Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

FA/295/2017

The Chairman TNHB - Complainant(s)

Versus

N. Gopal S/o. Natesan - Opp.Party(s)

M/s. V. Yuvakumar

29 Jul 2022

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI.

 

Present: Hon’ble Thiru Justice R.SUBBIAH       ... PRESIDENT

             Thiru.R.VENKATESAPERUMAL      … MEMBER

 

F.A. Nos.295/2017, 296/2017, 297/2017, 298/2017, 299/2017, 300/2017, 301/2017, 106/2017, 107/2017, 108/2017, 109/2017, 134/2017, 30/2016 &

F.A. No.45/2019

            

                                               Order Dated:-29.07.2022

 

F.A. No.295 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 11.09.2018 in C.C. No.18/2011

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board Office,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.                 ...Appellants / Opp. Parties

 

vs.

 

N. Gopal,

S/o. K. Natesan,

(H 1.11) No.43/132, New N.G.G.O. Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001.          …Respondent / Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellants      :  M/s. M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

Counsel for Respondent            :  Mr. V. Shankar

F.A. No.296 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.19/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board Office,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.                 ...Appellants / Opp. Parties

 

vs.

 

V. Jayadevan,

S/o. Mr. V. Venkatarao,

H 38, New N.G.G.O. Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001.               …Respondent/ Complainant.

 

For Appellant                     :  Party in person

Counsel for Respondent            :  Mr. V. Shankar

 

F.A. No.297 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.20/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

 

2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board Office,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.                 ...Appellants / Opp. Parties

 

vs.

 

K. Jayabalan,

S/o. Mr. Kullan,

H 16, New N.G.G.O. Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001.               …Respondent/ Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellants      :  M/s. M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

Counsel for Respondent            :  Mr. V. Shankar

 

F.A. No.298 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.21/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

1.  The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board Office,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.                 ...Appellants / Opp. Parties

 

vs.

 

J. Devanbu,

S/o. Mr. C.G. Jayaraj,

H 8, New N.G.G.O. Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001.               …Respondent/ Complainant.

Counsel for Appellants      :  M/s. M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

For Respondent                  :  Party in person

 

F.A. No.299 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.22/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board Office,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.                 ...Appellants / Opp. Parties

 

vs.

P.V. Alex Thomas,

S/o. Mr. Wishvasam,

H 39, New N.G.G.O. Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001.               …Respondent/ Complainant.

 

Counsel for Appellants      :  M/s. M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

For Respondent                  :  Party in person

 

F.A. No.300 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.23/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

   2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board Office,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.                 ...Appellants / Opp. Parties

 

vs.

 

1. D. Chandrasekaran,

S/o. D. Dharmalingam,

H 31, New N.G.G.O. Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001. 

 

2. Hemavathy,

Legal Heir of the 1^st Respondent

                                          …Respondents/ Complainants.

 

Counsel for Appellants      :  M/s. M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

For Respondents                :  Party in person

 

F.A. No.301 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.24/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

   2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board Office,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.                 ...Appellants / Opp. Parties

 

vs.

 

1. P. Govindarajulu,

S/o. Pe. Ku. Palani Chettiar,

H 18, New N.G.G.O. Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001. 

 

2. Hemavathy,

Legal Heir of the 1^st Respondent

                                          …Respondents/ Complainants.

 

Counsel for Appellants      :  M/s. M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

For Respondents                :  Party in person

 

F.A. No.106 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.18/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

N. Gopal,

S/o. Mr. K. Natesan,

(H.11) No.43/132, New N.G.G.O. Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001.                 ... Appellant/ Complainant.

 

vs.

  

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Tamil Nadu Hosing Board Office,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.         … Respondents/ Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Appellant         : M/s. Lavanya Shankar

Counsel for Respondent       s    :  M/s.  M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

 F.A. No.107 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.19/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

V. Jayadevan,

S/o. Mr. Venkata Rao,

H-38, New N.G.G.O. Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001.                 ... Appellant/ Complainant.

