •Ê‡ÊÁÿÃ „ÒU, •ÕÊ¸Ã˜ —ó

Á¡‹Ê

Ã„U‚Ë‹

ª˝Ê◊/Ÿª⁄U

ˇÊòÊ»§‹

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

(v)

(w)

(x)

(y)

(z)

⁄UÊÿª…∏U

‚Ê⁄¥Uª…∏U

◊ø‹Ê«UË„U

Æ.wÆw „U.

‹Ë‹Ê⁄U √ÿ¬ﬂÃ¸Ÿ Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ

vv.ÆÆ ’¡ ‚ SÕÊŸ ¬˝äÊÊŸ¬È⁄U ¬⁄U ÁŸÿÃ ∑§Ë ªß¸U „ÒU. ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ ∑§Ê •ãÿ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ ÁŸêŸÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U „ÒU —ó

(∞∑§)

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê ‚¥ÁˇÊåÃ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ

(ŒÊ)

¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

Æx

(ÃËŸ)

•¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

Æx

(øÊ⁄U)

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ÁŸ¡Ë ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ ¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ó

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

(¬Ê¥ø)

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

(¿U—)

ÄÿÊ ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ •¡¸Ÿ ãÿÍŸÃ◊ „ÒU ?

„UÊ¥

(‚ÊÃ)

ÄÿÊ ‚¥÷ﬂ Áﬂ∑§À¬Ê¥ •ÊÒ⁄U ßU‚∑§Ë ‚ÊäÿÃÊ ¬⁄U ÁﬂøÊ⁄U

„UÊ¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ¬⁄U Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ ∑§Êÿ¸ „UÃÈ ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ

∑§⁄U Á‹ÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU ?

„ÒU.

(•Ê∆U)

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ë ∑È§‹ ‹ÊªÃ

~|Æ.vÆ ‹Êπ

(ŸÊÒ)

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ‚ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‹Ê÷

•Ê‚ ¬Ê‚ ∑§ ∑Î§·∑§Ê¥ ∑§Ë Á‚¥øÊß¸U ‚ÈÁﬂäÊÊ ∞ﬂ¥ •ÊÁÕ¸∑§

©UàÕÊŸ.

(Œ‚)

¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚◊ÊÉÊÊÃ ∑§Ë ¬˝ÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸ ∑§ Á‹ÿ

©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U ÃÕÊ ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊-

©U¬Êÿ ÃÕÊ ©U‚ ¬⁄U „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ √ÿÿ.

wÆvx mÊ⁄UÊ Œ‡ÊÊ¸ÿË ªß¸U ÃÕÊ ‚◊ÿ-‚◊ÿ ¬⁄ U ¿U.ª.

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ mÊ⁄UÊ ’ÃÊß¸U ªß¸U ©U¬Êÿ ∑§Ê •ŸÈ¬Ê‹Ÿ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ

‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ √ÿÿ L§¬ÿ ¬Ê¥ø ‹Êπ ÿÊ ﬂÊSÃÁﬂ∑§ √ÿÿ ¡Ê

÷Ë •ÁäÊ∑§ „UÊ.

(ÇÿÊ⁄U„U) ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹ •ãÿ ÉÊ≈U∑§

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

∞ﬂ¥ SÕÊŸ ¬⁄U ŒË ¡Ê ‚∑§ªË.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1813

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vv ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

¬˝ÊM§¬-∞∑§

(ÁŸÿ◊ vv ŒÁπÿ)

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/v{wÆ/vv •-}w/•.Áﬂ.•./÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ/wÆv|-v}.ó÷ÍÁ◊-•¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U ÃÕÊ ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ

‚⁄U∑§Ê⁄U mÊ⁄UÊ •Ê‡ÊÁÿÃ „ÒU, •ÕÊ¸Ã˜ —ó

Á¡‹Ê

Ã„U‚Ë‹

ª˝Ê◊/Ÿª⁄U

ˇÊòÊ»§‹

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

(v)

(w)

(x)

(y)

(z)

⁄UÊÿª…∏U

‚Ê⁄¥Uª…∏U

’⁄UŒÈ‹Ê

x.wz{ „U.

‹Ë‹Ê⁄U √ÿ¬ﬂÃ¸Ÿ Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ

©U¬⁄UÊÄÃ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§ •¡¸Ÿ „UÃÈ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚◊ÊÉÊÊÃ ÁŸäÊÊ¸⁄UáÊ ∑§ •äÿÿŸ „UÃÈ ¡Ÿ ‚ÈŸﬂÊß¸U ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ Æ}-Æ}-wÆv} ∑§Ê ‚◊ÿ

vv.ÆÆ ’¡ ‚ SÕÊŸ ’⁄UŒÈ‹Ê ¬⁄U ÁŸÿÃ ∑§Ë ªß¸U „ÒU. ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ ∑§Ê •ãÿ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ ÁŸêŸÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U „ÒU —ó

(∞∑§)

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê ‚¥ÁˇÊåÃ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ

(ŒÊ)

¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

(ÃËŸ)

•¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

(øÊ⁄U)

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ÁŸ¡Ë ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ ¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ó

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

(¬Ê¥ø)

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

(¿U—)

ÄÿÊ ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ •¡¸Ÿ ãÿÍŸÃ◊ „ÒU ?

„UÊ¥

(‚ÊÃ)

ÄÿÊ ‚¥÷ﬂ Áﬂ∑§À¬Ê¥ •ÊÒ⁄U ßU‚∑§Ë ‚ÊäÿÃÊ ¬⁄U ÁﬂøÊ⁄U

„UÊ¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ¬⁄U Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ ∑§Êÿ¸ „UÃÈ ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ

∑§⁄U Á‹ÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU ?

„ÒU.

(•Ê∆U)

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ë ∑È§‹ ‹ÊªÃ

~|Æ.vÆ ‹Êπ

(ŸÊÒ)

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ‚ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‹Ê÷

•Ê‚ ¬Ê‚ ∑§ ∑Î§·∑§Ê¥ ∑§Ë Á‚¥øÊß¸U ‚ÈÁﬂäÊÊ ∞ﬂ¥ •ÊÁÕ¸∑§

©UàÕÊŸ.

(Œ‚)

¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚◊ÊÉÊÊÃ ∑§Ë ¬˝ÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸ ∑§ Á‹ÿ

©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U ÃÕÊ ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊-

©U¬Êÿ ÃÕÊ ©U‚ ¬⁄U „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ √ÿÿ.

wÆvx mÊ⁄UÊ Œ‡ÊÊ¸ÿË ªß¸U ÃÕÊ ‚◊ÿ-‚◊ÿ ¬⁄ U ¿U.ª.

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ mÊ⁄UÊ ’ÃÊß¸U ªß¸U ©U¬Êÿ ∑§Ê •ŸÈ¬Ê‹Ÿ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ

‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ √ÿÿ L§¬ÿ ¬Ê¥ø ‹Êπ ÿÊ ﬂÊSÃÁﬂ∑§ √ÿÿ ¡Ê

÷Ë •ÁäÊ∑§ „UÊ.

(ÇÿÊ⁄U„U) ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹ •ãÿ ÉÊ≈U∑§

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

∞ﬂ¥ SÕÊŸ ¬⁄U ŒË ¡Ê ‚∑§ªË.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1814

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vv ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

¬˝ÊM§¬-∞∑§

(ÁŸÿ◊ vv ŒÁπÿ)

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/v{wÆ/vw •-}w/•.Áﬂ.•./÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ/wÆv|-v}.ó÷ÍÁ◊-•¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U ÃÕÊ ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ

‚⁄U∑§Ê⁄U mÊ⁄UÊ •Ê‡ÊÁÿÃ „ÒU, •ÕÊ¸Ã˜ —ó

Á¡‹Ê

Ã„U‚Ë‹

ª˝Ê◊/Ÿª⁄U

ˇÊòÊ»§‹

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

(v)

(w)

(x)

(y)

(z)

⁄UÊÿª…∏U

‚Ê⁄¥Uª…∏U

ªãÃÈ‹Ë ’«∏

Æ.||v „U.

‹Ë‹Ê⁄U √ÿ¬ﬂÃ¸Ÿ Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ

©U¬⁄UÊÄÃ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§ •¡¸Ÿ „UÃÈ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚◊ÊÉÊÊÃ ÁŸäÊÊ¸⁄UáÊ ∑§ •äÿÿŸ „UÃÈ ¡Ÿ ‚ÈŸﬂÊß¸U ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ Æ~-Æ}-wÆv} ∑§Ê ‚◊ÿ

vv.ÆÆ ’¡ ‚ SÕÊŸ ªãÃÈ‹Ë ’«∏U ¬⁄U ÁŸÿÃ ∑§Ë ªß¸U „ÒU. ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ ∑§Ê •ãÿ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ ÁŸêŸÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U „ÒU —ó

(∞∑§)

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê ‚¥ÁˇÊåÃ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ

(ŒÊ)

¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

(ÃËŸ)

•¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

wÆ

(øÊ⁄U)

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ÁŸ¡Ë ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ ¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ó

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

(¬Ê¥ø)

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

(¿U—)

ÄÿÊ ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ •¡¸Ÿ ãÿÍŸÃ◊ „ÒU ?

„UÊ¥

(‚ÊÃ)

ÄÿÊ ‚¥÷ﬂ Áﬂ∑§À¬Ê¥ •ÊÒ⁄U ßU‚∑§Ë ‚ÊäÿÃÊ ¬⁄U ÁﬂøÊ⁄U

„UÊ¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ¬⁄U Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ ∑§Êÿ¸ „UÃÈ ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ

∑§⁄U Á‹ÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU ?

„ÒU.

(•Ê∆U)

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ë ∑È§‹ ‹ÊªÃ

~|Æ.vÆ ‹Êπ

(ŸÊÒ)

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ‚ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‹Ê÷

•Ê‚ ¬Ê‚ ∑§ ∑Î§·∑§Ê¥ ∑§Ë Á‚¥øÊß¸U ‚ÈÁﬂäÊÊ ∞ﬂ¥ •ÊÁÕ¸∑§

©UàÕÊŸ.

(Œ‚)

¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚◊ÊÉÊÊÃ ∑§Ë ¬˝ÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸ ∑§ Á‹ÿ

©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U ÃÕÊ ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊-

©U¬Êÿ ÃÕÊ ©U‚ ¬⁄U „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ √ÿÿ.

wÆvx mÊ⁄UÊ Œ‡ÊÊ¸ÿË ªß¸U ÃÕÊ ‚◊ÿ-‚◊ÿ ¬⁄ U ¿U.ª.

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ mÊ⁄UÊ ’ÃÊß¸U ªß¸U ©U¬Êÿ ∑§Ê •ŸÈ¬Ê‹Ÿ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ

‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ √ÿÿ L§¬ÿ ¬Ê¥ø ‹Êπ ÿÊ ﬂÊSÃÁﬂ∑§ √ÿÿ ¡Ê

÷Ë •ÁäÊ∑§ „UÊ.

(ÇÿÊ⁄U„U) ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹ •ãÿ ÉÊ≈U∑§

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

∞ﬂ¥ SÕÊŸ ¬⁄U ŒË ¡Ê ‚∑§ªË.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1815

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vv ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

¬˝ÊM§¬-∞∑§

(ÁŸÿ◊ vv ŒÁπÿ)

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/v{wÆ/vx •-}w/•.Áﬂ.•./÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ/wÆv|-v}.ó÷ÍÁ◊-•¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U ÃÕÊ ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ

‚⁄U∑§Ê⁄U mÊ⁄UÊ •Ê‡ÊÁÿÃ „ÒU, •ÕÊ¸Ã˜ —ó

Á¡‹Ê

Ã„U‚Ë‹

ª˝Ê◊/Ÿª⁄U

ˇÊòÊ»§‹

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

(v)

(w)

(x)

(y)

(z)

⁄UÊÿª…∏U

‚Ê⁄¥Uª…∏U

ªãÃÈ‹Ë ¿UÊ≈U

}.vvy „U.

‹Ë‹Ê⁄U √ÿ¬ﬂÃ¸Ÿ Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ

vv.ÆÆ ’¡ ‚ SÕÊŸ ªãÃÈ‹Ë ’«∏ ¬⁄U ÁŸÿÃ ∑§Ë ªß¸U „ÒU. ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ ∑§Ê •ãÿ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ ÁŸêŸÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U „ÒU —ó

(∞∑§)

‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§Ê ‚¥ÁˇÊåÃ Áﬂﬂ⁄UáÊ

Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ

(ŒÊ)

¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

Æw

(ÃËŸ)

•¬˝àÿˇÊ M§¬ ‚ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ¬Á⁄UﬂÊ⁄UÊ¥ ∑§Ë ‚¥ÅÿÊ

Æy

(øÊ⁄U)

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ÁŸ¡Ë ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ ¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ó

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

(¬Ê¥ø)

¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ˇÊòÊ ◊¥ ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ◊∑§ÊŸÊ¥ ÃÕÊ •ãÿ

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

¬Á⁄U‚ê¬ÁûÊÿÊ¥ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ◊ÊÁŸÃ ‚¥ÅÿÊ.

(¿U—)

ÄÿÊ ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ •¡¸Ÿ ãÿÍŸÃ◊ „ÒU ?

„UÊ¥

(‚ÊÃ)

ÄÿÊ ‚¥÷ﬂ Áﬂ∑§À¬Ê¥ •ÊÒ⁄U ßU‚∑§Ë ‚ÊäÿÃÊ ¬⁄U ÁﬂøÊ⁄U

„UÊ¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ¬⁄U Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ ∑§Êÿ¸ „UÃÈ ¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ

∑§⁄U Á‹ÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU ?

„ÒU.

(•Ê∆U)

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§Ë ∑È§‹ ‹ÊªÃ

~|Æ.vÆ ‹Êπ

(ŸÊÒ)

¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ‚ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‹Ê÷

•Ê‚ ¬Ê‚ ∑§ ∑Î§·∑§Ê¥ ∑§Ë Á‚¥øÊß¸U ‚ÈÁﬂäÊÊ ∞ﬂ¥ •ÊÁÕ¸∑§

©UàÕÊŸ.

(Œ‚)

¬˝SÃÊÁﬂÃ ‚Ê◊ÊÁ¡∑§ ‚◊ÊÉÊÊÃ ∑§Ë ¬˝ÁÃ¬ÍÁÃ¸ ∑§ Á‹ÿ

©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U ÃÕÊ ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊-

©U¬Êÿ ÃÕÊ ©U‚ ¬⁄U „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹Ê ‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ √ÿÿ.

wÆvx mÊ⁄UÊ Œ‡ÊÊ¸ÿË ªß¸U ÃÕÊ ‚◊ÿ-‚◊ÿ ¬⁄ U ¿U.ª.

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ mÊ⁄UÊ ’ÃÊß¸U ªß¸U ©U¬Êÿ ∑§Ê •ŸÈ¬Ê‹Ÿ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ

‚¥÷ÊÁﬂÃ √ÿÿ L§¬ÿ ¬Ê¥ø ‹Êπ ÿÊ ﬂÊSÃÁﬂ∑§ √ÿÿ ¡Ê

÷Ë •ÁäÊ∑§ „UÊ.

(ÇÿÊ⁄U„U) ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ „UÊŸ ﬂÊ‹ •ãÿ ÉÊ≈U∑§

ÁŸ⁄¥U∑§

∞ﬂ¥ SÕÊŸ ¬⁄U ŒË ¡Ê ‚∑§ªË.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑§ ⁄UÊíÿ¬Ê‹ ∑§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ÃÕÊ •ÊŒ‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U,

‡Êê◊Ë •ÊÁ’ŒË, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬-‚Áøﬂ.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1816

∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U, Á¡‹Ê ’◊Ã⁄UÊ,U ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∞ﬂ¢ ¬ŒŸ ‚¥ÿÈÄÃ ‚Áøﬂ, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ, ⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ ∞ﬂ¥

•Ê¬ŒÊ ¬˝’¥äÊŸ Áﬂ÷Êª

’◊Ã⁄UÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vz ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/Æv/•-}w/wÆv|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ÿ„U ¬˝ÃËÃ „UÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ß‚‚ ‚¢‹ÇŸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ πÊŸ (v) ‚ (y) ◊¥ ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã

÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ πÊŸ ({) ◊¥ ©U‚∑§ ‚Ê◊Ÿ ÁŒÿ ªÿ ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹ÿ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU •ÕﬂÊ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ ¬«∏UŸ ∑§Ë ‚¢÷ÊﬂŸÊ

„ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜

•ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx ∑§„UÊ ¡ÊÿªÊ) ∑§Ë äÊÊ⁄UÊ vv ∑§Ë ©U¬-äÊÊ⁄UÊ (v) ∑§ ©U¬’¥äÊÊ¥ ∑§ •ŸÈ‚Ê⁄U ‚÷Ë ‚¥’¥ÁäÊÃ √ÿÁQ§ÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ßU‚ •Ê‡Êÿ ∑§Ë ‚ÍøŸÊ ŒË

¡ÊÃË „ÒU Á∑§ ⁄UÊíÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∞ÃŒ˜mÊ⁄UÊ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ πÊŸ (z) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ¬˝ÊÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ∑§Ê ©UÄÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§ ‚¥’¥äÊ ◊¥ äÊÊ⁄UÊ vw ∑§ •¥Ãª¸Ã ŒË ªÿË

‡ÊÁÄÃÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÊª ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§ Á‹∞ ¬˝ÊÁäÊ∑Î§Ã ∑§⁄UÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ

œÊ⁄UÊ vw mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝ÊÁäÊ∑Î§Ã ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ

Á¡‹Ê

Ã„U‚Ë‹

Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊

‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹

•Áœ∑§Ê⁄UË

∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ

(„U. ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

(x)

(y)

(z)

({)

’◊Ã⁄UÊ

’⁄U‹Ê

Á‚¥ÉÊÊÒ⁄UË

Æ.}z

•ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË (⁄UÊ.) ∞ﬂ¥

Á‚⁄U‚Ê ¡‹Ê‡Êÿ ∑§

¬.„U.Ÿ¥. vÆ

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ’⁄U‹Ê,

«ÍU’ÊŸ ◊¥ ¬˝÷ÊÁﬂÃ ª˝Ê◊-

(¿U.ª.)

Á‚¥ÉÊÊÒ⁄UË.

÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË (⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ), ’⁄U‹Ê ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑§ ⁄UÊíÿ¬Ê‹ ∑§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ÃÕÊ •ÊŒ‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U,

◊„UÊŒﬂ ∑§Êﬂ⁄‘U, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ŒŸ ‚¥ÿÈÄÃ ‚Áøﬂ.

∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U, Á¡‹Ê ⁄UÊÿª…∏U,U ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∞ﬂ¢ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬-‚Áøﬂ, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ, ⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ ∞ﬂ¥

•Ê¬ŒÊ ¬˝’¥äÊŸ Áﬂ÷Êª

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vx ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ ¬˝∑§⁄UáÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ z|/•-}w/wÆv|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ÿ„U ¬˝ÃËÃ „UÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ß‚‚ ‚¢‹ÇŸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ πÊŸ (v)

‚ (y) ◊¥ ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ πÊŸ ({) ◊¥ ©U‚∑§ ‚Ê◊Ÿ ÁŒÿ ªÿ ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹ÿ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU •ÕﬂÊ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ

¬«∏UŸ ∑§Ë ‚¢÷ÊﬂŸÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚

∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx ∑§„UÊ ¡ÊÿªÊ) ∑§Ë äÊÊ⁄UÊ vv ∑§Ë ©U¬-äÊÊ⁄UÊ (v) ∑§ ©U¬’¥äÊÊ¥ ∑§ •ŸÈ‚Ê⁄U ‚÷Ë ‚¥’¥ÁäÊÃ √ÿÁQ§ÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ßU‚ •Ê‡Êÿ

∑§Ë ‚ÍøŸÊ ŒË ¡ÊÃË „ÒU Á∑§ ⁄UÊíÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∞ÃŒ˜mÊ⁄UÊ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ πÊŸ (z) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ¬˝ÊÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ∑§Ê ©UÄÃ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§ ‚¥’¥äÊ ◊¥ äÊÊ⁄UÊ vw ∑§ •¥Ãª¸Ã

ŒË ªÿË ‡ÊÁÄÃÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÊª ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§ Á‹∞ ¬˝ÊÁäÊ∑Î§Ã ∑§⁄UÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ

œÊ⁄UÊ vw mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝ÊÁäÊ∑Î§Ã ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ

Á¡‹Ê

Ã„U‚Ë‹

Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊

‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹

•Áœ∑§Ê⁄UË

∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ

(„U. ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

(x)

(y)

(z)

({)

⁄UÊÿª…∏U

¬È‚ÊÒ⁄U

•ÊÒ⁄UŒÊ

v.wzx

∑§Êÿ¸¬Ê‹Ÿ •Á÷ÿ¥ÃÊ, ∑§‹Ê ¬Á⁄U-

¤ÊÊ⁄U◊È«∏Ê ‡ÊÊπÊ Ÿ„U⁄U ∑§

¬.„U.Ÿ¥. vx

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ‚ﬂ¸ˇÊáÊ ‚¥÷Êª, ⁄UÊÿª…∏U.

