M/S. COCHIN PORT TRUSTversusSTATE OF KERALA

                    [2015] 4 S.C.R. 343


               MIS. COCHIN PORT TRUST                          A
                              v.
                    STATE OF KERALA
              (Civil Appeal No.1906 of 2007)                    B
                      APRIL 22, 2015

         [H.L. DATTU, CJI, R.K. AGRAWAL AND
                 ARUN MISHRA, JJ.]
                                                               c
     Kera/a General Sales Tax Act, 1963 - s. 2(viii) -
Dealer - Exigibility to sales tax - Port trust, statutory
authority constituted for rendering port services - Engaged
in the activity of dealing in scrap items, in the nature of
sale transactions besides its statutory functions - Port trust- D
Assessee, whether a dealer under the Act and liable to pay
sales tax - Held: Activity carried out by the assessee-Port
Trust fall within the meaning of "dealer" u/s. 2(viii) and thus,
assessable to tax under the Act - Major Port Trusts Act,
1963.                                                            E
    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1.1 Definition of dealer under the Kerala
General Sales Tax Act, 1963 is an inclusive definition F
whereby wide range of persons has been placed under
the ambit of "dealer". It includes persons involved in
carrying on any business or trading activity and
transactions effected by them whether in the course of
business or not. [Para 14] [351-D-E]                   G

   1.2 It is pertinent to notice that the Tamil Nadu
General Sales Tax Act, 1959 was amended by Act 22
of 2002 whereby explanation (3) was added to
                             343                                H
344      SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A definition clause 2(g) of the TN Act. By the said
  amendment the Madras Port Trust has now been
  declared as a dealer under the TN Act. Explanation (3)
  states that if the port trust disposes of any goods
  including unclaimed or confiscated or unserviceable or
B scrap surplus, old or obsolete goods or discarded
  material or waste products whether by auction or
  otherwise directly or through an agent for cash or for
  deferred payment or for any other valuable
  consideration, notwithstanding anything contained in
C the TNGST Act, it shall be deemed to be a dealer for
  the purpose of the Act. Therefore, by amendment act
  the legislature has specifically brought in Port Trust
  also within the definition of "dealer" u/s. l{g} and thus,
  the substratum of the judgment in *Madras Port Trust
0
  case has been lost. [Para 22] [357-B-E]

      1.3 The activities of the assessee in respect of
  buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods,
  executing works contract, transferring the right to use
E any goods or supplying by way of or as part of any
  service, any goods directly or otherwise, whether for
  cash or for deferred payment or for commission,
  remuneration or other valuable consideration, whether
F in course of business or not, would fall Within the
  purview of Section 2(viii) of the Act. Thus, the
  assessee-Port Trust would fall within the meaning of
  "dealer" under Section 2(viii) of the Act and is
  consequently assessable to tax under the Act. The
G judgment and the order passed by the High Court is
  upheld. [Paras 24, 26] [358-D-F; 359-A]

      *State of T.N. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of
  Madras 1999 (2) SCR 195; CST v. Sai Publication Fund
H 2002 (2) SCR 743: (2002) 4 SCC 57 - distinguished.
      COCHIN PORT TRUST v. STATE OF KERALA                         345


    Assistant Commissioner, Ernakulam v. Hindustan A
Urban Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors. (2015) 3 SCC 735 -
referred to.

                    Case Law Reference
                                                                    B
  1999 (2) SCR 195 Distinguished.                Para 19, 20

  (2015) 3 sec 735 Referred to.                 Para 14

  2002 (2) SCR 743            Distinguished.       Para 23
                                                                    c
   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
1906 of 2007.

    From the Judgment and Order dated 23.12.2005 of the
High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in TRC No. 412 of 2002.
                                                                    0
     V. Giri. C. N. Sree Kumar, Sudha Shankar, Amit Sharma
for the Appellant.

    Liz Mathew, M. F. Philip for the Respondent.
                                                                    E
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

       H.L. DAT=TU, CJI. 1. This appeal is directed against
the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Kerala .
at Ernakulam in TRC No. 412 of 2002 and Sales Tax
Revision Nos. 321 and 326 of 2005, dated 23.12.2005, F
whereby and whereunder, the High Court has held that the
appellant-assessee is a dealer under the Kerala General
Sales Tax Act, 1963 (for short, "the Act") and dismissed the
tax revision preferred by the appellant-assessee.            G

     2. The question that arises for consideration in this
appeal is whether the appellant-Trust is a dealer under the
Act and liable to pay sales tax under the Act on account of
certain activities in the nature of sale transactions carried on
                                                                    H
346       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A by it besides its statutory functions. For the sake of
  convenience and brevity, we would only notice the facts
  relevant to the discussion with respect to the question(s)
  before us in this appeal.