 

vs.

  

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Tamil Nadu Hosing Board Office,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.         … Respondents/ Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Appellant         : M/s. Lavanya Shankar

Counsel for Respondent       s    :  M/s.  M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

 

F.A. No.108 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.20/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

K. Jayapalan,

S/o. Mr. Kullan,

H-16, New N.G.G.O. Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001.                 ... Appellant/ Complainant.

 

vs.

  

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Tamil Nadu Hosing Board Office,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.         … Respondents/ Opposite parties.

 

For Appellant                              : Party in person       

Counsel for Respondent       s    :  M/s.  M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

 

F.A. No.109 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.24/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

P. Govindarajulu,

S/o. P.K. Palani Chettiar,

H-18, New N.G.G.O. Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001.                 ... Appellant/ Complainant.

 

vs.

  

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Tamil Nadu Housing Board

Tamil Nadu Hosing Board Office,

Ashok Nagar,

Chennai – 600 083.         … Respondents/ Opposite parties.

 

For Appellant                              : Party in person       

Counsel for Respondent       s    :  M/s.  M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

 

F.A. No.134 of 2017

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.22/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

P.V. Alexthamas,

S/o. Mr. Visuvasam,

H 39, New NGO Colony,

Thiruvallur – 602 001.                ... Appellant/ Complainant.

 

vs.

  

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Ashok Nagar Shopping Complex,

Chennai – 600 083.

 

Now at:

The Tamil Nadu Statelite Town Division,

TNHB,

Poonamallee,

Chennai – 600 056.         … Respondents/ Opposite parties.

 

For Appellant                              : Party in person       

Counsel for Respondent       s    :  M/s.  M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

 

 

F.A. No.30 of 2016

 

(Against the Order, dated 23.09.2015 in C.C. No.23/2011,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

Mrs. Hemavathy,

W/o. Mr. D. Chandrasekar (Deceased),

H 31, New NGO Colony,

Thiruvallur – 602 001.                ... Appellant/ Complainant.

 

vs.

  

1. The Chairman,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer / Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

Ashok Nagar Shopping Complex,

Chennai – 600 083.

 

Now at:

The Tamil Nadu Statelite Town Division,

TNHB,

Poonamallee,

Chennai – 600 056.         … Respondents/ Opposite parties.

 

For Appellant                              : Party in person       

Counsel for Respondent       s    :  M/s.  M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

 

F.A. No.45 of 2019

 

(Against the Order, dated 11.09.2018 in C.C. No.05/2018,

on the file of  the  DCDRF, Thiruvallur - 1)

            

N.K. Swaminthan,

S/o. Mr. Kundan,

H 13, New NGO Colony,

Tiruvallur – 602 001.                ... Appellant/ Complainant.

 

vs.

  

1. The Chairman & Managing Director,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

Anna Salai,

Nandanam,

Chennai – 600 035.

 

2. The Executive Engineer and Administrative Officer,

Korattur Division,

The Tamil Nadu Statelite Town Division,

TNHB,

Poonamallee,

Chennai – 600 056.     

 

3. The Sales Manager,

The Tamil Nadu Housing Board,

The Tamil Nadu Statelite Town Division,

Poonamallee,

   Chennai – 600 056.   … Respondents/ Opposite parties.

 

For Appellant                              : Party in person       

Counsel for Respondent       s    :  M/s.  M.R. Sheik Abdul Rahim

 

These appeals came up for final hearing on 16.06.2022 and, after hearing the arguments of the counsels for both parties and perusing the materials on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this Commission passes the following:-

 

 

 

 

COMMON ORDER

 

R.Subbiah, J. – President.