¤ÊÊ⁄U◊È«∏Ê ‹ÉÊÈ Ÿ„U⁄U „UÃÈ

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ.

÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË (⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ), ⁄UÊÿª…∏U ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ ŒπÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1817

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ xÆ ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ ¬˝∑§⁄UáÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ z}/•-}w/wÆv|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ÿ„U ¬˝ÃËÃ „UÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ß‚‚ ‚¢‹ÇŸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ πÊŸ (v)

ŒË ªÿË ‡ÊÁÄÃÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÊª ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§ Á‹∞ ¬˝ÊÁäÊ∑Î§Ã ∑§⁄UÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ

œÊ⁄UÊ vw mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝ÊÁäÊ∑Î§Ã ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ

Á¡‹Ê

Ã„U‚Ë‹

Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊

‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹

•Áœ∑§Ê⁄UË

∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ

(„U. ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

(x)

(y)

(z)

({)

⁄UÊÿª…∏U

¬È‚ÊÒ⁄U

∑§ÊÃÊ‚È⁄UÊ

Æ.z}|

∑§Êÿ¸¬Ê‹Ÿ •Á÷ÿ¥ÃÊ, ∑§‹Ê ¬Á⁄U-

∑§‹Ê ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§

¬.„U.Ÿ¥. w{

ÿÊ¡ŸÊ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ ‚¥÷Êª ‹ÊπÊ

•¥Ãª¸Ã Á¿U¿UÊ⁄U ©U◊ÊÁ⁄UÿÊ

•.◊È. π⁄UÁ‚ÿÊ, Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊÿª…∏U

ÁﬂÃ⁄U∑§ Ÿ„U⁄U, Á≈UŸÁ◊ŸË

(¿U.ª.).

◊Êß¸UŸ⁄U ∞ﬂ¥ ∆UÊ∑È§⁄U¬Ê‹Ë

◊Êß¸UŸ⁄U Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ.

÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË (⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ), ⁄UÊÿª…∏U ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ ŒπÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑§ ⁄UÊíÿ¬Ê‹ ∑§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ÃÕÊ •ÊŒ‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U,

‡Êê◊Ë •ÊÁ’ŒË, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬-‚Áøﬂ.

∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U, Á¡‹Ê ∑§Êá«UÊªÊ¥ﬂU,

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∞ﬂ¢ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬ ‚Áøﬂ, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ,

⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ ∞ﬂ¥ •Ê¬ŒÊ ¬˝’¥äÊŸ Áﬂ÷Êª

∑§Ê¥«UÊªÊ¥ﬂ, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ w~ ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/v|~}/•-}w/wÆv|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚

’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (v) ◊¥

ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§

¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U

¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U

•ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx ∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ)

∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§Ë ©U¬äÊÊ⁄UÊ (v) ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã

Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ

„ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-∑§Êá«UÊªÊ¥ﬂ

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-◊Ê∑§«∏Ë

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-◊Ê⁄UÊªÊ¥ﬂ

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-Æ.v{{ „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

w/{

Æ.v{{

ÿÊª

Æv

Æ.v{{

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-‡ÊÊ◊¬È⁄U-⁄UÊ¥äÊŸÊ

◊Êª¸ ◊¥ ‚ÃÈ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ ¬„È¥Uø ◊Êª¸ „UÃÈ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ), ∑§Ê¥«UÊªÊ¥ﬂ ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑§ ⁄UÊíÿ¬Ê‹ ∑§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ÃÕÊ •ÊŒ‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U,

ŸË‹∑¥§∆U ≈U∑§Ê◊, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬-‚Áøﬂ.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1818

∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U, Á¡‹Ê ⁄UÊÿª…∏U,

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∞ﬂ¢ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬ ‚Áøﬂ, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ,

⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ ∞ﬂ¥ •Ê¬ŒÊ ¬˝’¥äÊŸ Áﬂ÷Êª

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vy ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ ¬˝∑§⁄UáÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ vx/•-}w/v|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚ ’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§

¬Œ (v) ◊¥ ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ

‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ,

¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê

•ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx

∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ

¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊÿª…∏U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-Ã◊ŸÊ⁄U

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-∑§⁄UÊπÊ‹

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-v.z}x „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

~w/x

Æ.wÆw

~x/w

Æ.Æz{

vv}/v

Æ.~wz

vv}/w

Æ.xwÆ

vxv/}

Æ.Æ}Æ

ÿÊª

Æz

v.z}x

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-∞Ÿ.≈UË.¬Ë.‚Ë.

ÁÃ‹Êß¸¬Ê‹Ë ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ •¥Ãª¸Ã ⁄‘U‹ ‹Êß¸UŸ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ ÷Í-

•¡¸Ÿ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ.), ÉÊ⁄UÉÊÊ«∏Ê ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vy ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ ¬˝∑§⁄UáÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ vy/•-}w/v|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚ ’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§

¬Œ (v) ◊¥ ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ

‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ,

¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê

•ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx

∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ

¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊÿª…∏U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-Ã◊ŸÊ⁄U

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-◊ÊÒ„UÊ¬Ê‹Ë

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-Æ.zvx „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

wzw/y ∑§

Æ.vw~

wzw/y π

Æ.vwv

w~z/|

Æ.Æ{v

w~z/v ª

Æ.Ævw

w~z/v π

Æ.ÆwÆ

w~{/w

Æ.Æ}v

wz|/v

Æ.ÆwÆ

w~{/z

Æ.Æz|

w~y

Æ.Ævw

ÿÊª

Æ~

Æ.zvx

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-∞Ÿ.≈UË.¬Ë.‚Ë.

ÁÃ‹Êß¸¬Ê‹Ë ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ •¥Ãª¸Ã ⁄‘U‹ ‹Êß¸UŸ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ ÷Í-

•¡¸Ÿ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ.), ÉÊ⁄UÉÊÊ«∏Ê ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1819

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vy ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ ¬˝∑§⁄UáÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ vz/•-}w/v|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚ ’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§

¬Œ (v) ◊¥ ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ

‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ,

¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê

•ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx

∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ

¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊÿª…∏U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-Ã◊ŸÊ⁄U

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-¡⁄‘U∑§‹Ê

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-Æ.|Æ~ „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

xÆ~/v

Æ.wxz

yÆ}/v

Æ.wÆx

{zw/w

Æ.Æxw

{zz/~ ∑§

Æ.ÆyÆ

{zz/~ π

Æ.vyw

yÆ|/v, yÆ|/w, yÆ|/x,

Æ.Æz|

yÆ|/y, yÆ|/z

ÿÊª

vÆ

Æ.|Æ~

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-∞Ÿ.≈UË.¬Ë.‚Ë.

ÁÃ‹Êß¸¬Ê‹Ë ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ •¥Ãª¸Ã ⁄‘U‹ ‹Êß¸UŸ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ ÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ.), ÉÊ⁄UÉÊÊ«∏Ê ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vy ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ ¬˝∑§⁄UáÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ v{/•-}w/v|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚ ’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§

¬Œ (v) ◊¥ ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ

‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ,

¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê

•ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx

∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ

¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊÿª…∏U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-Ã◊ŸÊ⁄U

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-ŸÍŸŒ⁄U„UÊ

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-v.w}x „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

xv|/v

Æ.zÆz

v{y/x

Æ.Æ}v

v{y/v

Æ.ÆyÆ

xy}/v~

Æ.vÆ~

x}z/z

Æ.Æyv

x}z/z

Æ.Æyv

x}z/{

Æ.Æyv

x{~/v

Æ.ÆxÆ

x{~/w

Æ.ÆyÆ

x{~/x

Æ.Æ}Æ

x|v/w

Æ.Æyv

x|v/x

Æ.Æyv

x|v/y

Æ.Æyv

x|v/z

Æ.Æyv

x|v/{

Æ.Æyv

xÆ|/wÆ

Æ.Æxw

ÿÊª

v.w}x

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-∞Ÿ.≈UË.¬Ë.‚Ë.

ÁÃ‹Êß¸¬Ê‹Ë ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ •¥Ãª¸Ã ⁄‘U‹ ‹Êß¸UŸ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ.), ÉÊ⁄UÉÊÊ«∏Ê ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vy ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ ¬˝∑§⁄UáÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ v|/•-}w/v|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚ ’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§

¬Œ (v) ◊¥ ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ

‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ,

¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê

•ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx

∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ

¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1820

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊÿª…∏U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-ÉÊ⁄UÉÊÊ«∏Ê

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-∑¥§øŸ¬È⁄U

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-Æ.xzz „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

|Æv/v

Æ.xzz

ÿÊª

Æv

Æ.xzz

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-∞Ÿ.≈UË.¬Ë.‚Ë.

ÁÃ‹Êß¸¬Ê‹Ë ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ •¥Ãª¸Ã ⁄‘U‹ ‹Êß¸UŸ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ.), ÉÊ⁄UÉÊÊ«∏Ê ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vy ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ ¬˝∑§⁄UáÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ v}/•-}w/v|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚ ’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§

¬Œ (v) ◊¥ ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ

‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ,

¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê

•ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx

∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ

¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊÿª…∏U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-Ã◊ŸÊ⁄U

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-’ŸÊß¸U

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-Æ.}xÆ „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

{~y/x

Æ.Æy~

(v)

(w)

{}v/y

Æ.v~Æ

~Æy/v

Æ.Æ{z

{~w/v

Æ.zw{

ÿÊª

Æy

Æ.}xÆ

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-∞Ÿ.≈UË.¬Ë.‚Ë.

ÁÃ‹Êß¸¬Ê‹Ë ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ •¥Ãª¸Ã ⁄‘U‹ ‹Êß¸UŸ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ.), ÉÊ⁄UÉÊÊ«∏Ê ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vy ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ ¬˝∑§⁄UáÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ v~/•-}w/v|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚ ’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§

¬Œ (v) ◊¥ ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ

‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ,

¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê

•ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx

∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ

¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊÿª…∏U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-Ã◊ŸÊ⁄U

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-«UÊ‹‚⁄UÊ

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-Æ.vwÆ „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

v}/z/v

Æ.Æzv

{~/w

Æ.Æ{~

ÿÊª

Æw

Æ.vwÆ

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-∞Ÿ.≈UË.¬Ë.‚Ë.

ÁÃ‹Êß¸¬Ê‹Ë ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ •¥Ãª¸Ã ⁄‘U‹ ‹Êß¸UŸ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ.), ÉÊ⁄UÉÊÊ«∏Ê ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1821

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vy ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ ¬˝∑§⁄UáÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ wÆ/•-}w/v|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚ ’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§

¬Œ (v) ◊¥ ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ

‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ,

¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê

•ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx

∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ

¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊÿª…∏U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-Ã◊ŸÊ⁄U

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-’Ê‚Ÿ¬Ê‹Ë

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-Æ.}|| „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

vx}/v

Æ.wx}

xxw/w

Æ.ÆwÆ

y{Æ/y

Æ.vx|

y{Æ/z

Æ.Æz|

y{Æ/{

Æ.xÆy

y{Æ/|

Æ.ÆÆ}

y{Æ/}

Æ.vvx

ÿÊª

Æ|

Æ.}||

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-∞Ÿ.≈UË.¬Ë.‚Ë.

ÁÃ‹Êß¸¬Ê‹Ë ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ •¥Ãª¸Ã ⁄‘U‹ ‹Êß¸UŸ ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ.), ÉÊ⁄UÉÊÊ«∏Ê ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

⁄UÊÿª…∏U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vw ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Í-•¡¸Ÿ ¬˝∑§⁄UáÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ Æw/•-}w/vz-v{.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ

‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚ ’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§

¬Œ (v) ◊¥ ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ

‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ,

¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U ¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê

•ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx

∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ

¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊÿª…∏U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-¬È‚ÊÒ⁄U

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-¿U¬Ê⁄UÊ

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-vx.w~~ „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

~w/w∑§/v

Æ.vw~

~|/w∑§

Æ.vÆÆ

~|/x∑§

Æ.{Æ~

~|/y∑§

Æ.xÆv

vyv/v

Æ.wvv

w{Æ/v∑§

Æ.xzw

w{Æ/w∑§

Æ.xÆ{

ywÆ/w∑§

Æ.Æ|}

ywÆ/x∑§

Æ.Æx{

ywÆ/|∑§

Æ.Ævv

ywv/x∑§

Æ.Æ}}

y{}/v∑§/w

Æ.wvx

zwz/{

Æ.vÆ~

zxy/w

Æ.Æ{z

zyv/v

Æ.vÆz

zyv/v∑§

Æ.Æy}

zy{/v∑§

Æ.Æ{z

zy{/vπ

Æ.wÆw

z|x/v∑§

Æ.ÆvÆ

z}Æ/v

Æ.zww

z}Æ/w

Æ.vÆv

z}v/v

Æ.vÆv

z}v/w

Æ.wvz

z}x

Æ.Æ{v

z}y

Æ.w~~

{wx/w∑§

Æ.Æ~{

{xx/v∑§

Æ.Æ~x

{{w/vπ

Æ.vv|

{{w/vª

Æ.Æ~|

{{w/wª/v

Æ.Æwy

{}~/{

Æ.ÆxÆ

{~~/wπ

Æ.yÆz

{~~/wª

Æ.yÆz

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1822

∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U, Á¡‹Ê Á’‹Ê‚¬È⁄U,

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∞ﬂ¢ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬ ‚Áøﬂ, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ,

⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ ∞ﬂ¥ •Ê¬ŒÊ ¬˝’¥äÊŸ Áﬂ÷Êª

Á’‹Ê‚¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vz ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ }v/•-}w/wÆv|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚

’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (v) ◊¥

ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§

¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U

¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U

•ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx ∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ)

∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§

©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-Á’‹Ê‚¬È⁄U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-ÃπÃ¬È⁄U

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-ÉÊÈ≈U∑È§ (¬Í⁄U∑§)

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-x.zxy „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

wz{

Æ.vÆv

wzyz/v

Æ.vÆv

w|w

Æ.Æxw

w}w/v

Æ.ÆyÆ

w|x/v

Æ.Æwy

w}x

Æ.vz}

w}w/w

Æ.vvx

w}{

Æ.x}v

wzx}

Æ.Æyz

wzx|/v

Æ.Æyz

wzyx

Æ.Æ|x

wzzz

Æ.vxy

wzyy

Æ.vzy

wzzx

Æ.vzy

wzz{/v

Æ.Æyz

wzz{/x

Æ.Æ{~

wzz|/y

Æ.vy{

wzz|/z

wzz~/w

Æ.ÆÆ}

(v)

(w)

{~~/wÉÊ

Æ.yÆz

{~~/wæ§

Æ.yÆz

{~~/wø

Æ.v{z

|Æ~/w

Æ.xx|

|vÆ

Æ.Æ{~

|vv/x

Æ.w~v

|vx/w

Æ.wÆw

|vx/x

Æ.xy}

|vy/w

Æ.Æy~

|v{

Æ.v|Æ

|v|

Æ.yw~

|wz/v∑§

Æ.vwv

|w{/v

Æ.w{|

|w{/x

Æ.{w}

|w{/y

Æ.vÆv

|w|/v

Æ.y~{

|w|/x∑§

Æ.yÆz

|w}/v∑§

Æ.vzy

|w~/v

Æ.vvx

|xÆ/w

Æ.Æzw

|yx/w

Æ.wÆ{

|yy

Æ.~zz

|yz/x

Æ.Æ{v

|yz/y

Æ.ÆwÆ

|yz/z

Æ.vyw

|yz/{

Æ.vÆv

|y{

Æ.vÆv

|y|/w

Æ.vÆz

|y}

Æ.wwx

}Æv/v

Æ.xvw

}wx/v

Æ.Æyz

}w}/w∑§

Æ.vx{

}y{/vÉÊ

Æ.Æyv

}y{/vø

Æ.ÆyÆ

ÿÊª

vx.w~~

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-•ÊÒlÊÁª∑§

¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ „UÃÈ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ.), ⁄UÊÿª…∏U ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑§ ⁄UÊíÿ¬Ê‹ ∑§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ÃÕÊ •ÊŒ‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U,

‡Êê◊Ë •ÊÁ’ŒË, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬-‚Áøﬂ.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1823

(v)

(w)

w|{z/v

Æ.vwv

w}xv/w

Æ.Æ}z

w}xy,

Æ.Æ{~

x}w{/w

w}yÆ/w

Æ.vÆv

w}yÆ/v

Æ.Æ}v

w}Æ~/y

Æ.vwv

w}Æ~/x

Æ.Æ~|

w}Æ~/w

Æ.Ævw

w}vÆ/w

Æ.wzv

w}vÆ/x

Æ.ÆyÆ

w}xw

Æ.vx}

w}Æx/w

Æ.Æ}~

w}Æw

Æ.Æzx

w}x{/x

Æ.vvx

xÆ~Æ

Æ.ÆwÆ

vx~Æ

Æ.vyw

wz{Æ

Æ.v|}

ÿÊª

x.zxy

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-•⁄U¬Ê ÷ÊÒ¥‚Ê¤ÊÊ⁄U

’Ò⁄UÊ¡ ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ◊Êß¸UŸ⁄U Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ), ∑§Ê≈UÊ ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

Á’‹Ê‚¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ w{ ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ }Æ/•-}w/wÆv|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚

’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (v) ◊¥

ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§

¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U

¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U

•ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx ∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ)

∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§

©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-Á’‹Ê‚¬È⁄U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-ÃπÃ¬È⁄U

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-¿UÃÊÒŸÊ

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-w.~{x „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

v/v

Æ.ÆyÆ

v/z

Æ.Æ}z

v/{

Æ.vÆz

v/}

Æ.vx}

v/x

Æ.Æ~|

wx/v

Æ.vyw

wy/v

Æ.Æzx

Æ.Æ{z

Æ.Æyz

xy/w

Æ.Æv{

xv/w

Æ.Æ~|

Æ.Æz|

vwyx

Æ.Æv{

xy/v

Æ.ÆÆ}

xv/v

Æ.Æw}

y{/v{

Æ.Æxw

y{/vw

Æ.Æ{~

y{/vy

Æ.Æ~|

|x/v

Æ.Æwy

y{/|

Æ.ÆyÆ

y{/v|

Æ.Æy~

y{/z

Æ.Æx{

y{/{

Æ.Æzx

y{/~

Æ.vÆz

{{/w

Æ.vvx

{z/v

Æ.Æ}~

|x/w

Æ.Æy~

|y/v,

Æ.Æxw

|y/{

|y/w

Æ.Æ||

|},

Æ.Æwy

|~/y

|y/{

Æ.ÆwÆ

|z/v

Æ.vvx

|z/w

Æ.Æy~

~{/v

Æ.Ævw

~{/w

Æ.Æw}

~{/x

Æ.Æw}

~y/w

Æ.Æx{

Æ.Æy~

vÆw/v

Æ.ÆÆ}

vÆw/w

Æ.Æyz

vÆ}/w

Æ.Æz|

vÆx/v

Æ.Æv{

vÆx/w

Æ.Æv{

vÆy

Æ.Æyz

vÆz/w

Æ.Æyz

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1824

(v)

(w)

wwv

Æ.ÆyÆ

wv}/w

Æ.Æyz

wv~/vÆ

Æ.Æy~

wv}/x

Æ.Æz|

wwz/v

Æ.Æ}v

wv{

Æ.Æzx

wvz

Æ.Æwy

wvy/v

Æ.Æy~

vÆÆÆ/x

Æ.Æxw

vÆÆÆ/{

Æ.Æw}

vÆÆÆ/v

Æ.ÆÆy

vÆÆx/v

Æ.Æzx

ÿÊª

w.~{x

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-•⁄U¬Ê ÷Ò¥‚Ê¤ÊÊ⁄U

’Ò⁄UÊ¡ ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ◊Êß¸UŸ⁄U Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ), ∑§Ê≈UÊ ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

Á’‹Ê‚¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ w~ ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ zy/•-}w/wÆv|-v}.óøÍ¢Á∑§ ⁄UÊÖÿ ‡ÊÊ‚Ÿ ∑§Ê ß‚

’ÊÃ ∑§Ê ‚◊ÊœÊŸ „UÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU Á∑§ ŸËø ŒË ªß¸ •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (v) ◊¥

ﬂÁáÊ¸Ã ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë •ŸÈ‚ÍøË ∑§ ¬Œ (w) ◊¥ ©UÀ‹ÁπÃ ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§

¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU. •Ã— ÷ÍÁ◊ •¡¸Ÿ, ¬ÈŸﬂÊ¸‚Ÿ •ÊÒ⁄U

¬ÈŸ√ÿ¸ﬂSÕÊ¬Ÿ ◊¥ ©UÁøÃ ¬˝ÁÃ∑§⁄U •ÊÒ⁄U ¬Ê⁄UŒÁ‡Ê¸ÃÊ ∑§Ê •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄U

•ÁœÁŸÿ◊, wÆvx (Á¡‚ ∞ÃŒ˜ ¬‡øÊÃ˜ •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ wÆvx ∑§„UÊ ¡ÊﬂªÊ)

∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ v~ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ß‚∑§ mÊ⁄UÊ ÿ„U ÉÊÊÁ·Ã Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU Á∑§

©UQ§ ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ë ©UQ§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ ∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU —ó

•ŸÈ‚ÍøË

(v) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê ﬂáÊ¸Ÿ-

(∑§) Á¡‹Ê-Á’‹Ê‚¬È⁄U

(π) Ã„U‚Ë‹-ÃπÃ¬È⁄U

(ª) Ÿª⁄U/ª˝Ê◊-∑§Ê∆UÊ∑§ÊŸË

(ÉÊ) ‹ª÷ª ˇÊòÊ»§‹-Æ.wy~ „UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U

π‚⁄UÊ Ÿê’⁄U

⁄U∑§’Ê

(„UÄ≈Uÿ⁄U ◊¥)

(v)

(w)

xx~/v ∑§

Æ.v{}

yÆ|

Æ.Æ{z

{zx

Æ.Æv{

ÿÊª

Æ.wy~

(w) ‚Êﬂ¸¡ÁŸ∑§ ¬˝ÿÊ¡Ÿ Á¡‚∑§ Á‹∞ •Êﬂ‡ÿ∑§ÃÊ „ÒU-•⁄U¬Ê ÷Ò¥‚Ê¤ÊÊ⁄U

’Ò⁄UÊ¡ ¬Á⁄UÿÊ¡ŸÊ ∑§ •ãÃª¸Ã ◊Êß¸UŸ⁄U Ÿ„U⁄U ÁŸ◊Ê¸áÊ „UÃÈ.