 B     3. Brief factual matrix of the case is as follows: The
  appellant-Trust is a statutory authority constituted for
  rendering port services under the Major Port Trusts Act,
  1963. The appellant-Trust is a registered dealer under the
  Act and an assessee on the rolls of the Assistant
C Commissioner (Assessment), Commercial Taxes, Special
  Circle, Mattancherry. The assessee's specific activity of
  dealing in scrap items (sales of water to ships, tender forms,
  firewood, waste paper and disposal of unserviceable
  equipment) is the subject matter of assessments in the
D instant appeal for the assessment years 1990-91, 1994-95
  and 1997-98.

      4. For the aforesaid assessment years, the assessing
  authority had raised demand notices under the Act for the
E sales of scrap items effected by the assessee vide
  assessment orders dated 18.11.1995, 31. 03. 1999 and
  24.10.2001, respectively.

        5. The assessee aggrieved by the said assessment
F orders had approached the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)
  in first statutory appeal. The assessee had assailed the
  assessment orders as illegal and unauthorised on the
  ground, inter alia, that it is not engaged in any trading
  activity and only discharging its statutory functions under the
G Major Port Trust Act, 1963 and hence, it is not a "dealer"
  under the Act and cannot be exigible to tax thereunder. The
  first appellate authority has disposed of the said appeal by
  separate orders dated 16.01.1998, 28.10.1999 and
  25.04.2002 for each assessment year 1990-91, 1994-95
H
      COCHIN PORT TRUST v. STATE OF KERALA                   347
                [H.L. DATTU, CJI.]

and 1997-98, respectively. The appellate authority has A
considered the definition of "dealer" under the Act and
rejecting the plea of the assessee, held that it is a "dealer"
under the provisions of the Act.

     6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order(s), the assessee       B
had preferred T.A. No. 479 of 1998 for the assessment year
1990-91 before the Kerala Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (for
short, "the Tribunal"). The assessee had contended that in
the instant case the assessee-Trust is a statutory body
merely discharging its functions of rendering port activities   C
and not engaged in any trading activity or "business". The
transactions herein are merely causal and incidental sale
transactions which only attract sales tax if the registered
dealer is otherwise carrying on business under the Act, which
is not the case herein and therefore, the assessee cannot       D
be classified as a "dealer" under Section 2(viii) of the Act.
Reliance was placed by the assessee on the dictum of this
Court in State of T.N. v. Board of Trustees of the Port of
Madras, (1999) 4 SCC 630 (Madras Port Trust case). By
the order dated 24.09.2001, the Tribunal rejected the           E
aforesaid stand adopted by the assessee and held that the
assessee is a "dealer" engaged in activities of sale under
the Act and thus, exigible to sales tax.

      7. Further, the assessee has approached the Tribunal F
in T. A. No. 1 of 2000 and T. A. No. 143 of 2003 questioning
the orders passed by the first appellate authority for
assessment years 1994-95 and 1997-98. The Tribunal has
considered the definitions of "dealer" under the Tamil Nadu
General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, ''the TN Act") and the G
Act and concluded that since the two definitions are not pari
materia, the observations of this Court in Madras Port Trust
case would not be applicable to the assessee-Port Trust.
The Tribunal has held that the definition of "dealer" under the H
348         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A     Act is wide and in light of the activities performed by the
      assessee, it can be placed in the ambit of "dealer" under
      the Act and hence be liable to pay sales tax under the Act.

       8. Dissatisfied by the orders passed by the Tribunal, the
B assessee approached the High Court in TRC No. 412 of
  2002 and Sales Tax Revision Nos. 321 and 326 of 2005.
  The question as to whether the assessee is a "dealer" under
  the Act which was the cardinal issue before the Tribunal was
  agitated before the High Court as the main issue by both
C parties to the /is. The High Court has delved into the said
  question and also considered whether the Madras Port Trust
  case decided in the context of the TN Act apply to the
  assessee-Trust which is governed by the Act. The High
  Court, in its conclusion, has approved the findings of the
D Tribunal and dismissed the tax revision(s) filed by the
  appellant-assessee.

           9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the assessee is before
      us in this appeal.
E
       10. Shri V. Giri, learned senior counsel appearing for
  the appellant-assessee would submit that the assessee does
  not fall under the ambit of under Section 2(viii) of the Act and
  cannot be termed as a "dealer". He would submit that the
F assessee is only discharging the statutory functions and is
  not engaged in any "business" or trade. Further, that the
  transactions in question being incidental and auxiliary would
  not qualify as business under the Act so as to deem the
  assessee as "dealer'' under the Act. He would draw support
G from the observations of this Court in Madras Port Trust case
  wherein this Court has held that the said Port Trust
  constituted under the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 and carries
  on statutory functions, is not exigible to sales tax under the
  Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, 1959 (for short, "the TN
H
      COCHIN PORT TRUST v. STATE OF KERALA                          349
                (H.L. DATTU, CJI.]

Act"). He would further contend that since the provisions of A
the TN Act are pari materia with that of the Act, the Madras
Port Trust case would squarely apply to the assessee-Cochin
Port Trust also.