 

 

             Out of the above batch of 14 cases, 13 appeals arise from 7 separate orders, all dated 23.09.2015, passed by the DCDRF, Tiruvallur, in C.C. Nos.18 to 24 of 2011, whereby, the District Forum partly allowed the cases filed by the respective complainants/allottees-cum-purchasers of Plots under a Housing Scheme of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board (in short 'Housing Board') at Periyakuppam, Tiruvallur, and consequently directed the Housing Board (TNHB) to execute, as per the Housing Board Rules, the sale deeds in favour of the allottees/complainants within 15 days of their paying the dues/stamp charges/submitting other documents and, in default, to pay to the allottees a sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation. Aggrieved by the above orders, 7 appeals have been preferred by the Housing Board in F.A. Nos.295 to 301 of 2017, stating that the impugned direction of the District Forum cannot be legally sustained since the allottees are bound to pay the final cost fixed for the respective plots/capitalization costs/price for the surplus land/interest & penal interest, from the date of allotment till the date of payment, while the allottees/complainants have filed 6 appeals in F.A. Nos.30/16, 106 to 109/17 and 134/17 on the ground that they have already made full payments for the plots and hence, instead of issuing a clear-cut direction to execute the sale deeds and to pay compensation for the deficiency in service,  the District Forum erred in directing the allottees to pay a further sum as demanded by the Housing Board and in declining to award a reasonable compensation. The other remaining appeal in F.A. No.45 of 2019 is filed by the complainant in C.C. No.5 of 2018 on the file of the same District Forum as against the impugned order, dated 11.09.2018, in dismissing the complaint by concluding that the complainant is a defaulter and hence, he has no right to claim any relief.

 

             2. Inasmuch as all the appeals are interconnected and revolving around identical issues between the allottees and the Housing Board, they are given joint disposal by way of this Common Order.

              Since the points and issues can be straight away dealt with in these cases, we are of the view that there is no need to deeply delve into the individual facts involved in the cases except those general aspects that would be useful for our discussion.  Further, for the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in the course of this Order as per their respective rankings before the District Forum.

 

             3. In brief, it is the case of the complainants/allottees that, being employees of the State Government, they applied for allotment of plots under the Housing Scheme of the TNHB at Periyakuppam, Tiruvallur, and consequently, they were given allotment of plots that are in excess of more than one ground, during 1988 - 1990.  By fixing the tentative cost of Rs.1,21,300/-, the Housing Board directed them to deposit 1/10th portion of the said cost that comes to Rs.12,130/- upto 31.12.1987.  The allottees sought for exemption to pay the said initial payment of Rs.12,130/- and requested the Housing Board to furnish 'No Objection Certificates' to mortgage the property with the Collector of Chengalpet, who is the Sanctioning Authority of HBA (House Building Advance) based on G.O.Ms. No.908, Housing & Urban Development Department, dated 16.07.1980, which request was accepted so as to enable the allottees to pay the entire sum of Rs.1,21,300/- and thereby, the Hire Purchase Scheme was also converted into Outright Purchase Scheme.  Consequently, the Housing Board issued NOCs and handed over possession of plots to the allottees on different dates along with Outright Purchase Sale Agreements.  Even after remittance of the entire cost of Rs.1,21,300/- on different dates between 1991 and 1993, the Housing Board did not come forward to execute sale deeds in favour of the purchasers.  While representations were made by the purchasers urging the Housing Board to execute the sale deeds, to their shock and surprise, the Board called upon them to pay the difference in land cost by stating that what was already paid by them was only a tentative amount and not the final cost.   After issuance of legal notice by the complainants, the Housing Board/OP insisted them to pay the balance amount for execution of the sale deeds which act prompted them to file the complaints before the District Forum.