(x) ÷ÍÁ◊ ∑§Ê§ŸÄ‡ÊÊ (å‹ÊŸ) ∑§Ê ÁŸ⁄UËˇÊáÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

(⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ), ∑§Ê≈UÊ ∑§ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊¥ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§ÃÊ „ÒU.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑§ ⁄UÊíÿ¬Ê‹ ∑§ ŸÊ◊ ‚ ÃÕÊ •ÊŒ‡ÊÊŸÈ‚Ê⁄U,

¬Ë. ŒÿÊŸ¥Œ, ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U ∞ﬂ¥ ¬ŒŸ ©U¬-‚Áøﬂ.

Áﬂ÷Êª ¬˝◊ÈπÊ¥ ∑§ •ÊŒ‡Ê

∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, ¬˝’¢œ ‚¥øÊ‹∑§, ¿U.ª. ⁄UÊÖÿ ∑Î§Á· Áﬂ¬áÊŸ (◊á«UË) ’Ê«¸U

’Ë¡ ÷ﬂŸ, ¡Ë.ß¸.⁄UÊ«U, Ã‹Ë’Ê¢œÊ, ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ xÆ ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/’Ë-y/v/xw(w)/÷Ê.•Áœ./wÆv}-v~/wx}x.ó∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿËŸ •ÊŒ‡Ê ∑˝§◊Ê¢∑§/’Ë-}/xw(w)/÷Ê.•Áœ./wÆvw-vx/xxyz-xxy{

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄, UÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ w~-Æ}-wÆvw mÊ⁄UÊ •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË (⁄UÊ.) ¡‡Ê¬È⁄U ∑§Ê, ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊á«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ ¡‡Ê¬È⁄U, Á¡‹Ê-¡‡Ê¬È⁄U ∑§Ê ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§

•ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ÁŸÿÈÄÃ Á∑§ÿÊ ªÿÊ ÕÊ.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1825

‚¥ÿÈÄÃ ‚¥øÊ‹∑§ ¿U.ª. ⁄UÊíÿ ∑Î§Á· Áﬂ¬áÊŸ ’Ê«¸U ‚¥÷ÊªËÿ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ •¥Á’∑§Ê¬È⁄U ‚¥÷Êª ∑§ ¬òÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ wxw ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ wÆ-Æ{-wÆv} mÊ⁄UÊ

üÊË ⁄UÊ¡ãº˝ ∑È§◊Ê⁄U ¬Ò∑§⁄UÊ, ¬˝÷Ê⁄UË ©U¬ ‚¥øÊ‹∑§, ∑Î§Á· ∑§Ê ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊¥«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ ¡‡Ê¬È⁄U Á¡‹Ê-¡‡Ê¬È⁄U ∑§Ê ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ÁŸÿÈÄÃ ∑§⁄UŸ

∑§Ê ¬˝SÃÊﬂ ÁŒÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU.

•Ã— ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊á«UË •ÁäÊÁŸÿ◊ v~|w (∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ wy ‚Ÿ˜ v~|x) ∑§Ë äÊÊ⁄UÊ z| ∑§Ë ©U¬äÊÊ⁄UÊ (v) ∑§ πá«U (π) ◊¥ ¬˝ŒûÊ

‡ÊÁÄÃÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÊª ∑§⁄UÃ „ÈU∞, ∞ÃŒ˜mÊ⁄UÊ, •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË (⁄UÊ.) ¡‡Ê¬È⁄U ∑§ SÕÊŸÊ¥Ã⁄UáÊ „UÊ ¡ÊŸ ‚ ©UŸ∑§ SÕÊŸ ¬⁄U üÊË ⁄UÊ¡ãº˝ ∑È§◊Ê⁄U ¬Ò∑§⁄UÊ,

¬˝÷Ê⁄UË ©U¬ ‚¥øÊ‹∑§, ∑Î§Á· ¡‡Ê¬È⁄U ∑§Ê, ©UŸ∑§ ∑§Êÿ¸÷Ê⁄U ª˝„UáÊ ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ ‚ ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊á«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ ¡‡Ê¬È⁄U Á¡‹Ê-¡‡Ê¬È⁄U ∑§Ê ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

ÁŸÿÈÄÃ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU.

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ xÆ ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/’Ë-y/v/xw(w)/÷Ê.•Áœ./wÆv}-v~/wx}z.ó∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿËŸ •ÊŒ‡Ê ∑˝§◊Ê¢∑§/’Ë-}/xw(w)/÷Ê.•Áœ./wÆv|-v}/z~|w-z~|x

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄, UÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ Æ|-vv-wÆv| mÊ⁄UÊ üÊË◊ÃË ’Ë. ∞Ä∑§Ê, Ã„U‚Ë‹ŒÊ⁄U, ‚ÄÃË ∑§Ê ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊á«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ ‚ÄÃË, Á¡‹Ê-¡Ê¥¡ªË⁄U-øÊ¥¬Ê (¿U.ª.)

÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ÁŸÿÈÄÃ Á∑§ÿÊ ªÿÊ ÕÊ.

‚¥ÿÈÄÃ ‚¥øÊ‹∑§ ¿U.ª. ⁄UÊíÿ ∑Î§Á· Áﬂ¬áÊŸ ’Ê«¸U, ‚¥÷ÊªËÿ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, Á’‹Ê‚¬È⁄U ∑§ ¬òÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ z|} ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ vz-Æ{-wÆv} mÊ⁄UÊ

üÊË ’‚¥Ã ‹Ê‹ ¬Êá«Uÿ, •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË, ∑Î§Á·, ‚ÄÃË ∑§Ê ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊¥«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ ‚ÄÃË, Á¡‹Ê-¡Ê¥¡ªË⁄U-øÊ¥¬Ê (¿U.ª.) ∑§Ê ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§

•ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ÁŸÿÈÄÃ ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§Ê ¬˝SÃÊﬂ ÁŒÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU.

‡ÊÁÄÃÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÊª ∑§⁄UÃ „ÈU∞, ∞ÃŒ˜mÊ⁄UÊ üÊË◊ÃË ’Ë. ∞Ä∑§Ê, Ã„U‚Ë‹ŒÊ⁄U, ‚ÄÃË ∑§ SÕÊŸ ¬⁄U üÊË ’‚¥Ã ‹Ê‹ ¬Êá«Uÿ, •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË,

∑Î§Á·, ‚ÄÃË ∑§Ê, ©UŸ∑§ ∑§Êÿ¸÷Ê⁄U ª˝„UáÊ ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ ‚ ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊á«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ ‚ÄÃË, Á¡‹Ê-¡Ê¥¡ªË⁄U-øÊ¥¬Ê (¿U.ª.) ∑§Ê ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

ÁŸÿÈÄÃ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU.

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ xÆ ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/’Ë-y/v/xw(w)/÷Ê.•Áœ./wÆv}-v~/wx}|.ó∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿËŸ •ÊŒ‡Ê ∑˝§◊Ê¢∑§/’Ë-}/xw(w)/÷Ê.•Áœ./wÆv|-v}/x{~{-~|

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄, UÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ v{-Æ}-wÆv| mÊ⁄UÊ üÊË ¬˝ﬂËáÊ ∑È§◊Ê⁄U ﬂ◊Ê¸, Á«Uå≈UË ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U, Á¡‹Ê äÊ◊Ã⁄UË ∑§Ê ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊á«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ äÊ◊Ã⁄UË, Á¡‹Ê-äÊ◊Ã⁄UË

(¿U.ª.) ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ÁŸÿÈÄÃ Á∑§ÿÊ ªÿÊ ÕÊ.

‚¥ÿÈÄÃ ‚¥øÊ‹∑§ ¿U.ª. ⁄UÊíÿ ∑Î§Á· Áﬂ¬áÊŸ ’Ê«¸U, ‚¥÷ÊªËÿ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U ∑§ ¬òÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ ~~w ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ v~-Æ{-wÆv} mÊ⁄UÊ

üÊË •Ê⁄U. ∑§. ∑§‡ÿ¬, ‚„UÊÿ∑§ ‚¥øÊ‹∑§, ∑Î§Á·, äÊ◊Ã⁄UË ∑§Ê ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊¥«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ äÊ◊Ã⁄UË, Á¡‹Ê-äÊ◊Ã⁄UË (¿U.ª.) ∑§Ê ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

ÁŸÿÈÄÃ ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§Ê ¬˝SÃÊﬂ ÁŒÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU.

‡ÊÁÄÃÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÊª ∑§⁄UÃ „ÈU∞, ∞ÃŒ˜mÊ⁄UÊ üÊË ¬˝ﬂËáÊ ∑È§◊Ê⁄U ﬂ◊Ê¸, Á«Uå≈UË ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U, Á¡‹Ê äÊ◊Ã⁄UË ∑§ SÕÊŸ ¬⁄U üÊË •Ê⁄U. ∑§. ∑§‡ÿ¬, ‚„UÊÿ∑§

‚¥øÊ‹∑§, ∑Î§Á·, äÊ◊Ã⁄UË ∑§Ê ©UŸ∑§Ê ∑§Êÿ¸÷Ê⁄U ª˝„UáÊ ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ ‚ ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊á«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ äÊ◊Ã⁄UË, Á¡‹Ê-äÊ◊Ã⁄UË (¿U.ª.) ∑§Ê ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

ÁŸÿÈÄÃ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1826

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ xÆ ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/’Ë-y/v/xw(w)/÷Ê.•Áœ./wÆv}-v~/wx}~.ó∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿËŸ •ÊŒ‡Ê ∑˝§◊Ê¢∑§/’Ë-}/xw(w)/÷Ê.•Áœ./wÆv{-v|/x|y{-x|y|

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄, UÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ Æ}-Æ~-wÆv{ mÊ⁄UÊ üÊË ¡. ∑§. äÊ˝Èﬂ, •¬⁄U ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U ⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ ∑§Ê ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊á«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ ⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ

÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ÁŸÿÈÄÃ Á∑§ÿÊ ªÿÊ ÕÊ.

‚¥ÿÈÄÃ ‚¥øÊ‹∑§ ¿U.ª. ⁄UÊíÿ ∑Î§Á· Áﬂ¬áÊŸ ’Ê«¸U, ‚¥÷ÊªËÿ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U ∑§ ¬òÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ ~~y ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ v~-Æ{-wÆv} mÊ⁄UÊ

üÊË ∞. ∑§. ’¥¡Ê⁄UÊ, ©U¬ ‚¥øÊ‹∑§, ∑Î§Á·, ⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ ∑§Ê ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊¥«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ ⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ, Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ ∑§Ê ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

ÁŸÿÈÄÃ ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§Ê ¬˝SÃÊﬂ ÁŒÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU.

‡ÊÁÄÃÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÊª ∑§⁄UÃ „ÈU∞, ∞ÃŒ˜mÊ⁄UÊ üÊË ¡. ∑§. äÊ˝Èﬂ, •¬⁄U ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U ⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ ∑§ SÕÊŸ ¬⁄U üÊË ∞. ∑§. ’¥¡Ê⁄UÊ, ©U¬ ‚¥øÊ‹∑§, ∑Î§Á·,

⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ ∑§Ê ©UŸ∑§ ∑§Êÿ¸÷Ê⁄U ª˝„UáÊ ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ ‚ ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊á«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ ⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ, Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ ∑§Ê ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ÁŸÿÈÄÃ

Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU.

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ xÆ ¡ÍŸ wÆv}

∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§/’Ë-y/v/xw(w)/÷Ê.•Áœ./wÆv}-v~/wx~v.ó∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿËŸ •ÊŒ‡Ê ∑˝§◊Ê¢∑§/’Ë-}/xw(w)/÷Ê.•Áœ./wÆv|-v}/z|v}-z|v~

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄, UÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ w|-vÆ-wÆv| mÊ⁄UÊ üÊË◊ÃË ¬˝◊‹ÃÊ ø¥Œ‹, Á«Uå≈UË ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U, •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË (⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ) ∑§Ê ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊á«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ

«UÊ¥ª⁄Uª…∏U, Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ ∑§Ê ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ÁŸÿÈÄÃ Á∑§ÿÊ ªÿÊ ÕÊ.

‚¥ÿÈÄÃ ‚¥øÊ‹∑§ ¿U.ª. ⁄UÊíÿ ∑Î§Á· Áﬂ¬áÊŸ ’Ê«¸U, ‚¥÷ÊªËÿ ∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ, ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U ∑§ ¬òÊ ∑˝§◊Ê¥∑§ ~~} ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ v~-Æ{-wÆv} mÊ⁄UÊ

üÊË ’Ë. •Ê⁄U. ’ÉÊ‹, ﬂÁ⁄UDU ∑Î§Á· ÁﬂSÃÊ⁄U, •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË «UÊ¥ª⁄Uª…∏U ∑§Ê ∑Î§ÁcÊ ©U¬¡ ◊¥«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ «UÊ¥ª⁄Uª…∏U, Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ ∑§Ê ÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË

ÁŸÿÈÄÃ ∑§⁄UŸ ∑§Ê ¬˝SÃÊﬂ ÁŒÿÊ ªÿÊ „ÒU.

‡ÊÁÄÃÿÊ¥ ∑§Ê ¬˝ÿÊª ∑§⁄UÃ „ÈU∞, ∞ÃŒ˜mÊ⁄UÊ üÊË◊ÃË ¬˝◊‹ÃÊ ø¥Œ‹, Á«Uå≈UË ∑§‹Ä≈U⁄U, •ŸÈÁﬂ÷ÊªËÿ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË (⁄UÊ¡Sﬂ) ∑§ SÕÊŸ ¬⁄U üÊË ’Ë. •Ê⁄U.

’ÉÊ‹, ﬂÁ⁄UDU ∑Î§Á· ÁﬂSÃÊ⁄U, •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË «UÊ¥ª⁄Uª…∏U ∑§Ê ©UŸ∑§ ∑§Êÿ¸÷Ê⁄U ª˝„UáÊ ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ ‚ ∑Î§Á· ©U¬¡ ◊á«UË ‚Á◊ÁÃ «UÊ¥ª⁄Uª…∏U, Á¡‹Ê-⁄UÊ¡ŸÊ¥ŒªÊ¥ﬂ ∑§Ê

÷Ê⁄U‚ÊäÊ∑§ •ÁäÊ∑§Ê⁄UË ÁŸÿÈÄÃ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU.

•Á÷¡ËÃ Á‚¥„U,

¬˝’¢œ ‚¢øÊ‹∑§.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1827

∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊ÈÅÿ ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ ¬ŒÊÁœ∑§Ê⁄UË, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U

‡ÊÊSòÊË øÊÒ∑§, ¬È⁄UÊŸÊU ◊¢òÊÊ‹ÿ ¬Á⁄U‚⁄U, ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ wx ¡ÍŸ wÆv|

»§Ê.∑˝§-v}/Æx/ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ ÿÊÁø∑§Ê/wÆv|/{v}.ó‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÁÃÁŸÁœàﬂ •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, v~zv (v~zv ∑§Ê yx) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ vÆ{ ∑§ •ŸÈ‚⁄UáÊ ◊¥

÷Ê⁄UÃ ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ •ÊÿÊª mÊ⁄UÊ ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ •¡Ë¸ ‚¢ÅÿÊ-Æy/wÆvy ◊¥ ÁŒ∞ ª∞ ©UìÊ ãÿÊÿÊ‹ÿ, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U, Á’‹Ê‚¬È⁄U ∑§ •ÊŒ‡Ê ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ y ◊ß¸, wÆv{

∑§Ê ¬˝∑§ÊÁ‡ÊÃ ∑§⁄UŸ ﬂÊ‹Ë •Áœ‚ÍøŸÊ ∑§Ê ⁄UÊÖÿ ∑§ ‡ÊÊ‚∑§Ëÿ ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ ◊¥ ‚ﬂ¸‚ÊœÊ⁄UáÊ ∑§Ë ¡ÊŸ∑§Ê⁄UË „UÃÈ ∞ÃŒ˜Ô mÊ⁄UÊ ¬˝∑§ÊÁ‡ÊÃ Á∑§ÿÊ ¡ÊÃÊ „ÒU.

„USÃÊ./-

(«UË. «UË. Á‚¢„U)

◊ÈÅÿ ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ ¬ŒÊÁœ∑§Ê⁄UË.

÷Ê⁄UÃ ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ •ÊÿÊª

ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ ‚ŒŸ, •‡ÊÊ∑§ ⁄UÊ«U, Ÿß¸ ÁŒÀ‹Ë-vvÆÆÆv

Ÿß¸ ÁŒÀ‹Ë, ÃÊ⁄UËπ vy ¡ÍŸ, wÆv|ówy ÖÿDÔU, v~x~ (‡Ê∑§)

‚¢. }w/¿U.ª.-Áﬂ.‚./(Æy/wÆvy)/wÆv|.ó‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÁÃÁŸÁœàﬂ •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, v~zv (v~zv ∑§Ê yx) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ vÆ{ ∑§ •ŸÈ‚⁄UáÊ ◊¥,

ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ •ÊÿÊª ∞ÃŒ˜ÔmÊ⁄UÊ ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ •¡Ë¸ ‚¢. Æy/wÆvy ◊¥ ÁŒÿ ªÿ ©UìÊ ãÿÊÿÊ‹ÿ, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U, Á’‹Ê‚¬È⁄U ∑§ ÃÊ⁄UËπ y ◊ß¸, wÆv{ ∑§ •ÊŒ‡Ê

∑§Ê ¬˝∑§ÊÁ‡ÊÃ ∑§⁄UÃÊ „ÒU.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

EP No. 4 of 2014

PETITIONER

Mohammad Akbar S/o Mohammad Rashid agedAbout 57 Years R/o House No.

949, K.K. Road, Maudhapara, Raipur, P.S. Maudhapara, Head Post Office, Malviya

Road, Raipur, Tah. & District, Raipur C.G.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS :

Ashok Sahu S/o Purushottam Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Guru Govind Singh

Marg, Kawardha, Post-Kawardha, Tah. Kawardha, Distt, Kbirdham C.G.

Kanhaiyalal Patel S/o Gintiram Patel Aged About 64 Years R/o Bajrangpara,

Kohka Ward No. 8, Bhilai, Distt. Durg C.G.

Kartik Ram Marar S/o Ganga Ram Marar Aged About 50 Years R/o Bendarchi,

Post-Kawardha, Tah. Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham C.G.

Krishna Kumar Dahire S/o Shiv Kumar Dahire Aged About 26 Years R/o Lokband,

Post-Kargikhurd, P.S. & Tah. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur C.G.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1828

Niranjan Khare S/o Alakh Ram Khare Aged About 38 Years R/o Civil Lines,

Majgaon-3, Kawardha. Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kbirdham C.G.

Malesh Kumar Markam S/o Sounu Markam Aged About 35 Years R/o Lalpur

Khurd, Post- Bodla, Tah. Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham C.G.

Himanshu Thakur S/o Rudramani Singh Thakur Aged About 26 Years R/o Maruti

Ward, Kabirpara, Kawardha, Post-Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham C.G.

Anil Satnami S/o Bhondu Lal Kathle Aged About 28 Years R/o Jewadan Khurd,

Post-Sonbarsa, Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham C.G.

Jitendra Kumar Purainak S/o Arjun Purainak Aged About 31 Years R/o House

No. 22, Shastri Marg, Ghothiya Road, Kawardha, Tah. Kawardha, Distt.

Kabirdham C.G.

10.

Mohit Sahu S/o Makhan Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Khairbana Kala, P.S.

Kawardha, Tah. Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham C.G.

For the Petitoner

Mr. B.P. Sharma & M.L. Saket, Advs.

For Respondent No. 1

Mr. Ravish Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.P. Gupta & Mr. Anshuman

Singh, R.S. Patel, Advocate.

For Respondent 5 & 7

Mr. Dinesh R.K. Tiwari, Advocate

For Respondent 6 & 8

Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Adv.

For Respondentt No. 10

Mr. Amirto Das, Advocate.

Hon’ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri

C A V Order

04.05.2016

The challenge in this petition is to declare the election of respondent No. 1/the returned candidate as void

and further declaration is prayed for that the petitioner be declared as duly elected candidate from No. 72

Kawardha Legislative Assembly. The petiton is under Section 123(6) of Representation of People Act. 1951

(hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1951”) on the ground that the returned candidate has incurred and

authorized the expenditure in contravention of Section 77 of the Act, 1951.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitoner was the contesting candidate on behalf of Indian National

Congress Party to the General Assembly Elections held in the year 2013 from Constituency No. 72 Kawardha,

District Kabirdham, Respondent No. 1 was the candidate of Bhartiya Janta Party and was declared as

returned candidate. Respondent No. 1 returned candidate secrued votes of 93645 and the petitioner secrued

votes of 91087. The elections were held in two phases. First Phase of polling was held on 11.11.2013 for

Rajnandgaon and Bastar districts and for the second Phase polling a notification was issued under the

Election Rules on 25.10.2013 and the present election was held for Kawardha Legislative Assembly. Dis-

trict Kabirdham which was under second phase. As per the election programme, the following dates were

fixed for conducting election.

(i)

Date of notification of election

25.10.2013

(ii)

Last Date of filing nomination

01.11.2013

(iii)

Date of scrutiny of nominations

02.11.2013

(iv)

Last date of withdrawal of nominations

04.11.2013

(v)

Date of Polling

19.11.2013

(vi)

Date of result declaration

08.12.2013

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1829

After the polling held, the results were declared on 08.12.2013 and Respondent No. 1 was declared as

returned candidate. This fact is not in dispute that the election commission by its notification dated 23rd

February 2011, fixed the outer limit of expenditure to be Rs. 16 lakhs for the State Assembly Election.

Thereby the maximum expenses limit for the relevant Kawardha constituency was fixed at Rs. 16 lakhs.

Shri B.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that fixation of outer limit of expenditure

was to provide candidates a ‘level of playing field’ to each candidate as against other and thereby the

purpose was that platform should have been the same for each candidate who was contesting. He referred to

section 123(6) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 and would submit that when the expenditure has

been incurred over the prescribed limit or has been authorized to be made in contravention of Section 77 of

the Act, then in such a case it would amount to corrupt practice. He further submits that respondent No. 1

has incurred expenses much over and above the prescribed/outer limit. He further referred to section 78 of

the Act of 1951 and would submit that sub-section (1) of section 78 provides for 30 days for a candidate to

file the account for the expenses incurred according to the prescribed limit which is defined u/s 2(g) of the

Act of 1951. Referring to Rules 86, 90 & 90(b) of Conduct of Election Rules 1961. It is contended that

respondent No. 1 has incurred expenditure much more than the limit prescribed and therefore there has been

contravention of the limit of expenses as the same is above the prescribed limit. It is, therefore, submitted

that it would contravene Section 77 of the Act 1951 and would fall wihtin the definition of Corrupt Practice.

Referring to deirection issued by the Election Commission, the counsel referred to the book captioned as

“(ÁŸﬂÊø¸Ÿ √ÿÿ-•ŸÈﬂËˇÊáÊ ¬⁄U •ŸÈŒ‡ÊÊ¥ ∑§Ê ‚¢∑§‹Ÿ ¡È‹Êß¸-wÆvx)“ by the Election Commossion of India. The coun-

sel further referred to instruction 3.1.7 which relates to Media Pramanan and Anuvikshan Samiti i.e., Media

Certification & Monitoring Committee (MCMC) and submitted that the Election Commission has given the

direction about the nature of expenses and for preparation of video by the Election Commission and further

referred to instruction 4.2 which lays down the role of Election Expenditure Observe. He further referred to

instructions 4.2.10 about the DEMC (District Expenditure Monitoring Committee) and stated that as per the

Annexure 74 the guidelines has been issued that in case certain expenses are not shown in day to day

expenses and if the candidate is served with a notice by observer to explain the expenses and no reply

thereof is filed whthin 48 hours by such Candidate then in such case the expenses as has been estimated and

arrived at by the Expenditure Observer of Commission shall be added to the expenses of the candidate.

He further referred to instructions 4.4.1 of the Hand Book of the direction issued by and contended that

accordingly the video surveillance team was constituted by the Election Commission so as to videograph

the expenses related avents and submitted that videography was made and CDs were prepared and the

expenditure observer shall take into expenses incurred on the basis of video evidence and record the same in

the shadow register of expenses. He further submits that the CD which has been placed on record is admis-

sible in this case irrespective of the provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act and contended that the

certified copy of the video having been given by the Election Commission to this petitioner, the same is

admissible. He also referred to Annexure and stated that if the expenses are not shown within 30 days, it

would be added to the expenditure of the candidate.

Counsel for the petitioner referred to the case law reported in AIR 1996 SC 3081-Common Cause A

Registered Society Vs. Union of India and stated that the directions by the Election Commission are issued

in view of the law laid down in the case which has empowered the Election Commission to issue the

direction. It is contended that as such the directions which have been issued by the Election Commission

has a statutory force. He further referred to instruction 5.5.1 of the instructions and stated that for public

meetings and the railles permission has to be obtained from Commission and the expenditure are to be

submitted in account including the expenses of the star campaigners. It is contended that all the expenses

are to be accounted for i.e. expenditure for helicopter and sharing of stage. If any, by the star campaigner

along-with other campaigners. He further stated that according to Instruction of 6.1 procedure has been

prescribed to maintain account wherein it mandates that a seprate account has to be opened in the name of

candidate and all the expenses are to be made from such account and expenses are also to be maintained in

the daily register and the entries in register and expenses could not have been amended without the concur-

rence of District Expenditure Monitoring Committee.

The petitioner further referred to Section 93 of the Act, 1951 and would submit that as per the provisions of

CPC under Order 13 Rule 4, once the document has been exhibited it would be admissible and in the instant

case, the only mode of proof has been objected. It is contended that the documents itself by the provisions

of the Evidence Act would be admissible as Section 3 of Indian Evidence Act defines the document, which

includes the electronic record. The counsel referred to Sections 63 & 65-B of the Evidence Act 1872 and

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1830

submits that in this petition CDs having been certified, they would be a document and they would come

within the ambit of public document and the certified copy of public documents would be admissible in

view of section 76 of the Evidence Act.

It is further submitted that the provisions of Section 65-B of the Evidence Act would not be applicable in

this case as the CDs which are exhibited are not prepared by use of computer. Therefore, the CDs would be

the documents and being public document and certified copies are admissible in view of the law laid down

in Jaswant Sing Vs. Gurudeo Singh & others AIR SCW 2011 page 6567 and Shamsher Singh Verma v.

Stae of Haryana 2015 AIR SCW 6434.

10.

Counsel for the petitioner would further submit that Ex. D-3 is proved by the respondent which proves the

case that the expenditure has been incurred over and above the prescribed limit. While going through the

document Ex. D-3, it is stated that this account has been submitted by the returned candidate wherein at

column No. 2 the respondent has shown the expenditure of Rs. 8,52,854/- and further at Para 10(ka), it is

stated that the amount of Rs. 11,72,702/- was admitted by the respondent and further stated that in Column

(Kha), the observer has at one point has written rupees, but then the respondent has shown much more

expenditure, therefore, it would amount to admission as the expenditure, disclosed by the respondent

himself cannot be ignored, Therefore, the expenditure which was shown by the respondent bas to be ac-

cepted as a whole and after making addition, the amount exceeds Rs. 16 lakhs i.e., Rs. 11,72,702/- plus Rs.

4,31,922) which comes to Rs. 16,04,624/-.

11.

It is further contended by the petitioner that the petitioner has obtained certified copy of photocopy of

copy an amount was shown of Rs. 14,01,802/- and the document initially which was filed with the written

statement shown different amounts. Therefore, when the certified copy of the register was obtained by the

petitioner, initially in the year 2013, certain entries wrere not there and there has been a manipulation in the

referred to Ex. P-69 and stated that the star campaigner campaigned in the election and election expeness of

star compaligner Narendra Modi was shared by the applicants and another candidate neamely Motillal

Chandravanshi of Pandarniya. It is submitted that Motilal Chandrawanshi has shown an expenditure of Rs.

2,97,250/- and therefore by making addition of the amount of Rs. 2,97,250/- would fall to the share of

respondent the expenses would further go upto 19,01,874/-.

12.

it is contended that respondent returned candidate has shown expenses of flag Rs. 4,91,400/- which has been

borne by the party as per Ex. P-38 and Serial number of the same is same that of voucher, However, Rs,

4,91,400/- has not been shown by the Bjp as party expenses. As per Ex. P-67 wherein the party expenses for

flag is shown only to Rs. 45,144/- therefore, it is stated that this amount is also required to be added as

expenditure which was borne by the returned candidate.

13.

It is further stated that as per the document Ex. P-6 the party expenditure shown by the returned cadndiate

is Rs. 1,22,313/- and not Rs. 4,91,400/- and as such the said amount of Rs. 4,91,400/- is required to be added

in the expenditure it is furhter submitted that the rate of flag has been proved by Ex P-70 and reading the

documents altogether shows that actually the entire expenses were borne by the returned candidate Mr.

Ashok Sahu.

14.

Referring to another expenditure of Rs. 54,000/- as per Ex.P-37 it is stated that the Expenditure Observation

Team presumed the expenditure of Rs. 54,000/- but in the shadow register, voucher 37, It was shown to be

blank. Therefore, it is contended that Rs. 54,000/- is also to be added. Referring to admissibility of docu-

ment it is stated that the documents were filed with the permission of the Court as per Order 7 Rule 14(3)

and the documents having been filed, they were observed to be admitted subject to pleadings if made. He

referred to the order dated 17.04.2015 and would submite that the Court itself has found that the pleading

has already been made in respert of documents, Therefore, that issue of pleading could not have been gone

into. He relied on decision of the Supreme Court in Kapil Kumar Sharma Vs. Lalit Kumar Sharma and

another-(2013) 14 SCC 612 and submittted that the documents so placed would be admissible in evidence.

15.

Further referring to statements of petitioner itself he submittted that the Kawardha election undoubtedly

took place in the 2nd phase and the notification was made on 25.10.2013, it is stated that as per the Statement

of Naresh Gupta (D. W. 2), the list of star compaigner was deposited by the party on 01.11.2013 but it was

not deposited as per the repost of Election Commission vide Ex. P-50. It is further contended that Ex.D-9

was only given to Election Commission on 31.10.2013 at about 7.30 but it was not supplied to Chief Electoral

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1831

Officer. Therefore, from 25.10.2013 within 7 days, the list of star campaigners was not submitted by respon-

dent No. 1.

16.

It is further contendent by referring to Ex. P-33, 34 40, 46, 47 that different expenditure has to be added to

the account of returned cadndiate. It was further stated by referreing to Exhibits P-13, P-14, P-20, P-48, P-

49, P-53 & P-67 that the expenditure incurred including the expenditure of Helicopter of Rs. 17,50,000/- as

per Ex. P-53 exceeded the prescribed limit. It is contended that therefore the expenditure was incurred

beyond the prescribed limit.

17.

Advancing the submission on issue No. 3 wherein the petitioner has claimed to be declared as retrurned

candidate the counsel would submit that incurring the expenditure over and above the prescribed limit

would amount ot purchasing the voters and the presumption has to be drawn that the petitioner was not

allowed to a ‘Level Playing Field’ with respondent No.1. Consequently the petitoner would be entitled to

be delcared as returned candidate as per Section 98(c) of the Act of 1951 as the harmonious construction is

to be made in accordance with section 123 of the Act. He further submits that reading of Annexure P-4

shows the number of voted secured by the respective candidates. One of the columns of the said documents

shows that the voters have neihter Voted for the petitioner nor have voted for the respondent which is shown

as NOTA i.e, None of the above it is further submitted that the legitimate canvssing means the expenses

within the permissible limits and the same having not been made by the returned candidate it would amount

to corrupt practice within the meaning of section 77 of the Act 1951. It is submitted that since Ashok Sahu

has made the default of over expenditure therefore by re-election the public exchequer cannot be placed

under pressure and therefore like that at Cricket matches “Duckworth Lewis formula” requires to be adopted

by retably distributing the NOTA votes and petitioner should be declared as returned candidate by declaring

the election of returned candidate to be void.

18.

Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Shri Ravish Agrawal, assisted by Mr. B.P. Gupta, Mr. R. S. Patel Mr.

Anshuman Singh & Mr. Vaibhav Govardhan, Advocates opened the arguments by referring to section 100

(1)(b) of and 1 (d)(iv) of the Act of 1951. It is submitted that in order to challenge the election u/s 123(c) of

the Act 1951 the petitioner is required to plead and prove that the result of election so far as it relates to a

returned candidate has been materially affected, Elaborating scope of Section 77 read with section 123(6)

of the Act, 1951 learned counsel would submit that the scope of Section 77 are two fold and stated that

failure to maintain account as per sub-sections (1) & (2) of Section 77 do not take within its fold the corrupt

practice if the accounts are not maintained. Therefore, the corrupt practice can only be under sub-section (3)

of Section 77. Referring to law laid down in (1999) 1 SCC 666 L.R. Shiveramagowda & others Vs. T. N.

Chandrashekhr (deed) by L.Rs. & ohters, it was contended that the pleading with respect to fact that fact

that “result of election has materially affected” has to be made.

19.

Now further referring to a case law reported in (1995) 5 SCC 347-Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat & another vs.

Dattaji Raghobaji Meghe and others, it is submitted that the allegation of coruupt practice must be pleaded

alongwith source of information, date and place and the returned candidate cannot be taken by surprise

during trial and evidence. Further relying on a case law reported in (1999) 9 SCC 386-Jeet Mohinder Singh

Vs. Harminder Singh Sassi he submits that the allegations relating to commission of corrupt practice should

be sufficiently clear and precise along-with source of information and furhter stated that mere non-disclo-

sure of expenses would not amount to corrupt practice. It is furhter stated that all the facts which are

essential to prove the corrupt Practice with Complete cause of faction must be pleaded and failure to plead

even a single material fact would amount to non-disclosure. Further placing reliance in (2010) 1 SCC 466-

Kattinokkula Murall Krishna Vs. Veeramalla Koteshwara Rao and (2000) 8 SCC 191-Ravinder Singh Vs.

Janmeja Singh it is contended that the standard of proof is entirely different and would submit that if the

evidence is led, but no categorical pleadings are made then in such case, the evidence cannot be looked into.

20.

It is submitted by counsel for respondent No. 1 that the entire averments in this petition have been made on

the basis of CD. It is contended that the CDs being not accompanied by certificate u/s 65-B of the Evidence

Act, the same would be inadmissible. Therefore the source of information on the basis of CD as has been

pleaded cannot be looked into. It is further submited that the petitoner has contended that the knowledge of

various programmes was passed on from CD and the photographs were also taken from the CD and since

the CD is inadmissible in evidence therefore, the entire case would fall. Referring to document Ex.D-3 and

the account, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the petitioner has wrognly projected the

documents that the respondent has admitted certain expenses, therefore it should be included in the expen-

diture account. Counsel went through various entries and would submit that the expenses like banners and

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1832

hoardings has been made at one time and once the expenses of banners and hoardings are prepared, it cannot

be reckoned for the day one and for continuous period and referring to the account, counsel further submits

that the expenses has been shown in the account which was accepted by the expenditure observer. It is

submitted that the expenditure observer having found entires correct accepted the account so on the sole

submission of the petitoner that the expenses having not been correctly added which have been shown by

the respondent and the expenditure observer is without any support. It is further stated that the petitioner has

evolved a new idea to get himself elected and after losing such idea, the prayer for cancellation of election

of respondent returned candidate and to declare him as elected member will defeat the entire democratic

system and the idea projected on presumption cannot be acted upon.

21.

This Court on the basis of pleadings of the parties on 17.04.2015 has framed the following issues for

consideration.

S.No.

Issues

Findings

(i)

Whether the returned candidate has incurred

The petitioner has falled to prove

unauthorized expenditure in contravention

of Section 77 of the Representation of people

Act. 1951 and exceeded the expenditure over

and above Rs. 16.00 lacs, which was published

in the Gazette of India on 23.02.2011, therefore,

the election is void ?

(ii)

Whether in absence of proper pleading regard-

Material particulars of pleadings as against

ing source of information of corrupt practice

evidence led on the head of expenses are

as per Sec. 83(1)(b) of the Representation of

completely absent.

People Act, 1951, the petition is liable to be

dismissed ?

(iii)

Whether the petitoner is entitled to second

Petitioner is not entitled to be declared as

relief for furher declaration to be a returned

returned candidate.

candidate or such relief is not available in abse-

nce of proper and essential pleadings to this

effect ?

(iv)

Any other relief which the Court deems fit.

Not entitled to any relilef.

22.

The petitioner himself has examined as P.W. 1 and P. Dayanand was examined as P.W.2 U.S. Agrawal was

examined as P.W. 3. Amit Kumar Awasthi was examined as P.W. 4. Ramesh Patel was examined as P.W.5

D.D. Singh was examined as P.W. 6 and Ashok Agrawal was examined as P.W. 7 whereas on behalf of

respondent No. 1 Ashok Sahu, the returned candidate, himself examined as D.W. 1 Naresh Chander Gupta

was examined as D.W. 2 and S.K. Singh was examined as D.W. 3.

23.

Evaluating the pleadings, documents and the evidence go to show that the challenge in this election petition

is predominantly on the ground that the returned candidate has incurred expenditure beyond the maximum

prescribed limit thereby was involved in the corrupt practice. Reading of the R.P. Act, 1951 with reference

to corrupt practice, section 123(6) speaks of incurring of authorizing of expenditure in contravention of

section 77. Section 123(6) is reproduced hereinbelow:

Sec.123 of the R.P. Act of 1951

123 Corrupt practices.—the following shell be deemed to be corrupt practices for the purposes of

this Act:

(1)

xxx

(2)

xxx

(3)

xxx

(4)

xxx

(5)

xxx

(6)

The incurring or authorizing of expenditure in contravention of section 77.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1833

24.

Since this section makes a reference to section 77 of the Act of 1951, necessarily section 123(6) has to be

read along with section 77 which reads as under;

Sec. 77 of the R.P. Act 1951

“77.

Account of election expenses and maximum thereof,—

(1)

Every candidate at an election shall, either by himself or by his election agent, keep a

separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or

authorized by him or by his election agent between the date of on which he has been

nominated and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both dates inclusive.

Explaination 1,—For removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that—

(a)

The expenditure incurred by leaders of a political party on account of travel by

air or by any other means of transport for propagating programme of the political

party shall not be deemed to be the expenditure in connection with the election

incurred or authorized by a candidate of that political party or his election agent

for the purposes of this sub-section;

(b)

Any expenditure incurred in respect of any arrangements made, facilitites provied

or any other act or thing done by any person in the service of the Government and

belonging to any of the classes mentioned in clause (7) of Section 123 in the

discharge or purported discharge of his official duty as mentioned in the proviso

to that clause shall not be deemed to be expenditure in connection with the elec-

tion incurred or authorized by a candidate or by his election agent for the pur-

poses of this sub-section.