            

             4. Per contra, it is the counter-claim of the Housing Board that the sum fixed at the time of allotment of the plots was only a tentative amount and the final fixation would depend upon various factors including the difference in land cost, capitalization charges, additional land cost etc.  Further, the Housing Board is bound to execute sale deeds only after payment of final cost with interest & penal interest as already agreed by the allottees, who cannot find fault with the Board for the time taken in pursuing the administrative formalities with the Government, in taking decisions upon the representations made by the allottees and in fixing final cost that took considerable time, which is the routine process.  Therefore, the time taken in the course of administrative process for finalizing the difference in land cost and other charges can never be said to be a delay so as to attribute any service deficiency against the Housing Board.   Further, the subject land under the Housing Scheme came to be obtained after the acquisition proceedings of the Government who delivered it to the Housing Board for allotment to the Government Employees and therefore, the final cost shall have to be worked out after various processes and procedure that would really consume considerable time and hence, the allottees have no locus standi to maintain any claim on delay factor against the Housing Board. That is why, relevant certificates were issued to the allottees subject to the condition that they shall comply with payment of final cost and other sums as and when demanded by the Board.  The demand of payment towards difference in land cost/capitalization fee/interest/additional land cost, etc. are all based on prevailing updated guidelines and while other allottees, after verifying the details of demand by perusing the documents made available at the Office of the Housing Board, complied with the demand and got the sale deeds executed, it is the present allottees/complainants, who seemed to have wrongly presumed that, with the payment of tentative payment, the entire transaction is over, and thus they committed default in making the final payment and hence, there is no merit in the complaints filed by them and the same may have to be dismissed.

 

             5. Before the District Forum, both sides filed their respective proof affidavits and documents and, after consideration, by the impugned orders, the District Forum partly allowed the complaints except the one in C.C. No.5 of 2018 that was dismissed as aforementioned and aggrieved thereby, both sides preferred the respective appeals.

 

         6. Heard the submissions of the counsels appearing for the parties. 

              The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the complainants/purchasers is that they had already paid Rs.1,21,300/- towards cost of the respective Plots and as such, there is no due or outstanding on their part so as to demand any further amount and while so, it is the Housing Board which alone has to perform its part of obligation in executing the sale deed in their favour.  But, it is the submission advanced on behalf of the Housing Board that the sum paid by the purchasers, namely Rs.1,21,300/-, was only a tentative cost, that too was paid by them with a delay of about out one year, and they are yet to pay the final cost which was fixed on the basis of G.O. Ms. No.265, Revenue Department, dated 03.08.2009. Therefore, it is imperative that, apart from the tentative initial cost paid by the allottees, they are legally bound to pay the respective dues in terms of the final cost fixed in each case.   According to the Housing Board, though the District Forum found that the balance amount is liable to be paid by the purchasers/complainants, it has committed a gross mistake in taking up the exercise of making its own calculation for reducing the sum/interest drastically.  Thus, according to them, the impugned orders are liable to be interfered with  by this Commission. 