Explaination 2.—for the purpose of clause (a) of Explanation 1, the expression

“leaders of a political party”, in respect of any election means,—

(i)

Where such political party is a recognized political party, such persons

not exceeding forty in number, and

(ii)

Where such political party is other than a recognized political party,

such persons not xceeding twenty in number,

Whose names have been communicated to the Election Commissiion

and the Chief Electoral Officers of the States by the political party to be

leaders for the purposes of such election, within a period of seven days

from the date of the notification for such election published in the Ga-

zette of India or Official Gazette of the State, as the case may be, under

this Act;

Provided that a political party may, in the case where any of

the persons referred to in clause (i) or, as the case may be, in clause (ii)

dies or ceases to be a member of such political party, by furhter commu-

nication to the Election Commission and the Chief Electoral Officers of

the States, substitute new name, during the period ending immediately

before forty-eight hours ending with the hour fixed for the conclusion of

the last poll for such election, for the name of such person died or ceased

to be a member, for the purposes of designating the new leader in his

place.

(2)

The account shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed.

(3)

The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be pre-

scribed”.

25.

Section 100 (1)(b) lays down that the commission of corrupt practice as a ground for delcaring the election

void. In this context. Section 100 (1)(b) (d) is relevent here and quoted below.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1834

Section 100 of the R.P. Act of 1951

100. Grounds for declaring election to be vold.—

(1)

Subject to the provisions of such sub-section (2) if the High Court is of the opin-

ion—

(a)

xxx

(b)

that any corrupt practice has been committed by a returned candidate or

his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned

candidate or his election agent; or

(c)

xxx

(d)

that the reuslt or the election, in so far as it concerns a returned candi-

date, has been materially affected—

(i)

xxx

(ii)

by any corrupt practice committed in the interests of the re-

turned candidate by an agent other then his election agent or;

(iii)

xxx

(iv)

by any non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution

or of this Act or of any rules or orders made under this Act.

The High Court shall declare the election of the returned can-

didate to be void”.

26.

Reading of the aforesaid provisions would indicate that section 77(1) of the Act 1951 makes it mandatory

for every candidate at an election to the State Legislative Assembly or the House of People to keep a

separete and correct account of all expenditure incurred or authorized by him or by his election agent,

between the date on which he was nominated and the date of declaration of result of election both dates

inclusive. The total of the said expenditure shallnot exceed such amount as may be prescribed u/s 77(3), u/

s 77(2), the account shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election

Rules 1961 prescribes the limit of election expenditure for parliamentary and assembly constituencies in

each of the States and union territories. The particulars which have to be shown in the account are pre-

scribed in Rule 86 of those Rules, failure to maintain the account is an electoral offence u/s 177-I of the IPC.

Reading of entire provisions of section 77 would lead to show that all expenditure incurred or authorised by

the political parties friends and supporters of a candidate in connection with his election is to be considered

as part of candidates expenditure except the expenditure on travelling of leaders of his political party. By the

amendment Act 2003 the earlier explanations 1 & 3 to section 77 (1) of 1951 of the Act have been substituted

by new explanations 1 & 2. Therefore, the analysis of section would demonstrate that if any political party

or the candidate wishes to avail it of the expmption provided by the provisions u/s 77(1), the intimation of

names of the leaders of political party should be communicated to the Chief Electoral Officer within a

period of 7 days prescribed in the Act and failure may result in denial of benefit.

27.

Further coming back to the point of pleading, reading of Section 83 would show that where an election

petition alleges commission of corrupt practice by a candidate, the pleading must cantain (a) direct and

detailed nature of corrupt practice as defined in 1951 Act (b) the details of every important particular giving

the time, place, names of persons, use of words and expressions, etc. it must also clearly appear from the

alligations that the corrupt Practice was indulged with either express or implied consent of the candidate or

his election agent.

28.

In the present case, the corrupt practice has been stated about the expenditure over and above prescribed

limit. Since the entire allegation is on over expenditure made by respondent returned candidate, therefore it

would be necessary to evaluate the mandatory requirements of material facts and material particulars wherther

have been pleaded. The learned counsel for the petitoner with respect to the material facts and pleadings

had referred to Order dated 30th July 2014 passed by this court and has stated that the Court in such order

has found that all the material facts and particulars have been pleaded with respect to corrupt practice to go

in for trial. Perusal of record would show that the said order was passed while adjudicating an application

under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC. At that time neither written statements were filed nor the avidence was

adducted. Thereafter, lot of change has taken effect as the denial by way of written statement has come on

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1835

record. The petitioner has elaborately come out with material particulars of expenses in his evidence. There-

fore, it would be necessary to consider and examine whether such material facts and material particulars

head-wise minutely have been pleaded or not ?. It being an election petition, the material particulars of

expenses incurred is the requirement of law. The survey of evidence of material particulars with respect to

expenses would show that the statement over the expenses has been stretched upon with different particular

expenses minutely. But when the pleadings are seen as against the evidence adduced, such materials par-

ticulars appears to be absent. The court cannot ignore the nature of petition which is only based on over-

expenditure incurred. Therefore, it was bouden duty of the petitioner ot elaborate each and every expenses

particularly by way of pleading so that the returned candidate could meet out the same in reply. Elaborating

head or expenses minutely by the petitioner falls short of the pleading. The function of the complete par-

ticulars is to present as full picture of the cause of action. The same may be overlapping but when it comes

to evaluate on the head of expenses, then certianly each and every expenses should have been pleaded.

29.

Perusal of issues No. 1 & 2 would indicate that both the issues are interlinked with respect to pleading and

evidence. Therefore, both the issues i.e. No. 1 & 2 are considered simultaneously.

30.

Now reverting to the pleading of the petitioner, primarily much pleading has been made that the information

gathered about the higher expenditure is based on video recording made at the time of election which is

placed as CD i.e., Compact Disk. The petitioner has contended at Para 10(a)(b)(e)(f) & (g) of the petition

that the source of information is gathered from CDs. The petitioner has marked the compact disks (CD) as

Exhibits P-9, P-11, P-15, P-18, P-60, P-61, P-62, P-63, P-64, P-65 & P-66. The said marking has been made

subject to objection raised about the admissibility of such CD in evidence. Since the source of information

abount expenses is pleaded to be bassed on the CDs, it would be necessary to examine the law as to whether

the said CDs though marked as exhibits are admissible in evidence or not ?

31.

The Evidence Act has been amended by the I.T. Act to introduce the admissibility of the electronic records,

The concept of electronic evidence has been incorporated to provide the Court with a frame work to incor-

porate and introduce these new innovations in scientific technology. Under Section 3 of the Evidence Act,

the definition of term “evidence” has been amended to mean and include;

“(a)

all statements which the court permits or requires to be made before it by a witness; in relation

to matters of fact under inquiry, such statement are called oral evidence;

(b)

all documents includeing electronic records produced for the inspection of the court; such docu-

ments are called documentary evidence.” in accordance with the amended definition of ‘evidence’

documentary evidence has been amended to include electronic records. The term ‘electronic

evi-dence’ has been given the same meaning as assigned in the IT Act, which means ‘date, record

or date generated, image or sound stored, received or sent in an electronic form or micro file or

computer generated micro fiche.’

32.

According to the new provisions introduced into the Evidence Act, Section 65-A provides that the contents

of an electronic record may be proved in accordance with the provisions of S.65-B of the Evidence Act,

which provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in

an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media

produced by a computer (computer output) shall be deemed to be a documnet, provided the conditions

specified in S.65-B(2) are satisfied in relation to the information and computer in question. Such a docu-

ment is admissible in any proceedings, without further proof or production of the original, as evidence of

any contents of the original or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible.

33.

Before a computer output is admissible in evidence, the following conditions must be fulfilled, as set out in

Section 65-B (2);

“(a)

the computer output containing the information was produced by the computer during the period

over which the computer was used regularly to store or process information for the purpose of any

activities regularly carried on over that period by the person having lawful control over the use of

the computer.

(b)

during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind

from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the

ordinary course of the said activities;

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1836

(c)

through the material part of the said period the computer was oprating properly or, if not, then in

respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part

of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and

(d)

the information contained in the electronic record reproduced or is derived from such information

fed into the Computer in the ordinary course of the said activities”.

34.

The laws on section 65-B of the Evidence Act came up for interpretation before Their Lordships in case of

(2014) 10 SCC 473-Anvar P.V. Vs. P.K. Basheer wherein Hon’ble the Supreme court held thus in para-

graphs 14, 15 & 16.

“14.

Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act. in view of

Section 59 and 65-A can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Sec-

tion 65-B. Section 65-B deal. with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of

these provisions is to sanctify secondary eviden in electronic form, generated by a computer. It

may be noted that the section starts with a non-obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything

contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed

on a paper, stored, recoreded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall

be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) are satisfied,

without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a documents

i.e. electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four

conditions under Section 65-B (2) of the Evidence Act.

(i)

The electronic record containing the information should have been produced by the com-

puter during the period over which the same was regularly used to store or process informa-

tion for the purpose of any activity regularly carried on over that period by the person

having lawful control over the use of that computer;

(ii)

The information of the kind contained in electronic record or of the kind from which the

information is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the

said activity;

(iii)

During the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly and that

even if it was not operating properly for some time, the break or breaks had not aiffected

either the record or the accuracy of its contents; and

(iv)

the information contained in the record should be a reproduction or derivation from the

in-

formation fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activity.

15.

Under section 65-B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings

pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied;

(a)

There must be certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement;

(b)

The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced;

(c)

The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of

that record;

(d)

The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under Section 65-B(2)

of the Evidence Act; and

(e)

The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in

relation to the operation of the relevent device.”

16.

It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best

of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic

record like computer printout, compact disc (CD), video compact disc (VCD), pen drive, etc, print-

ing to which a statement is sought to be given in avidence in evidence when the same is

produced in evidence. All these safegurads are taken to ensure the source and authenticity, which

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1837

are the two hallmarks pertaining to electronic record sought to be used as evidence. Electronic records

being more susceptible to tamprring, alteration. transposition, excision, etc., whthout such safeguards, the

whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice.”

35.

Furhter it was held in the said case (Anwar PV. v. P.K. Basheer (Supra) that the Evidecne Act does not

contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if the requirement u/s 65-B of the

Evidence Act are not complied with. It has been further held that the proof of electronic record is a special

provision introduced by I.T. Act amending various provisions under the Eviedence Act. The very caption of

Section 65-A of the Evidence Act, read with Sections 59 & 65-B sufficient to hold that the special provi-

sions on evidence relating to electronic record shall be governed by the procedure prescribed under Section

65-B of the Evidence Act, It is held that it is a complete code in itself and being a special law, the general

law under Sections 63 & 65 has to yield.

36.

Similar view has been adopted in an unreported decision rendered in case of Kamal Patel Vs. Ram Kishore

in Election Petition No. 24/2014 decided by the M.P. High Court following the case of Anwar P.V (Supra).

Furhter similar view has again relterated by the M.P. High Court in Election Petition No. 34/2014 (unre-

ported)-Abhay Singh Vs. Rakesh Singh. Therefore, if the aforesaid interpretation is applied to the present

case, it would lead to indicate that even the CD kept with the Election Commission would not be covered as

primary evidence and primary evidence can only be referred to the orginal recording in a magnetic form, if

any, or memory card stored by the Election Commission. The argument advanced by the petitioner that in

preparation of CD. as no computer was used, as such, Section 65-B of the Evidence Act would not be

applicable is completely unfounded and without any logical back-ground.

37.

Further reading of the petition would indicate that with respect to source of information of corrupt practice

pleaded at Para 10(a)(b)(e)(f) & (g) of the petition such information is said to have been derived after

watching the CD. In support of the contention of para 10(b), the petitioner had deposed that the expenses

have been alleged about the public meeting of Su. Shri Uma Bharti at para 73 of the statement of the

petitioner, It is stated that he has made such pleading on the basis of CD. However, it has been stated that the

CD has been obtained from the observer and he had received the same from him. Therefore, certain contra-

dictions appear to have been existing as at one para, the petitioner has stated that he has obtained the CD

from Election Officer and again it is stated that it was obtained from expenditure observer of election

commission. Further in cross examination, it is stated that the petitioner had obtained the CD on 07-05-

2014, importantly, the date of filling of the election petition is 20-01-2014. So the CDs which were filed

alongwith the election petition on 20-01-2014. and are marked as Ex. P-9, P-11, P-15 & P-18 though have

been stated to be obtained on 07-05-2014 but how it was filed on 20-01-2014 along-with the eletcion

petition, the fact and evidence are completely contradictory to each other. The necessary inforece can be

made that the said CD may not be available. So serious contradiction about the existence of CD itself

appears.

38.

Now referring to the statements of P.W. 2 the District Election Officer and P.W. 3 the incharge of Video

Recording Team, it goes to show that P.W. 2 the District Election Officer in examination-in-Chief when

confronted with the CDS i.e. Ex. P.9, P-15, 18 and Ex. P-60 to P-66 he stated that he cannot affirm the fact

whether the same CDs were given by the office or not which were shown to him. In examination-in-Chief a

question was asked that whether he has bought all the CDs relating to speech of Shri Narendra Modi, Su.-

Shri Uma Bharti, nomination railly, rally of Raman Singh Road Show; whether he has brought it all the CDs

with it, in reply to it, he stated that be cannot confirm the fact whether the CDs which are placed on record

are one and the same or not. He furhter clarified the fact that the CDs which were placed before the Court

cannot be said to be the same CDs i.e. of the election. Similarly, the in-Charge of the video recording team

i.e. P.W.3 U.S. Agrawal in examination-in-chief has stated that the CDs which were issued were with date,

time, in respect of the programs for which it was made. It is also stated that it was written on the CD and

when confronted stated that the he cannot say that the same CDs are filed along-with the petition. Admit-

tedly, these CDs do not contain the certificate as required u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act.

39.

So on the aforesaid analogy of case law and the statement of witnesses who had issued the said CD it goes

to show that the very existence of such CDs which are placed on record and exhibited has come under the

clouds. Admittedly, the CDs do not contain the certificate as required u/s 65-B(4). Therefore, the evidence

relating to electronic record as observed hereinbefore being a special provision, the general law on second-

ary evidence u/s 63 read with section 65 of the Evidence Act shall yield to the same.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1838

40.

So with reference to the interpretation of provisions of Indian Evidence Act in the context of Electronic

Evidence with reference to the present case, the original recording of the videos wherein all the rallies, road

show etc., were recorded primarily would only be the evidence and in any case, the secondary evidence of

such contents are required to be proved as per modes provided under the statute. The necessary certificate as

required u/s 65-B is mandatory to make the CDs as admissible. As a result, the CDs which are placed and

exhibited in the case cannot be admitted in evidence as they fall short of requirement u/s 65-B of the Indian

Evidence Act. 1872. So the entire case of source of information of corrupt practice relating to over expen-

diture on the basis of CDs is inadmissible in evidence and the same cannot be acted upon at the instance of

the petitioner.

41,

Now while examining the pleading along-with evidence, the law and principles which occupy the field

would be necessary to point out in a case law reported in (1999) 1 SCC 666 - L.R. Shivarama Gowda vs.

T.M. Chandrashekhar (para 10). Their Lordships of the Supreme court have laid down the law that in order

to declare an election to be void under section 100(1)(d)(iv), it is absolutely necessary for the election

petitioner to plead that the result of the election so far as it relates to returned candidate has been materially

affected by the alleged non-compilance with the provisions of the Act or of the rules. Now reverting to para

5 of the election petition, it would go to show that the specific pleading is absent about the fact that the

election result has been materially affected for non-compliance of any rules or the provision. In the case in

hand since the court is examining the allegation of election petition as against the will of the people,

therefore, the necessary pleading to this effect has to be there in the election petition to hold that there is a

violation of specific rules or direction issued by the Election Commission coupled with the fact that the

result of the election of the returned candidate has been materially affected by the alleged non-compliance.

42.

furhter at Para 18 of case (supra), the Supereme Court while analyzing application of section 77 further held

that incurring or authorizing of expenditure in contravention of section 77 of the act is a corrupt practice and

section 77 provides that every candidate at an election shall keep a separate and correct account of all

expenditure in connection with the elction incurred or authorized by him or by his election agent and that

the accounts shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. Rule 86, of the Conduct of Election Rules,

1961 sets out the particulars to be contained in the account of election expenses. It has been furhter held

that subsections (1) & (2) of section 77 deal only with the maintenance of account. Subsction (3) of section

77 provides that the total of the election expenses referred to in subsection (1) shall not exceed such amount

as may be prescribed. Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules.

43.

It is not in dispute that the maximum limit for Chhattisgarh Assembly Constituency was of Rs. 16 lakhs.

While referring to statute, it states that in order to declare an election to be void, the grounds are enumerated

in section 100 of the Act. Sub-section (1)(b) of section 100 relates to any corrupt practice committed by a

returned candidate or his election agent or by any other person with the consent of a returned candidate or

his election agent. In order to bring a matter within the scope of sub-section (1)(b), the corrupt practice has

to be one defined in section 123. What is referred to in sub-section (6) of section 123 as corrupt practice is

only the incurring or authorizing of expenditure in contravention of section 77. Sub-section (6) of section

123 does not take into its fold, the failure to maintain true and correct accounts. The language of sub-section

(6) is so clear that the corrupt practice defined therein can relate only to sub-section (3) of secting 77 i.e. the

incurring or authorizing of expenditure in excess of the amount prescribed. Therefore, it cannot by only

stretch of imagination be said that non-compliance with sections 77(1) and (2) would also fall within the

scope of section 123(6). Consquently it cannot fall under section 100(1)(b). Therefore the necessary infer-

ence would be drawn that in absence of the pleading that the election result has been materially affected by

the alleged non-compliance with the provisions or of the Rules falling back to section 77(1) and (2) of the

Act of 1951, the corrupt practice cannot be branded unless it is found that the returned candidate has

exceeded the maximum expenditure of Rs. 16 lakhs according to Rule 90 of the Conduct Rules of 1961 i.e.,

expenditure made over and above the specified limit of Rs. 16 lakhs.

44.

Now if we refer to case law reported in (1995) 5 SCC 347-Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat vs. Dattaji Raghobaji

Meghe. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court held that “in order to unseat a returned candidate, the corrupt

practice must be specifically allegaed and strictly proved to have been committed by the returned candidate

himself or by his election agent or by any other person with the consent of the returned candidate or by his

election agent, Suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, whether the allegations are sought

to be established by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. Since pleadings paly an important role in

an election petition, the legislature has provided that the allegations of corrupt practice must be properly

alleged and both the material facts and particulars provided in the petition itself so as to disclose a complete

cause of action.”

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1839

45.

A petition levelling a charge of corrupt practice is required, by law, to be supported by an affidavit and the

election petitioner is also obliged to disclose his source of information in respect of the commission of the

corrupt practice. Under section 123(6) of the Act, 1951 the incurring or authorizing of expenditure in

contravention of section 77 of the Act amounts to commission of a corrupt practice. However every contra-

vention of section 77 of the Act does not fall within the mischief of section 123(6) of the Act, In Gajanan

Krishnaji Bapat (supra), the Supreme Court while referring to the decision rendered in case of Magraj

Patodia vs. R. K Birla AIR 1971 SC1295 has reiterated that to prove the corrupt practice of incurring or

authorizing expenditure beyond the prescribed limit, it is not sufficient for the petitioner to merely prove

that the expenditure beyound the prescribed limit had been incurred in connection with the election of

returned candidate, but he must go further and prove that the excess expenditure, was authorized of in-

curred with the consent of the returned candidate of his election agent. The entire reading or petition shows

that the pleading to this effect that over expenditure was with consent of the returned candidate is absent.

46.

Further in case of Indira Gandhi vs. Raj Narain reported in 1975 supplementary SCC 1, the Supreme

Court further affirmed the view while taking the note of the amendment Act 58 of 1974 and opined that

voluntary expenditure incurred by friends, relations or sympathizers of the candidate or the candidate’s

political party are not required to be included in the candidate’s return of expenses, unless the expenses

were incurred in the circumstances from which it could be positively inferred that the successful candidate

had undertaken that he would reimburse the party or the person who incurred the expenses. it is not enough

to prove that some advantage accrued to the returned candidate or even that the expenditure was incurred for

the benefit of the returned candidate or that it was within the knowledge of the returned candidate and he did

not prevent it, to clothe the returned candidate with the liabllity of committing the alleged corrupt practice.

The pleading to this effect that the returned-candidate had undertaken that he would reimburse the party or

person the expenditure is absent.

47.

The Supereme Court in case to Jeet Mohinder Singh vs. Harminder Singh Jassi (1999) 9 SCC 386 in para

40 held that “the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with.

Any petition seeking such interference must strickly conform to the requirements of the law. The court

further held that setting aside of an election involves serious consequences not only for the returned candi-

date and the constituency, but also for the public at large inasmuch as relection involves an enormous load

on the public funds and administration.

48.