             On a careful scrutiny, we find, though the complainants have stated that they paid the entire costs as early as in 1989 itself, they have not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate that such payment was towards final cost/full payment for the plots. In our considered opinion, the said claim and assumption of the complainants cannot be correct for the reason that the extent of the plots was not the same and in all cases, the size of the plots considerably varies, for which, only a tentative sum irrespective of the extent of the plot was initially fixed for all allotments and such initial amount, at no point of imagination, can be said to be an all-inclusive one or as final cost.  It is not disputed by the complainants that the Housing Board gave an assurance while issuing No-Objection Certificate and the said assurance was that they would definitely transfer the title of the property to the allottees on completion of five years and more importantly, ‘on payment of the final cost with interest and penal interest’.  That being so, when other allottees duly paid the balance demanded by the Housing Board and got the sale deed executed, it is not known as to on what basis the complainants, who made a single payment of tentative cost alone, derive a point that they had paid the entire costs for the plots and, on the strength of it, proceeded to lay a consumer claim, which prima facie has no traits of consumer dispute.  It is the claim of the Housing Board that final cost was not fixed immediately after allotment due to different steps and procedures involved and they point out that, in fact, in the allotment letters, the purchasers undertook to abide by all the terms & conditions.  Consequently,  on the basis of G.O. Ms. No.265, dated 03.08.2009, final cost for the plots came to be fixed in the light of various factors including difference in land cost, capitalization fee, interest/penal interest payable, additional land cost, etc., and the Housing Board called upon the complainants to pay the respective sums and said to be aggrieved thereby, they filed the complaints before the District Forum.   While getting no objection certificate,  having agreed to pay the final cost for transfer of title of the plots, any failure or reluctance to perform the contractual obligation of settling the demand over final cost  would only render them defaulters and as such, they have locus standi or justification to approach the Consumer Forum in the capacity of defaulters.  It is seen from the Agreements for Sale entered into between the purchasers and the Housing Board under the 'Own Your Flats Scheme', in particular clause-18 of the Indenture that specifically provides - "It is expressly agreed between both the parties that after the finalisation of the total cost of construction of the flat and value of the land in accordance with the award of compensation declared by the Tribunals and Courts, the Purchaser shall pay to the vendor on demand before the registration of the Sale Deed the difference between the amount already paid by the Purchaser as per clause 2 above and the price amount finally fixed by the Chairman of the Vendor." A reading of the above clause indicates that from the land obtained for the Housing Board by way of acquisition proceedings, the purchasers/Government Employees were allotted plots  by the Board and hence, the  finalisation of the total cost of construction and "the value of the land"   would be based on award of compensation by the Courts/Tribunals and, by specifying the same, the purchasers were clearly informed that they shall have to pay the difference between the amount already paid by them and the price to be finally fixed by the Board, which they duly agreed by signing the agreements.  Thus, after completion of all formalities, when the Board has called upon the purchasers to pay the difference in land cost and the finalized price, it is the contractual obligation on the part of the purchasers to comply with the demand and they cannot shield the demand order of the Board pointlessly with a consumer complaint by stating that the tentative amount paid initially by them is the final amount.  The failure on the part of the allottees in complying with the demand to pay the final charges is a clear act of default.  In such circumstances, when it is an apparent case of default of payment by the purchasers and the case filed by them absolutely lacks consumer flavour, we fail to understand as to on what basis, the District Forum proceeded to deal with their cases filed in 2011 as if it was a consumer dispute.  In fact, the District Forum itself held the purchasers as defaulters and having held so, by allowing the complaints in part, it ordered compensation to the purchasers, payable by the Housing Board if the Board do not execute the sale deed on payment, which order and direction cannot be legally endorsed.  Thus, the impugned orders of the District Forum in partly allowing the complaints in C.C. Nos.18 to 24 of 2011 are rendered bad in law since the same suffer from legal infirmity and accordingly, they are liable to be set aside except the one order, dated 11.09.2018, passed in C.C. No.5 of 2018,  whereby, the complaint was dismissed by holding the complainant as a defaulter and declining to grant any relief, which order is perfectly in order and it does not call for any interference by us. It follows that the appeals filed by the Housing Board are liable to be allowed and the ones filed by the purchasers/complainants shall have to be dismissed. 

 

             7. In the result, the appeals in F.A. Nos.295 to 301 of 2017, filed by the TNHB, stand allowed, by setting aside the Orders, dated 23.09.2015, passed by the DCDRF, Tiruvallur, in C.C. Nos.18 to 24 of 2011.  Consequently, F.A. Nos.30/16, 106 to 109/17 and 134/17 filed by the complainants/purchasers, are dismissed.  The other appeal filed in F.A. No.45 of 2019 by one of the allottees also stands dismissed, by confirming the Order, dated 11.09.2018, of the DCDRF, Tiruvallur, in C.C. No.5 of 2018.

 

            

 

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                                                        R.SUBBIAH, J.

MEMBER                                                                                                                                        PRESIDENT

 

ISM/TNSCDRC/Chennai/Orders/JULY/2022.