It has been furhter held in Jeet Mohinder Singh (supra), that the charge of corrupt practice is quasi criminal

in character. If substantiated it leads not only to the setting aside of the election of the successful candidat,

but also of his being disqualified to contest an election for a certain period. It may entall extinction of a

person’s public life and political career. It is furhter hald that a trial of an election petition though within the

realm of civil law is akin to trial on a criminal charge. Therefore, two consequences follow i.e., firstly, the

allegations relating to commission of a corrupt practice should be sufficiently clear and stated prscisely so

as to afford the person charged a full opportunity of meeting the same and secondly, the chages when put to

issue should be proved by clear, cogent and credible evidence. To prove charge of corrupt practice a mere

preponderance of probabilities would not be enough. There would be a presumption of innocence available

to the person charged. The charge shall have to be proved to the hilt, the standard of proof being the same as

in a criminal trial (See Quamarul Islam v. S. K. Kanta AIR 1994 SC 1733, F.A. Sapa v. Singora (1991) 3

SCC 375, Manohar Joshi v. Damodar Tatyaba (1991) 2 SCC 342 and Ram Singh v. Col. Ram Singh AIR

1986 SC3.

49.

It has been further held in Jeet Mohinder Singh (supra), that section 83 of the Act requires every election

petition to contain a concise statement of material facts on which the petitioner relies. If the election peti-

tion alleges commission of corrupt practice at the election, the election petition shall set forth full particu-

lars of any corrupt practice including as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to

have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of each such practice.

Every election petition must be signed and verified by the appellant in the manner laid down for the verifi-

cation of pleadings in CPC. An election petition alleging corrupt practice is required to be accompanied by

an affidavit in Form 25 read with Rule 94-A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961. Form25 contemplates

the verious particulars as to the corrupt practices mentioned in the election petition being verified by the

appelance separately under two headings; (i) which of such statemnts including particulars are true to the

appellant’s own knowledge, and (ii) which of the statements including the particulars are true to informa-

tion of the appellant. It has been held in Gajanan Krishnaji Bapat case (supra) that the election petitoner is

also obliged to disclose his source of information in respect of the commission of the corrupt practice.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1840

50.

Further in case of Kamalnath Vs. Sudesh Verma (2002) 2 SCC 410. the Supereme court has further held that

mere non-disclosure of expenditure will not be a corrupt practice but incurring of expenditure in excess of

the prescribed limit would be a corrupt practice. It was further observed that on a combined reading of

sections 77 & 123(6) of the Act, 1951 it is explicitly clear that the excess expenditure must be incurred by

the candidate or by any person authorized by the candidate or his election agent. It was held that an expen-

diture incurred by a third person, who is not authorised by a candidate or who is not an election agent of the

candidate, will not be a corrupt practice within the ambit of Section 123(6) of the Act. It would, therefore,

be necessary to establish a corrupt practice, as contemplated under Section 123(6) of the Act to plead

requisite facts showing authorisation or undertaking of reimbursement by the candidates or his election

agent. The court has furhter held that “when maintainability of an election petition is considered from the

standpoint as to whether material facts have been pleaded or not in a petition alleging corrupt practice on

the ground that expenses incurred by the candiate are more than the prescribed limit, it would be necessary

to aver the fact that the candidate has inclurred the expenditure or has authorised any other person to incur

the expenditure or that his election agent has incurred the expanditure and futher, the candidate has under-

taken the liability to reimburse. These would constitute the material facts of an election petition, which is

filed, alleging coruupt practice within the ambit of Section 123(6) read with Section 77 of the Act and Rule

90 of the conduct of Election Rules”. Therefore, it would be necessary to examine the residue of averments

made in the election petition to find out whether such material facts had in fact been averred in the election

petition.

51.

further the Supereme Court in case of Anil Vasudev Salgaonkar Vs. Naresh Kushali Shigaonkar (2009) 9

SCC 310 held at paras 51 & 57 as under.

“51.

This Court in Samant N. Balkrishna v. George Fernandez (1969) 3 SCC 238 has expressed itself in

no uncertain terms that the omission of a single material fact would lead to an incomplete cause

of action and that an election petition without the material facts relating to a corrupt practice

is not an election petition at all. In Udhav Singh Vs. Madhav Rao Scindia (1977) 1 SCC 511 the

law has been enunciated that all the primary facts which must be proved by a party to

establish a cause of action or his defence are material facts. In the context of a charge of corrupt

practice it would mean that the basic facts which constitute the ingredients of the particular cor-

rupt practice alleged by the petitioner must be specified in order to succeed on the charge.

Whether in an election petition a particular fact is material or not and as such required to be

pleaded is dependent on the nature of the charge levelled and the cirumstances of the case. All

the facts which are essential to clothe the petition with complete cause of action must be

pleaded and failure to plead even a single material fact would amount to disobedience of the

mandate of section 83(1)(a). An election petition therefore can be and must be dismissed if it

suffers from any such vice. The first ground of challenge must therefore fall.

57.

It is settled legal position that all “material facts” must be pleaded by the party in support of the

case set up by him within the period of limitation. Since the object and prupose is to enable the

opposite party to know the case he has to meet with, in the absence of pleading, a party cannot be

allowed to lead evidence. Failure to state even a single material fact will ential dismissal of the

election pettiion. The election petition must contain a concise statement of “material facts” on

which the petition relies.”

52.

Further in (2010) 1 SCC 466-Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao the Supreme court

has held that it is a settled principle of law that evidence beyond the pleadings can neither be permitted to be

adduced nor can such evidence be taken into account. As such the standard of proof was amphasized in such

case law. Similar view was adopted in (2000) 8 SCC 191-Ravinder Singh Vs. Janmeja Singh wherein it

was also held that “it is an the established proposition that no evidence can be led on a plea not raised in the

pleadings and that no amount of evidence can cure defect in the pleadings”.

53.

Further in case law reported in (2014) 1 SCC 46-Regu Mahesh allas Regu Mheswar Rao Vs. Rajendra

Pratap Bhanj Dev the importance of setting out the sources of information in affidavits came up for consid-

eration and it was held that the sources of information should be clearly disclosed. It was also held that real

importace of setting out the sources of infomation at the time of presentation of the petition is to give the

ohter side notice of the contemporaneous evidence on which the election petition is based and that will give

an opportunity to the other side to test the genuiness and veracity of the sources of information.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1841

54.

Keeping in view the aforesaid law laid down by the Supreme Court, the pleadings and evidence of the

present case are examined together with reference to the pleadings in different paras and available evidence.

55.

At para 4 of the petition, it is pleaded that had the returned candidate would not have adopted the corrupt

practice, the petitioner would have been elected. At para 5 of the petition, it is pleaded that the entire petion

is solely based particularly on the ground u/s 123(6) of the R.P. Act and at para 6 it is sated that the

maximum outer-limit of expenditure was prescribed as Rs. 16 Lakhs for the Assembly Constituency. The

averments with respect to outer limit of expenditure are not in dispute as would be evident from Ex.P-5,

which is a gazette of India wherein Chhattisgarh State is placed at Serial No. 26. For Assembly Election, the

outer limit is fixed at Rs. 16 lakhs. The petitioner further at para 7 has stated that if the petitioner would be

able to show the expenditure incurred was more than Rs. 16 lakhs, then necessarily the election has to be

declared void.

56.

Further at para 8 it is pleaded that respondent No. 1 the returned candidate has spent more than Rs. 16 lakhs.

In this para, the expenditure which was incurred more than Rs. 16 lakhs has not been stated. The document

for this purpose has been exhibited as Ex. P-6 which is an expenditure register wherein (at interval page

114) it shows that the expenditure has been shown by Respondent No. 1 as Rs. 8,48,290/-. The petitioner in

his statement has stated that according to him, the expenses of Rs. 46,58,276/- has been incurred and further

has exhibited the document Ex.P-8 which is a Register of the expenditure observer wherein the figure of Rs.

14,01,802/- was shown. Now it we refer to Ex. D-2, the figure accepted by DEMC (District Expenditure

Monitoring Committee) has been shown Rs. 11,72,702/-. Therefore, the finality of the figure of over expen-

diture has not been correctly pleaded and proved by the petitioner.

57.

The petitioner further at para 9 of the petition stated that some of the expenses were not included by the

returned candidate and further some of the expenses which were shown by the respondent have not been

added by the expenditure observer. It is stated that the expenditure observer was obliged to include such

expenses. Therefore, the pleading is made that had the expenditure observer whould have added such ex-

penses, the figure would have been gone more than maximum presecribed limit. Reading of this para would

show that it is silent as to what figure was excluded by the observer which were shown by the returned

candidate apart from the expenditure arrived at by the Election Expenditure Observer. It would be the

material particulars and omnibus allegation cannot be held to be sufficient and the entire over expenses have

been pleaded. As the instant election petition is based solely on fact that expenditure was incurred over and

above the prescribed limit, therefore, this part of pleading is held to be completely vague as the respondent

could not be taken by surprise by picking up a figure during evidence that such expenditure has not been

added by the observer. Had there been pleading, the respondent/returned candidate could have replied to it

either by denial or admission but in absence of it, the head-wise non-disclosure of income cannot be consid-

ered. Further more, the reading of para 9 would certainly lead to point out that allegations and accusation(s)

have been on the expenditure observer that certain expenditure has not been included. The said expenditure

observer was not brought before the Court. Consequently apart from the pleading, the plaintiff was required

to call the witness in evidence to prove this fact especially when the expenditure observer was an enlisted

witness. Therefore, the necessary conclusion is that neither pleadings have been made as to what are the

figures which were left out by the Election Expenditure Observer nor it has been proved by the petitioner by

calling important witness. In the circumstances, the court may not sit to play the role of auditor over the

accounts so accepted by the expenditure observer.

58.

Further Para 10 of petition starts with repeated averments that the expenditure observer has not included

certain expenditure by the respondent/returned candidate from 01-11-2013 to 08-12-2013 and it is sated

that the plaintiff is in possession of various documents. Reading of the petition would show that pleadings

are absent as to what were those documents, what was the source of information, what is the authenticity of

such docements. Therefore, the best avidence i.e., the election observer who could have thrown light on

these issues was withheld for the reasons best known to the petitioner to prove the contents of Para 10.

59.

Pleadings and evidence on expenses of nomination rally took place on 01-11-2013 at para 10(a)-(a). Now

reverting to para 10(a) of the petition it would reflect that the narrations have been made, in this para in two

parts i.e. of nomination rally wherein it is stated that (i) the expenses towards construction of stage has not

been added and (ii). Further it is stated that 4000-5000 persons were present in the meeting, most of them

were wearing hats having party symbol of lotus and more than 50 vehicles were deployed, In order to prove

the same, it is stated that the source of information of such allegations are gathered from the compact disk

from which the photographs were taken. The quantification of expenses has been stated to be Rs. 1,11,500/-.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1842

Reading of the entire para do not disclose of the averments that expenses were incurred by returned candi-

date or his agent. Such pleadings are absent. In order to prove the nomination rallies the petitioner has

marked CDs as Ex.P-9 & P-60. Admittedly, the CDs so exhibited are not accompanied by any certificate as

required u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act. Therefore as has been held in the foregoing paragraph that the CDs

are not admissible in evidence, no reference can be made to such CDs. The photographs are marked as Ex

P-10 and since it is stated that the photographs Ex.P-10 have been obtained from CD. the CD having been

inadmissible in evidence, consequently Ex.P-10 photographs would also become inadmissible in evidence.

In this context Ex.P-30 has been marked by the petitioner which is a communication that certain videography

of the nomination was sent to the record room of election commission. The letter is purported to be signed

by the Deputy Election Officer. The reference of this letter, however, is completely missing in the pleading.

Similar document is Ex.P-31 which is a ‘Q’ sheet. The pleading to this effect is also completely missing in

the petition. Now if we refer to the reply of the respondent for use of the Stage, it is stated that the stage is

a permanent structure which was constructed by the Municipal Corporation for which an amount

of Rs. 1100/- was paid to the Municipality for the use of stage. The returned candidate has denied the fact

that the people were wearign hats and caps of Bjp symbols Since the evidence by petitioner about the

preparation of stage and wearing of cap with Bjp symbol are not based on primary evidence as such it would

be completely inadmissible to act upon.

60.

Further at para 70 of the deposition of the petitioner, it is stated that the quantification of amount

of Rs. 1,11,500/- has been stated on an estimation which is being arrived at after viewing the CD. The

expenditure is attributed to the barricades and further pettioner has stated at Para 89 of the deposition that

with respect to the averments of para 10(a), number of vehicles with flag and banner has been stated after

viewing the CD. With respect to CD. P.W. 2 P. Dayanand the returning officer had stated that he cannot say

the CDs which were provided by him i.e. Ex. P-9 and Ex. P-60 are one and the same. The same witness

further at para 10 again stated that the CD which has been placed and exhibited before the Court cannot be

said that the same CD has been placed which was issued. Similar statement has been made by P.W. 3 U.S.

Agrawal. The witness P.W. 3 at Para-3, on being confronted with the CDs exhibited has stated that the CDs

which were issued were containing the date, time, particulars of the programme and the place and it was

written in the CD and the CD having been confronted, he stated that he cannot confirm that the same CD has

been exhibited. On this issue DW-3 the Chief Municipal Officer with respect to the stage had stated that for

use of Gandhi Maidan after obtaining permission from SDO, the premises is allowed to be used and Rs.

1100/- is being charged. It is further stated that Rs. 1100/- was charged from returned candidate Ashok Sahu

for the use of Gandhi Maidan. With respect to the stage, it is stated that the permanent stage is constructed

in Gandhi Maidan and no furhter erection of stage is required. The Documents Ex. D-7 & D-8 have been

marked which show the position of the stage and Gandhi Maidan. Therefore, comparing the pleadings and

evidence would lead to show that the petitioner has not been able to establish by pleading and proof the

expenditure at nomination rally held on 01-11-2013. The oral evidence and the source of information has

been made only on the basis of CDs which are admissible in evidence, therefore, such or a evidence would

also become inadmissible in the result, it is held that the allegations of para 10(a) about over expenditure in

the nomination rally have not been proved.

61.

PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGED EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC MEET-

ING OF SU. SHRI UMA BHARTI HELD ON 09-11-2013 AT PARA 10(B)

(i)

The petitioner has averred that 500 feet running barricades were made therefore taking the rate of

barricades @ Rs. 50/- per feet and Rs. 50/- should have been taken instead of Rs. 1000/-. No

quantification has been made with respect to barricades in the pleadings. Further the

expenditure of Rs. 6000/- for construction of stage has been alleged to be not included thereby the

total expenditure has been quantified to be Rs. 30,000/-. In such para, the source of information

has not been stated. It is also not pleaded that the expenditure of Rs. 6000/- for the stage was borne

by the returned candidate. The copy of the CD in this regard is marked as Annexure P-11 and the

photographs of the said CD are marked as Ex. P-12. Further to prove Ex. P-62 the CD of the rally

of Uma Bharti has been stated at Para 49 by the petitioner. The respondents as against this has

stated that the barricades were not made and only bamboos were installed and Rs. 1000/- was paid

for the tent used for the set up.Ex.P-11 the CD has been stated to be obtained by the petitioner

from the District Election Officer. At para 71 of deposition the fact of 500 feet barricades has been

stated on the basis of CD. In the statement of P.W. 1 at Para 73. It is stated that the expenses of Rs.

30,000/- have been written after watching the C.D. The witness P.W. 2 the returning officer on

being confronted with Ex. P 11 & P-62 has denied the same and stated that he cannot say that

the exhibited CDs are the same CDs which were issued. Similary statement has been made by P.W.

3 the video team incharge, therefore, the authenticity of the CDs. not be taken into consideration as

the same have not been prove beyond doubt and are not accompained by necessary certificate.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1843

62.

Since the allegations of para 10(b) with respect to source of information is based on CD, therefore, after

reading the facts, pleading and evidence, it is held that the petitioner has failed to prove the averments of

para 10(b) with respect to over expenditure incurred at rally of Su. Shri Uma Bharti.

63.

PLEADING 8 EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO KALA JATHHA FOR 10-11-2013 TO 17-11-2013 at

para 10 (c) of the petitioner.

Now, coming to the pleadings and evidence with respect to performance of kala Jathha, it is pleaded

at para 10(c) that during the course of election campaign, kala jathha had performed from 10th to 17th

November, 2013. It is stated that Rs. 1 lakh ‘might’ have been incurred as the troop of kala jathha had come

from out side of Kawardha. The pleading do not disclose the source of information. Further particulars of

ex-penses of lodging, boarding etc., whether they stayed in a lodge or private house has not been stated. The

relevant document is marked as EX. P.-13. The document Ex. P. 13 purports a permission granted for the

purpose of Kala jathha. The returned candidate had stated that only 4 persons of Kala jthha were engaged.

The returned candidate had admitted the fact that Kala jathha team had performed for 8 days. It is stated that

4 persons were engaged @ Rs. 2000/- per day and they were permitted to move around on the vehicle. The

petitioner in his deposition at para 74 had stated that the “estimated” expenses of Rs. 1 lakh has not been

disclosed by any one but it is stated on the basis of the permission granted it is further stated that since the

performance was made from 10-11-2013 to 17-11-2013, as such, he has “estimated” the expenses of Rs. 1

lakh. The pleading shows the basis for which “estimation” has been stated is not pleaded and placed on

record. Further at para 190 of the deposition the petitioner has stated that the expenses of Rs. 88,200/-,

66,150, 5000/-, 45,000/-, 40,50/-, 39,050/-, 22,050/- & Rs. 27,000/- have not been pleaded in the petition

though had stated in the affidavit. Further the petitioner has volunteered that the expenses of Rs. 1 lakh has

been pleaded on “estimation”.

64.

Further at para 245 of deposition, it is contended that pettioner himself has not seen the performance of kala

jathha, however stated that programme had taken place for which the permission was obtained. In this

context, if the affidavit attahced with the petition is referred, at para (a) of the affidavit, it is stated that the

contents of para 1(a) to (o), of the election petition are true to the personal knowledge of the petitioner.

Further again in the affidavit attached to the election petition at para 2 it is stated that the contents of para

1 to 16 of the election petition are true to the personal knowledge of the petitioner. Therefore, if the affidavit

and the statements are read together it contradicts each other as at one part it is stated that he has not seen

the performence of kala jathha personally but in the affidavit attaceed to the petition, it is stated that it is

true to the personal knowledge which includes the performance of kala jathha, The petitioner further has

stated that the entire expenses has been asserted on the basis of assumption, particularly, the amount of

expenses has been stated in exmination-in-chief, but it does not find in the petition. If the petitioner wanted

to assert that particular amount of expenditure has been incurred then in such a case, it is to be pleaded,

Neither the particulas of such pleadings are present in the pettiion nor the proof of facts have been estab-

lished that the petitioner has personally seen the performance of Kala jathha. Therefore, on admission of

respondent No. 1 that Kala jathha has been performed, it cannot be presumed hypothetically that the

expenses as asserted by the petitioner was incurred. So the expenditure estimated by the petitioner with

respect to Kala jathha, is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, it is held that the averments made

in para 10(c) has not been proved.

65.

PLEADEING AND EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO CULTURAL PROGRAMME AT 8 VILLAGES ON

11.11.2013 & 12.11.2013. At para 10(d) it is pleaded that on 11.11.2013 & 12.11.2013 the cultural programme

was conducted at the instance of returned candidate at 8 villages. In reply to this the respondent has denied

the entire averments. It is further stated that cultural programme for the entire State of Chhattisgarh was

organized by the State B.J.P., and not by the answering respondent and only loud speakers were provided by

this respondent which has already been shown. The reading of petition would show that the source of

income again has not been stated in his pleading. At para 78 of the deposition, the petitioner has stated that

the expenses has been projected on the basis of permission which was granted. Ex.P-14 is the document of

permission granted for such performance. The pleading is absent as to in which villages such programmes

were organized. Further in deposition of P.W. 1 at Para 246, it is further admitted that the programmes

which were conducted in 8 villages were not seen by the petitioner in person. Further it is also admitted that

names of those persons who have seen the programmes have also not been stated in affidavit and only

assessment of expenditure has been made on the basis of persmission granted. Therefore, when specific

incidence o over expenditure is alleged in such case the petitioner was obliged to again prove the fact that

the cultural programmes were actually organized in 8 villages and the expenses as shown, were incurred.

Even if such permissions for the purpose of programme are admitted, in absence of any proof that actually

any programme took place at the instance of Respondent No. 1 the returned candidate, again the presump-

tion cannot replace the burden of actual proof.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1844

66.

In the result, the pleading and evidence made at Para 10(d) would lead to show that the pettioner has

categorically failed to prove the fact that actually the programme had taken place with an expenditure as

stated by the petitioner, So from the pleading and evidence, it cannot be held to be proved that Respondent

No. 1 has incurred the expenses in such cultural programmes as alleged by the petitioner.

67.

PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE OF RALLY OF SHRI NARENDRA MODI AS PLEADED AT PARAS

10(e) & with respect to rally of star campaigners at para 10 (e) & (f) the expenditure has been pleaded about

the rally conducted by Shri Narendra Modi. It is stated that number of vehicles were used with the flags and

posters of Bjp and the persons who participated in the rally when asked by the observer, they had stated that

they had come at the instance of the returned candidate. The said rally was stated to be organized on 14-11-

2013. The pleading shows a list of 12 vehicles with flags and banners. It is further pleaded that amount of

Rs. 20,300/- ought to have been shown or added by the returned candidate or by the observer in the state-

ment of account. Further reading would show that it is alleged that the said meeting was addressed by

Narendra Modi Chief Minister of Gujrat and Dr. Raman Singh, Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh wherein

15000-20000 people were present. The barricades have been stated to be used for 1000 feet and thereby Rs.

50,000/- towards expenses should have been added as per the rate fixed by the Election Commission, there-

fore, less amount has been added. In reply, to this para, the returned candidate has stated that it was a

meeting of two constituencies i.e. Kawardha and Pandariya Kawardha is a constituency where the returned

candidate and pettioner had contested in reply. It is further stated that the entire expenses for the banners

had been shown in the account. Further in reply it is stated that the vehicles were passing through the road

at the time were shown and only one vehicle was having banner and persmission and the rest of vehicles

were of passersby or visitors. It is further stated in reply that the respondent has paid Rs. 43,530/- towards

expenses of tent house and bamboos. Reading of para 10(e) & (f) would indicate that source of information

has not been stated.

68.

In order to establish the said rally, the pettioner has placed on record Ex.P-15 the CD, P-16 the photographs

taken out from the said CD (P-15). The other CDs are marked as Ex.P-63, Ex.P-64 & Ex.P-65. Admittedly

all the CDs do not contain any certificate as required u/s 65B of the Evidence Act. Therefore, as discussed

herein before, are inadmissible in evidence. So the entire source of information as has been stated to be is

based on CD and the pleading made in this regard cannot be accepted.

69.

Now if the statement of the pettioner is referred, the averments have been made that on 14-11-2013 a public

meeting was held by Shri Narendra Modi of Bhartiya Janta Party in favour of Ashok Sahu and the CD was

stated to be Ex.P-15. It was stated that the said CD was obtained from the District Election Officer. With

respect to Ex. P-63 which is stated to be CD of the public meeting held by Shri Narendra Modi in favour of

Ashok Sahu at Sardar Patel Ground it is stated to be obtained from Collector’s office. Ex. P-64 is stated to

be a CD wherein Pramod Kumar the expenditure observer has been shown to have been making enquiry

with respect to the same rally of Narendra Modi with respect to the vehicle used by the persons participated

in such meeting Ex. P-65 has been stated to be the CD of the same rally organized by Narendra Modi

wherein it is stated that it was obtained from Collector’s office. Therefore, two statements are on record.

The CD Ex. P-15 has been stated to have been received from the District Election Office whereas the other

CD has been stated to have been received from the office of Collector. Further the deposition of petitioner at

para 81 would show that the petitioner has stated about the number of vehicle which has been shown in the

petition is deposed after watching the CD. At para 82 of deposition the petitioner further stated that the

averments of para 10(e) of the petition with respect to expenditure of Rs. 20,000/- has been made after

watching the CD. Para 83 & 84 of deposition further stated about the presence of 15000-20000 people,

which is made on the basis of CD. it is also stated that facts are narrated both on the basis of CD as also on

the personal information as he had happened to pass through the place, on the same day of rally. The

petitioner, however, has denied the averments that he has personally seen the said rally of Narendra Modi on

14-11-2013.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1845

70.

Further at Para 247 the petitioner has stated that the averments of para 10(e) & 10(f) with respect to number

of persons present at the rally organized on 14-11-2013, assertions have been made on the basis of CD. The

petitioner had admitted the fact that in para 10(f) of the petition it was mentioned that about 15000-20000

people were present in the rally. On being specifically asked, in reply, the petitioner has stated that at para

15 of the affidavit, the presence of 10000-12000 people has been mentioned on the basis of CD since he had

seen the CD at the time of filing the petition as also thereafter. The statement would show that the petitioner

has maintained the stand that both the statements are correct about the number of people present i.e. 10000-

12000 made in the affidavit and subsequently as has been stated of number of people of 15000-20000. The

pleading and evidence would show that with respect to rally at one part the petitioner has contended that the

entire use of expenditure like tent, barricades further runnig of vehicles and the presence of persons have

beeen made on the basis of CD and furhter in cross-examination it is stated that he himself has seen the rally

on the same day as he was a passerby. Therefore, the inconsistency in pleading and proof exists. Further if

once the CDs are produced as source of information is revealed on the basis of CD then in such eventuality

by virtue of section 59 of the Evidence Act, oral statement would be inadmissible in evidence.

71.

With respect to oral evidence reading it with the pleading, the source of information has been stated to be

from the CD and if the CDs are inadmissible then in such case entire base of allegations fall to the ground.

It is noteworthy to add that when the allegation of corupt practice is made mainly on the ground of expen-

diture over the limit prescribed, the proof of evidence in election petition being the quasi criminal in nature,

it has to be specifically pleaded and proved that the said expenses were made with the consent of the

candidate and it would be necessary to over the facts that the candidate has incurred expenditure or has

authorised any person to incur the expenditure or that his election agent has incurred the expenditure and

further the candidate has undertaken the liability to reimburse. So in absence of clear proof, pleading and

evidence it would be in the realm of conjecture requiring the court to draw inference by adopting an in-

volved process of reasoning and that would not satisfy the requirement of the pleading of the material facts

and proof thereof. Therefore, the averments of expenditure of rally conducted by Shri Narendra Modi has

not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

72.

PLEADING AND EVIDENCE OF RALLY ORGANISED BY Dr. RAMAN SINGH ON 15-11-2013-With

respect to road show held by Raman Singh, the Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh on 15-11-2013 at village

Podi and Kawardha, it is pleaded at para 10(g) of the petition that the observer has added an amount

of Rs. 3840/-, but at least a sum of Rs. 10,000/- should have been included. In reply, the respondent has

stated that the amount of Rs. 1250/- has been shown for the expenditure incurred for the stage and loud

speaker. It has been stated by the respondent that it was a road show ending on a particular place and

therefore, the small gathering of road show was addressed by Dr. Raman Singh and there was no need to

install a full stage. In this para or petitiion, the source of information has not been stated. It is also not

specifically pleaded whether respondent No. 1 was present in the said road show or gathering. The informa-

tion has been stated to be based on Ex.P-18 i.e. compact disk. Admittedly no certificate has been attached as

required u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act, therefore, the source of information as has been stated to have been

based on the CD cannot be accepted as the CD itself is inadmissible in evidence. At para 52 of the

statement, the petitioner contendedthat the said CD Ex.P-66 was taken from the Collector’s office and cat-

egorically-contended that the allegation of road show conducted by Raman Singh is based on the basis of

CD.

73.

With respect to averments made in para 10(g) of petition, the statements have been made at para 86 of

deposition. The petitioner at Para 248 of deposition has admitted that he has not stated that the said road

show was related to the election, if the pleading and evidence are read together, it would go to show that the

pleading and evidence of facts are adduced on the basis of CD. Nowhere it is stated that the programme was

organized by the returned candidate or the returned candidate was present at such road show. Therefore, the

allegations so made at para 10(g), the petitioner has not been able to prove the fact to the satisfaction of the

Court that the rally organized by Raman Singh was at the behest of the returned candidate so as to hold the

expenses at the instance of respondent returned candidate. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances, the

averments of para 10(g) with respect to corrupt practice cannot be held to be proved.

74.

In the context of above, the petitioner has further contended that for the second phase of Kawardha polling,

no list of candidates of star campainers was given within the stipulated time and date. It is contended that

the notification was made on 25-10-2013 and therefore, as per instruction 38 of the Hand Book instructions

and Section 77 of the R.P. Act, 1951 if the list has not been given within 7 days to the Election Commission

and the Chief Electoral Office from the date of notification, the travelling expenses has to be included in the

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1846

expenses of returned candidate. The documents with respect to communications on relevant issues are

marked as Ex. D-4, Ex. D-9, & Ex D-10. Now the question arises as to whether they satisfy the requirement

of Explanation-2 to Section 77(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951? The section mandates that the list of the leaders of

political party i.e. the star campaigners should have been given within a period of 7 days from the date of

notification. Admittedly, the notification for election was made on 25-10-2013 for the second phase of

election of Kawardha. The communication Ex. D-4 is the letter date 02-11-2013 awhich purported to be

sent by the joint Chief Election Officer D.D. Singh to the District Election Officer and the Collector,

Kawardha. The Letter is with enclosures. It includes the letter of Bjp of C.G., dated -01-11-2013 and

enclosure of letter and list of Bjp Election Cell, Delhi dated 31-10-2013 along-with list of star campaigners.

Perusal of the entire Ex. D-4 alongwith enclosure would reveal that it contains a letter sent by Bjp Chhattisgarh

Pradesh on 01-11-2013 along-with the letter of office of Bjp Delhi dated 31-10-2013 which is an endorse-

ment of the receipt of 31st October, 2013 by Election Commission, of India, by such letter, the BJP Election

cell, Delhi had given the list of star campaigners to election Commission New Delhi Perusal of the list of

safar campaigners would show that it includs the names of shri Narendra Modi Dr. Raman Singh and

Su.Shri Uma Bharti at Serial No.-3 9 & 13.

75.

The witness D.D. Singh who was examined as P.W. 6 has stated that he was working as joint Chief Election

Officer at Chhattisgarh and was posted during the period of election of 2013. He has further stated at Para 8

that the list of star campaigners for the second phase was deposited by the Bjp party at Election Commission

at Delhi on 31-10-2013 and with the Chhattisgarh Chief Election Office on 01-11-2013 which was further

forwarded by him by letter dated 02-11-2013 to the Collector and District Election Officers. The document

Ex.D-4 was confronted at the time of cross examination to the plaintiff witness. In the result, as it was

confronted during cross examination, the same is admitted for the purpose of evidence. The document

Ex.D-4 is also attached with the letter dated 01-11-2013 of Bjp was sent by Naresh Gupta who is examined

as D.W. 2 Naresh Gupta has not denied his signature. The enclosure of Ex. D-4 letter is also marked as Ex.

D-10. Therefore, Ex. D-10 & D-4 are one and the same. Ex. D-9 is the list of star campaigners submitted by

the office of BJP Delhi dated 31-10-2013. The list of compaigners was deposited in fulfilment to section 77

of the explanation (2) of Representation of People Act, 1951 and the said letter is along-with the letter

which also form part of Ex. D-4. The instructions issued by the Election Commission vide instruction No.

5.6.1 would show that it is a direction with respect to the expenditure on account of travel expenses of star

campaigners. The instructions have been issued that the Chief Electoral Officer after receiving the informa-

tion during the prescribed period regarding list of star campaigner from the recognized political party shall

make it available to all the Returning Officers/District Election Officer/Expenditure observer and place it

on their website. Therefore, the instruction as is given would show that compliance was made by the Chief

Electoral Officer in terms of such instructions and in furtherance of explanation (2) of Section 77 of the R.P.

Act.

76.

Now it we refer to document Ex.P-50, it refers to demand made by the petitioner under RTI with respect to

various documents. In such demand at Serial No. 17 the petitioner has asked for details of programme i.e.

all the documents and the CD of the star campaigners and other campaigners namely Pawan Diwan,

Madhusudan Yadav, Abhishek Singh son of Chief Minister, Veena Singh wife of Raman Singh Chief

Minister etc. The said document is a handwritten document which is of 05-05-2014. The petitioner in his

statement at para 112 stated that he do not remember that how many times, he had asked for the list of star

campaigners and stated that for the second phase of star campaigner he made an application on 05-05-2014.

77.

If the statement is further examined with respect to document, Ex.P-50 the demand, a colse scrutiny thereof

would show that the petitioner had not requested for any list of star campaigner but instead had requested

for document relating to programmes of star campaigners along-with CD. At para 50 of the statement of the

petitioner, the petitioner had again stated that he applied for a list of star witnesses of second phase as per

Ex.P-50 and again had asked for the list of star campaigner and had also asked for the copy of star cam-

paigner on 30-12-2013. Therefore, two demands are stated to have been made by the petitioner for the list

of star campaigners on 30-12-2013. & 05-05-2014. Admittedly, the document dated 30-12-2013 is not on

record. The election petition was filed on 20th January 2014. So with respect to the availability of list of star

campaigners, as per the instructions of Election Commission No. 5.6.1 the same was required to be placed

on website and evidence available would indicate that it was complied. So in order to prove the fact with

certainty the pettioner could have availed those documents from the website or could have placed the facts

on record that even in the website the said list of political leaders were not available. A close reading of

document of demand Ex.P-50 would show that it is dated 05-05-2014. The election petition was filed on 20-

01-2014, therefore, it can be inferred in absence of any evidence that petitioner had not made nay effort to

get the list of political leaders at the time of filing of petition and demand was made subsequently, therefore,

as appears only on assumption and presumption the statements of non-submission of list of political leaders

have been made. So considering the available facts jointly would indicate that in reply to RTI made by the

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1847

petitioner, reply to demand caluse 17 prescribing as ‘Nirank’ (zero) can not be interpreted that no list of

political leaders i.e., star campaigners were communicated by the political party BJP.

78.

It is not a case of petitioner that the documents Ex.D-4, D-9, D-10 which pertains to communications of

names of star compaigners are stated to be forged. So as observed that list of star campaigners was furnished

the second aspect would be what would be the starting point and last date of such submission to get the

benefit to the explanation clause (2) of Section 77(1) of R. P. Act, 1951. Admittedly, the date of second

phase of notification was notified on 25-10-2013. Therefore primafacie the 7the day appears to be on 01-11-

2013.

79.

In order to calculate whether the list was submitted within 7 days of notification, it would be necessary to

make a reference of section 9 of the General Clauses Act 1897. For the sake of brevity Section 9 of the

General Clauses Act is reproduced hereinbelow;

5.9

Commencement and termination of time,-

(1)

In any [ Central Act ] or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act, it shall be

sufficient for the purpose of excluding the first in a series of days or any other period of

time to use the word “from” and, for the purpose of including the last in a series of days or

any other period of time, to use the word “to”

(2)

This section applies also to all [ Ceneral Acts ] made after the third day of January, 1868,

and to all regulations made on or after the fouteenth day of January 1887.” therefore by

application of the aforesaid section, when the notification was made on 25-10-2013. Such

date would be excluded and by addition of 7th day the last for submission of list of

political leaders/star campaigners would be on 01-11-2013. The document Ex.D-4,

Ex.D-9 and Ex.D-10 would show that the list of leaders by Bhartiya Janta Party was

supplied on 31-10-2013 at Election Commission, New Delhi and similar list was depos-

ited with Election Commission, Chhattisgarh on 01-11-2013 by Ex.D-10. Therefore, it

can be safely presumed that the list of leaders was deposited by BJP within 7 days of

notification of election.

80.

Besides this, further when reference is made to section 114(e) of the Evidence Act it raises a presumption of

correctness with respect to fact that the Court may presume that the judicial and official act have been

regularly performed. The relevent part of section 114(e) of the Evidence Act is reproduced hereinbelow.

114.

Court may presume existence of certian facts.-The court may presume the existence of any

fact which it thinks likely to have happened, regard being had to the common course of natural

events, human conduct and public and private business, in their relation to the facts of the particu-

lar case.

(e)

‘that judicial and official acts have regularly performed;

In this context, witness P.W. 2 P. Dayanand in his statement at para 2 has stated that he was a returning

officer for the election of 2013. At para 21 he admitted that for the second phase, he has received the list of

star campaigners in his office and the said list was received before the time period the witness P.W. 6 D.D.

Singh who was the joint Election Officer of Chhattisgarh at para 1 has stated that he was a joint Election

Officer and further at Para 8 has stated that the list of star campaigners was received at office election

commission on 31-10-2013 and in the office Chhattisgarh Election Commission on 01-11-2013 and in was

forwarded by him to the Collector and District Election Officer on 02-11-2013.

81.

Therefore, considering this statement along-with document Ex.D-4 & Ex.D-10 it would raise a presumption

that necessary formalities as required were complied with. In order to draw such analogy the principle as

laid down in a case law reported in AIR 1934 Privy Council 217-Mohammad Akbar Khan Vs. Mlan Mushraf

Shah may be referred which lays down that in absence of any avidence to the contrary, it ought to be

presumed that all necessary formalities were complied with.

82.

Witness Naresh Chandra Gupa (D.W.2) has stated that the list of star campaigners was submitted to the

Chief Election Officer, Chhattisgarh, as such if the link of chain of correspondence is proved with reference

to the Statement, the statement of Election Officer would be of much relevance who was in custody of the

said document and has deposed in favour of submission of list. The instruction of Election commission at

instructions 5.6.1 mandetes to forward copy of list of political leaders to Collector, District Election Officer,

Expenditure Observer etc. So the ratio laid down in AIR 1957 SC 857 Mobarik Ali Ahmad Vs. The State of

Bombay (at Page 864) would be applicable in the facts of the case. The Court held thus;

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1848

“It may also be proved by internal evidence afforded by the contents of the document. This last

mode of proof by the contents may be of considerable valug where the disputed document purports to be a

link in a chain of correspondence, some links in which are proved to the satisfaction of the Court. In such

situation the person who is the recipient of the document, be it either a letter or a telegram, would be in a

reasonably good position both with reference to his prior knowledge of the writing or the signature of the

alleged sender limited through it, may be as also his knowledge of the subject matter of the chain of

correspondence, to speak to its authorship.”

83.

Here the evaluation of evidence would show the genuine link of chain of correspondence and its authorship

has been established thereby all proof of genuineness of the correspondence of Ex.D-4, Ex.D-9 and Ex.D-

10 is established that the list of star campaigners was submitted by BJP in compliance with explanation 2 of

section 77(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 and it is proved that the list of political leaders/star campaigners were

communicated to election commission and the Chief Electioral Officer within 7 days of the notification. As

a result, the travelling expenses incurred over such star campaigner cannot be included in election expendi-

ture of the candidate.

84.

THE PLEADING 8 EVIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO THE ROAD SHOW BY Dr. RAMAN SINGH

AT PARA 10 (g) OF THE PETITION—with respect to road show held by Dr. Raman Singh on 15-11-2013,

it is mentioned at para 10(g). The petitioner has stated that the stage of 500 square feet was made but only

Rs. 3840/- was added as expenditure. In this para also the source of information has not been stated and it

has been stated that on the basis of Ex.P-18 the C.D. the averments have been made. The respondent

returned candidate has denied the averments of para 10(g). It is stated that only the amount was paid for the

stage and the loud speakers, The documents to prove the contents of pleading is CD Ex. P-18. P.W.1 has

furhter stated that the photographs were taken from Ex.-18 CD and was maked as Ex.P-19, Another CD is

marked as Ex.P-66 which has been stated to have been obtained from the Collector’s office. Reading of para

10(g) would further indicate that the road show of 25-11-2013 is not alleged to have been related to the

election which is further corroborated by the petitioner at para 248 of his deposition. Therefore, the analysis

of the entire pleadings and evidence would show that the pleadings have been made on the basis of CD.

Since the CD do not containe the certificate as requried u/s 65-B of the Evidence Act, the same is inadmis-

sible. As the CDs Ex.P-18 & Ex.P-66 are inadmissible in evidence, consequently, the photographes Ex.P-

19 taken out from the CD would also become inadmissible.

85.

PLEADING & EVIDENCE OF MOTORCYCLE RALLY AT PARA 10(h)-At para 10(h) of petition the

pleading is made that the rally of 100 motorcycles carrying with flags was organized propagating the cause

of returned-candidate and the rally of motorcycles was to pass through 35 kilometers long way and the

expenditure of Rs. 15,000/- has been projected. To establish such facts, the petitioner has proved Ex.P.-20

wherein it shows that a permission for the rally of motorcylces from village Khara to Samnapur was given

for 17-11-2013 from 2.00 p.m., till the end of compaign. In response to it the returned candidate contended

that the rally could not be organized end carried out as the time was very short since the permission was

given from 2.00 p.m., onwards and the closing time for canvassing was uptill 5 p.m. on 17-11-2013. In

statement of petitioner at para 94, it is stated that organisation of the motorcyles rally was informed to the

petitioner by the workers. It was further admitted by the petitioner as to when and where such information

was given by the supporters has not been disclosed. The petitioner has further stated that the information

was given by Ashok Chopda and Ayub Khan of Raja Nawagaon but this fact has neither been stated in the

election petition nor in the affidavit. Therefore, it is evident that only on the basis of hearsay evidence the

petitioner has stated that the motorcycle rally was organized, but whether actually it took place has not been

proved.

86.

At para 10(i) it is stated that for the purpose of propagating the cause of returned candidate, 18 vehicles

were used but 8 vehicles have been shown by the observer and further stated that though the permission for

18 vehicles were taken but in such garb, hundreds of vehicles were used including two wheelers and 4

wheelers. Therefore, an additional amount of Rs. 17,300/- should have been added. The entire reading of

this para goes to show that it is silent about the source of information. It is also not stated that what was the

basis to make such allegation and whether the expenditure was made by the returned candidate or not. In

reply, it is stated that 18 vehicles were used and an amount of Rs. 3800/- (it should have been Rs. 30,800/-

) as expenditure was incurred. The statement of petitioner would show that such averments were made at

para 98 only on the basis of permission which was granted to respondent No. 1 vide Ex.P-21. At Para 100,

it has been further stated that averments of hundreds of vehicles were plying was made on the basis of

general talk in the area. The petitioner admitted the fact that he has not stated as to who has disclosed these

facts and again has resorted to CD as source of information. Therefore, the pleadings and evidence would go

to show that it is very vague in nature and no definite evidence is on record to show that actually how much

number of Vhicles ware usjed on the day. Again the evidence of the petitioner is based on hearsay and

therefore on the basis of permission actual expenditure of assessment cannot be done.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1849

87.

Further with respect to pleading at para 10(J) of expenses incurred on polling day, it is pleaded that at about

386 booths were functioning and on each booth agents were appointed and the returned candidate though

has shown Rs. 38,600/- but it is less by Rs. 14,000/-. It is further stated that 7 vehicles would have been plied

by the respondent and therefore anohter figure of Rs. 52600 should have been added. In reply to it, it is

stated by the returned candidate that the polling agents were local residents and therefore, no vehicle was

used and breakfast and lunch were provided @ Rs. 200/- per head. The pleadings if are examined, it would

show that the figure has been assessed on the basis of presumption. The source of information has also not

been stated. The petitioner in has evidence at para 101 admitted that the expenses of Rs. 14000/- has not

been disclosed but stated that on the basis of guidelines, it is presumed. About the distribution of food

packets the petitioner stated that in 2-3 booths he has seen that food packets were distributed whereas in

respect of other books about the distribution of food packets, It is stated that the information was received

from the workers. Therefore, no primary evidence is placed on record and evidence of distribution of food

packets is confined only to 2-3 booths, rest of the information has been stated to be on the information of the

workers is hearsay. Though the petition supported by the affidavit states that the averments of petition have

been made on the basis of personal knowledge, but the evidence destroys the same. In the result, for the

reason of conflict of statements and hearsay evidence, the petitioner has failed to prove the contents thereon.

88.

At para 10(k) of the petition, the pleading is made about the programme of 18-12-2013 (wrongly typed as

08-12-2013) when the counting had taken place. It is stated that 15 agents were deployed by respondent No.

1 and only expenditure of Rs. 2030/- has been shown but Rs. 10,000/- should have been incurred. The

pleadings are also vague as the source of information has not been pleaded. It is also not pleaded that the

said expenditure was made by returned candidate or his agent. In reply it is contended that the counting

agents were local residents and therefore no separate vehicles were used. It is further stated that the

returned candidate has provided breakfast and lunch for which the expenses were counted for. Now revert-

ing to evidence of the petitioner, at para 104 of the statement, the petitioner admitted the fact that it is not

stated as to who had given such information of 15 agents. He has further stated that it was on his personal

information. Therefore, no evidence is on record to accept the version of the petitioner. In the result, the

pleading and evidence of para 10(k) also fails.

89.

With respect of para 10(L) and (m) the averments have been made about the list of star campaigners that the

communication was not supplied as per Section 77 of R.P. Act and therefore the expenses are to be added.

As discussed earlier in the foregoing paragraphs it is held that the list of star campaigners was submitted

within the specified time of 7 days from the date of notification, consequently the expenses incurred by the

star campaigner was not included. The petitioner though had made averments that the expenses of helicop-

ter of Rs. 70,000/- per hour for service charges is quantified to Rs. 7,86,520/- but the source of information

is again silent along-with the fact that the pleading is absent to show that the expenditure was made by the

returned candidate. Even otherwise since it is held that the list of names of political leaders was furnished in

terms of explanation (2) of Section 77(1) of the R.P. Act 1957, as such, the-expenses incurred for travelling

of star campaigners/leaders of political party would be exempted to be counted on the head of election

expenditure.

90.

The petitioner has exhibited the document as Ex.P-22 which is the list of the star campaigners. Ex.P-23 is

document of permission of landing of Dr. Raman Singh for 15-11-2013 Similarly Ex.P-24 is exhibited

which is also landing permission of Helicopter of Dr. Raman Singh of 14-11-2013. Ex.P-25 is the permis-

sion of landing of helicopter of Shri Narendra Modi, the Chief Minister of Gujrat alongwith Dr. Raman

Singh. Likewise, Ex.P-26 is exhibited for landing permission of Su. Shri Uma Bharti on 09-11-2013. Ex. P.

28 is also the landing permission of helicopter of 02.11.2013. Exhibits P-23, 24, 25 & 26 purport that the

said visit was made by Shri Raman Singh, Shri Narendra Modi and Su Shri Uma Bharti for election compaign

for respondent No. 1 Ashok Sahu. Since their names were shown at satar campaigners as such the expendi-

ture cannot be taken into account for the purpose expenditure made by R-1/returned candidate. Ex.P-28

purports that it was peronal visit of Dr. Raman Singh and therefore cannot be considered on the head of

expenses. The document Ex.P-33 is the expenditure for the helicopter. Likewise P-46 is the receipt of

expenditure for helipad. Ex.P-47 is also a receipt of expenditure for helipad. The document Ex.P-48 is a

receipt issued by the Municipal Council Kawardha showing payment to the Municipal Council for water

tanker. Ex.P-49 is also a receipt for landing of helicopter. Ex.P.-54 is the application to get permission for

landing of helicopter of Shri Narendra Modi, C.M., of Gujrat and tour programme of Narendra Modi is

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1850

marked as Ex.P-55. The tour programme of the landing permision of helicopter of Raman Singh for 18the

& 19th is marked as Ex.P-56. Ex.P-56 would show that it was for the purpose of Chief Minister to cast his

vote at his native place i.e., Kawardha and tour programme of Chief Minister Raman Singh is marked as

Ex.P-56. Ex.P-57 is tour programme of Uma Bharti. Again tour programme of Dr. Raman Singh is marked

as Ex.P-58.

91.

Perrusal of the aforesaid documents would show that though the documents have been exhibited, but no

pleadings in this regard has been made. Further more, the names of persons i.e., Nerendra Modi, Dr. Raman

Singh, for whom the permission was granted for landing of helicopter were included in the star campaigners

list. Therefore, the travelling expensess incurred for the star campaigners i.e., political leaders could not be

included as per section 77 explianations 1 & 2 of the R.P. Act of 1951. The names of star capaigners has

been further corroborated by Ex.D-10 wherein the list of star compaigners was submitted at the election

commission of india on 31.10.2013 and further the receipt of such list of star campaigners is proved by the

Chief Electoral Officer of the State as per Ex.D-4. The overall evidence and pleadings would lead to prove

that the contention as has been made by the petitioner that the list of star campaigners was not submitted

cannot be accepted. Therefore, the documents which have been exhibited for the travel expenses incurred

for the star campaigners become completely ineffective for the decision of the issue raised.

92.

It is further pleaded at para 10(n) that other campaigners of Bjp had come to kawardha namely Madhusudan

Yadav, Pawan Diwan and Abhishek Singh and lots of vehicles were used by them and the expenses have not

been shown and therefore an amount of Rs. 12,000/- should have been added. The allegations itself are so

vague that the petitioner himself has not stated that how many vehicles wee deployed and where they were

plying and at whose instance the vehicles were used. It is also not stated that the returned candidate had

made an expenditure. It is alleged that Madhusudan Yadav conducted the meeting. A perusal of the name of

star compaigner which is filed as Annexure D-4 would show at Serial No. 31, the name of Madhusudan

Yadav is shown. The evidence with repect to para 10(n) at Para 115 of deposition, the petitioner has

admitted the fact that he had not pleaded that where and when Madhusudan Yadav had organized the

meeting.

93.

Similar statement is made at para 117 which speaks about Abhishek Singh and admitted the fact that he is

local resident of Kawardha. It is further admitted fact that when and where Abhishek Singh and conducted

the rally has not been disclosed. With respect to Raghu Raj Singh at para 118 of deposition it is stated that

the petitioner has not mentioned that when and where Raghu Raj Singh has campaigned and organized the

meeting. He admitted this fact that he was the chairman of Sugar factory which comes under the Kawardha.

On a suggestion being made, the petitioner has stated that he has no knowledge that whether Raghuraj

Singh being Chairman of Sugar unit whether often visits the sugar factory at Kawardha or not ?. With

respect to use of vehicles, at para 119 of statement, it is stated that the number of vehicles have not been

disclosed. The petitioner though has stated that large number of vehicles were used but it is not pleaded in

the petition which vehicle was used by whom and when and where the vehicles were used. As against this

the respondent has stated that he has disclosed the use of vehicle by Pawan Diwan and the expenses were

stated in the account. Therefore, pleadings and evidence with respect to expenses incurred in various rallies

has also not been proved as is expected in the election petition.

94.

At para 10 of petition, certain derogatory remarks made by Madhusudan Yadav has been shown but consid-

eration of this averment becomes irrelevant as nothing has been placed on record to substantially establish

these allegations. Further at para 11, the petitioner has alleged that the total expenses incurred by the

returned candidate was Rs. 25,96,380/-. It is further alleged that the returned candidate has shown the

expenditure of Rs. 14,01,800/- (as per the shadow register) therefore, an amount of Rs. 12,33,380/- towards

expenditure has not been included. In reply to this para, respondent has stated that he has shown its

expenditure as Rs. 8,48,290/- which is evident from the last page of Ex.D-6 signed by the respondent and

final figure accepted by the election commission is shown at the last page Ex.D-2 to be Rs. 11,72,702/-. The

witness P.W. 2 the returning officer P. Dayanand has stated at para 18 that the returned candidate has raised

objection with respect to the expenditure shown by the observer as the observer has shown the

expenses of Rs. 14,01,802/-. The officer further admitted the fact that the objection made by the returned

candidate was decided in the meeting of DEMC Committee and further admitted that after considering the

objection of Ashok Sahu, Rs. 11,72,702/- was accepted to be the correct and final expenditure shown by the

returned candidate.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1851

95.

The petitioner though has stated that no meeting of DEMC was held but in order to establish the fact has not

called the expenditure observer in the witness box though his name was proposed as a witness. The peti-

tioner has challenged the authenticity of expenditure of final figure made by the expenditure observer of Rs.

14,01,802/-. Therefore in order to challenge such credibility, the expenditure observer who settled the final

figure should have been brought before this court by the petitioner to demolish the final account settled.

Petitioner witness P.W. 2 during cross examination at para 29 of deposition had admitted that DEMC meet-

ing was held and after the objection was raised by Ashok Sahu the expenses shown in the shadow register

i.e. Rs. 14,01,802/- was corrected.

96.

The returned candidate (D.W.1) has stated that after the objection was raised, the expenses were brought

down to Rs. 11,72,702/-. Now if we refer to Document Ex D-2 the last page of Ex.D-2 shows an amount of

Rs. 11,72,702/- is figured out.

97.

The document Ex.D-3 is the report of District Election Officer wherein the expenses of account were

reconciled as few of expenses which were shown initially by expenditure observer were not accounted for

and likewise the expenses accounted for by returned candidate which were not shown by expenditure ob-

server were considered like expenses on banners and posters, expenses shown on the date of result dated

08.12.2013 etc. So the perusal of Ex.D-5 and Ex,D-3 would show that consequential calculation was arrived

at Ex.D-5 which the basis calculations were made at Ex. D-3 and finally Rs. 11,72,702/- was arrived at. So

the contention of petitioner on the basis of account so furnished, it is not established that expenses over and

above Rs. 16 Lakhs were incurred.

98.

If further reference is made to the petition at para 11, the expenditure has been shown by the petitioner

is Rs. 25,96,380/- in the affidavit at para 20, the petitioner has stated that the additional expenses of Rs.

30,06,474/- was incurred and with the addition of Rs. 14,01,802/-, the amount of expenditure inflates to be

shown as Rs. 44,08,276/-, in further examination before the Court at Para 4, the petitioner has stated that

expenditure of Rs. 46,58,276/- was made by the respondent. Therefore, an inconsistency has been shown in

the figure of expenditure and the petitiner himself has not been able to place the facts conclusively about the

correct figure. When the petition is primarily based on over-expenditure, certainly it would be necessary for

the petitioner to substantiate the actual figure and minor discrepancies may be accepted but not in the nature

pleaded and proved. It cannot be left open to the will of the petitioner that at different points of time,

different

figures are allowed to be floated to catch the repondent by surprise.

99.

So in the light of the discussion made herein above when the case is examined, it would lead to show that the

plea raised on behalf of the petitioner while canvassing the commission of corrupt practice by respondent

No. 1, the petitioner has failed to prove the same as it is a settled principle that in the matter of election

jurisprudence, the success of a candidate who has won at an election should not be lightly interfered with

and any petition seeking such interference must strictly conform to the requirements of law. The setting

aside of election involves serious consequenses not only for the returned candidate and the constituency, but

also for the public at large inasmuch as re-election involves an enormous load on the public funds and

administration. The charge of corrupt practice is quasi criminal in character. Therefore, a trial of an election

petition though within the realm of civil law is akin to rial on a criminal charge. The allegations relating to

commission of a courrupt practice should be sufficiently clear and stated precisely so as to afford the person

chaged with full opportunity of meeting the same. Secondly, the charges when put to issue should be proved

by clear, cogent and credible evidence. To prove charge of corrupt practice a mere preponderance of

probailities would not be enough and the charge will have to be proved to the hilt, the standard of proof

being the same as in a criminal trial.

100.

Further while going through the pleading and evidence, it would show that durnig the evidence minute

particulars of expenses head-wise was stated but the same do not find place in pleading. As a consequence

the returned candidate was not provided with any opportunity to answer the same in absence of pleading.

The submission of the petitioner that the pleadings were sufficient as it was held by this Court in its order

dated 30.07.2014 cannot to aid of petitioner for the reason that at that stage when such orders were passed

the written statement by the respondent was not filed. Subsequently after filing of the written statement on

the basis of denial, the issues were framed. Since in written statement the averments of petition were not

admitted. It was for the petitioner to prove the case like nature of a criminal case and in absence of pleading,

the evidence could not be looked into.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1852

101.

Further Perusal of affidavit and statement before the Court shows that lot of differences exists in the state-

ment of the petitioner. In the affidavit filed along-with the petition shows that the averments have been

stated to be based on personal knowledge of the petitioner but in the cross examination it was negated and

narrated that the information was gathered from other sources. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to demar-

cate the line to prove that which of the statements including particulars are true to the petitioner’s own

knowledge and which of the statements including particulars are true to the information of petitioner.

102.

Further, the averments and the evidence led is vague and they are in general statement without any eviden-

tiary value thereof. Therefore, on scrutiny of the entire facts i.e. the pleading and evidence it would be in the

realm of conjecture to uphold the contention of the petitioner that the expenditure were incurred over and

above the limit as the witnesses of petitioner i.e., refurning officer itself had admitted the fact that Rs.

11,72,702/- was accepted as correct expenditure. Such evidene led on behalf of the petitioner cannot be

sidelined and for all purposes, the witnesses of the petitioner has demolished the case of the petitioner.

103.

In view of the discussion made herein above, the Court has no hesitation to come to conclusion that the

pleading and evidence are lacking to uphold the contention of the petitioner and in the result the election

petition is liable to be dismissed.

104.

Now reverting to issue No. 3 and issue no. 4 as to whether the petitioner is entitled to be declared as a

returned candidate, the submission of the petitioner that since the electors were purchased by incurring

more expenses by the respondent/returned candidate, therefore, free will of franchise was affected and in

order to arrest the further expenditure of public chequer, the petitioner should be elected by applying the

Duckworth Lewis law in Cricket field is completely without any base or substance. Counsel for the peti-

tioner has placed reliance in (2015) 3 SCC 467 Krishna Moorthy Vs. Sivakumar and others and stated that

since the respondent candidate had resorted to illegitimate canvassing, the election needs to be set aside by

declaring the petitioner to be returned candidate. The proposition so advanced on the basis of law cited do

not support the petitioner in the given proved set of facts available. The submission of the petitioner that

ratable distribution of the votes to be made of person who have voted as NOTA i.e. “None of the Above” is

misconceived. If such logic is accepted, in such case it would destory the basic feature of the democracy.

105.

In view of the above conclusion, this court is of the view that the petitioner has failed to prove that corrupt

practice was committed by the returned candidate by incurring expenses more than the prescribed limit. As

an upshot of discussions, the election petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as

to costs.

Sd/-

GOUTAM BHADURI

JUDGE.

•ÊŒ‡Ê ‚,

„USÃÊ./-

(∑§. ∞Ÿ. ÷Ê⁄U)

‚Áøﬂ,

÷Ê⁄UÃ ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ •ÊÿÊª.

ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Nirvachan Sadan, Ashoka Road, New Delhi-110001

New Delhi, dated 14th June, 2017—24 Jyaistha, 1939 (Saka)

No. 82/CG-LA/(4/2014)/2017.—In pursuance of Section 106 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951

(43 of 1951), the Election Commission hereby published order dated the 4th May, 2016 of the High Court of

Chhattisgarh Bilaspur in Election Petition No. 04 of 2014.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

÷Êª v ]

1853

∑§ÊÿÊ¸‹ÿ ◊ÈÅÿ ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ ¬ŒÊÁœ∑§Ê⁄UË, ¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U

‡ÊÊSòÊË øÊÒ∑§, ¬È⁄UÊŸÊU ◊¢òÊÊ‹ÿ ¬Á⁄U‚⁄U, ⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U

⁄UÊÿ¬È⁄U, ÁŒŸÊ¥∑§ wx ¡ÍŸ wÆv|

„USÃÊ./-

(«UË. «UË. Á‚¢„U)

◊ÈÅÿ ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ ¬ŒÊÁœ∑§Ê⁄UË.

÷Ê⁄UÃ ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ •ÊÿÊª

ÁŸﬂÊ¸øŸ ‚ŒŸ, •‡ÊÊ∑§ ⁄UÊ«U, Ÿß¸ ÁŒÀ‹Ë-vvÆÆÆv

Ÿß¸ ÁŒÀ‹Ë, ÃÊ⁄UËπ vy ¡ÍŸ, wÆv|ówy ÖÿDÔU, v~x~ (‡Ê∑§)

‚¢. }w/¿U.ª.-Áﬂ.‚./(Æy/wÆvy)/wÆv|.ó‹Ê∑§ ¬˝ÁÃÁŸÁœàﬂ •ÁœÁŸÿ◊, v~zv (v~zv ∑§Ê yx) ∑§Ë œÊ⁄UÊ vÆ{ ∑§ •ŸÈ‚⁄UáÊ ◊¥,

∑§Ê ¬˝∑§ÊÁ‡ÊÃ ∑§⁄UÃÊ „ÒU.

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

EP No. 4 of 2014

PETITIONER

Mohammad Akbar S/o Mohammad Rashid agedAbout 57 Years R/o House No.

949, K.K. Road, Maudhapara, Raipur, P.S. Maudhapara, Head Post Office, Malviya

Road, Raipur, Tah. & District, Raipur C.G.

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS :

Ashok Sahu S/o Purushottam Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Guru Govind Singh

Marg, Kawardha, Post-Kawardha, Tah. Kawardha, Distt, Kbirdham C.G.

Kanhaiyalal Patel S/o Gintiram Patel Aged About 64 Years R/o Bajrangpara,

Kohka Ward No. 8, Bhilai, Distt. Durg C.G.

Kartik Ram Marar S/o Ganga Ram Marar Aged About 50 Years R/o Bendarchi,

Post-Kawardha, Tah. Bodla, Distt. Kabirdham C.G.

Krishna Kumar Dahire S/o Shiv Kumar Dahire Aged About 26 Years R/o Lokband,

Post-Kargikhurd, P.S. & Tah. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur C.G.

¿UûÊË‚ª…∏U ⁄UÊ¡¬òÊ, ÁŒŸÊ¢∑§ wÆ ¡È‹Êß¸U wÆv}

[ ÷Êª v

1854