     11. Per contra, Smt. Liz Mathew, learned counsel B
appearing for the respondent-Revenue would support the
judgment and order passed by the High Court and contend
that the assessee herein is a "dealer'' under the Act engaged
in sale of scrap material and therefore, exigible to sales tax
under the Act. She would submit that the provisions of the C
TN Act and the Act are not pari materia and the claim of
the assessee requires to be examined in the context of the
Act only and not on the basis of the provisions of the TN
Act. She would urge that the observations of this Court in
Madras Port Trust case would not be applicable to the D
instant case in light of material difference between the
definitions of "dealer'' under the provisions of TN Act and the
Act.

     12. The issue that arises for our consideration and             E
decision in the instant case is whether the assessee-Trust
is a dealer under the Act and thus, liable to pay sales tax
levied thereunder.

     13. At the outset, it is pertinent to notice Section 2(viii)    F
of the Act which defines the term "dealer''. The said definition
is extracted hereunder:

     "2(viii) "Dealer" means any person who carries on the
     business of buying, selling, supplying or distributing G
     goods, executing works contract, transferring the right
     to use any goods or supplying by way of or as part of
     any service, any goods directly or otherwise, whether
     for cash or for deferred payment, or for commission,
                                                             H
350    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015) 4 S.C.R. '


A     remuneration or other valuable consideration and
      includes:

      (a) .. .

      (b) .. .
B
      (c) .. .

      (d) .. .

c     (e) a person who, whether in the course of business
      or not, sells;

      (i) goods produced by him by manufacture, agriculture,
      horticulture or otherwise; or

D     (ii) trees which grow spontaneously and which are
      agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract
      of sale;

      (f) a person who whether in the course of business or
E     not
      (1) transfers any goods, including controlled goods
      whether in pursuance of a contract or not, for cash or
      deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
 F
      (2) transfers property in goods (whether as g0ods or
      in some other form) involved in the execution of a
      works contract;

      (3) delivers any goods on hire-purchase or any system
G     of payment by instalments;

      (4) transfers the right to use any goods for any purpose
      (whether or not for a specified period) for cash,
      deferred payment or other valuable consideration;
H
      COCHIN PORT TRUST v. STATE OF KERALA                        351
                [H.L. DATTU, CJI.]

     (5) supplies, by way of or as part of any service or in       A
     any other manner whatsoever, goods, being food or any
     other articles for human consumption or any drink
     (whether or not intoxicating), where such supply or
     service is for cash, deferred payment or other valuable
     consideration;                                                B

     Explanation.-(1) & (2) ...

     (g) a bank or a financing institution which, whether in
     the course of its business or not, sells any gold or other    c
     valuable article pledged with it to secure any loan, for
     the realisation of such loan amount; ... "

                                         (emphasis supplied)

     14. A perusal of the aforesaid definition would indicate D
that definition of dealer under the Act is an inclusive definition
whereby wide range of persons has been placed under the
ambit of "dealer". It includes persons involved in carrying on
any business or trading activity and transactions effected by
them whether in the course of business or not. It is profitable E
to refer to the decision of this Court in Assistant
Commissioner, Ernaku/am v. Hindustan Urban
Infrastructure Ltd. and Ors., (2015) 3 SCC 735 where this
Court has interpreted the said provision. This Court has F
examined the scope and ambit of the definition of dealer
under the Act. The question before this Court was whether
an "Official Liquidator" is a "dealer" within the meaning of
section 2 (viii) of the Act. This Court in paragraph 26 of the
judgment has observed:                                         G

     " ... The definition of "dealer" has also been given a
     wide ambit. It includes any person carrying on business
     of, inter alia, buying, selling, supply or distribution of
     goods, whether directly or otherwise. All modes of            H
352       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A        payment whether by way of cash, commission,
         remuneration or other valuable consideration have
         been included therein. It also includes, inter a/ia, a
         casual trader, a non-resident dealer, a commission
         agent, a broker, an auctioneer and other mercantile
B        agents. Sub-section (f) of the definition further expands
         the scope of the provision by including within its ambit,
         an array of transactions, which may or may not be in
         the course of business. Section 2(viii)(f)(1) expressly
         includes, within the definition of a "dealer", a person
c        who whether in the course of business or not transfers
         any goods, whether in the pursuance of a contract or
         not, for cash or deferred payment."

       15. Therein, this Court has noticed the definition of
D deF1ler under various fiscal legislations and observed that the
  widest scope and ambit provided to the "dealer" under the
  definition clause of the Act is in consonance with the
  legislative intent to place the persons engaged in activities
  of sale and trade which would not otherwise fall in the
E restricted definition of "business". This Court has observed
  as under:

         "34. Section 2(viii)(f) further expands the definition of
         "dealer" enabling a far wider class of persons to fall
F        within its ambit. It includes any person who transfers
         any goods, transfers property in goods involved in the
         execution of a works contract, delivers any goods on
         hire purchase or any system of payment by
         installments, transfers the right to use any goods for any
G        purpose and lastly, any food or beverage supplier or
         service provider, fit for human consumption. The
         Explanation 1 to sub-clause (f) includes a society, club,
         firm or an association or body of persons, whether
         incorporated or not. Explanation 2 includes the Central
H
      COCHIN PORT TRUST v. STATE OF KERALA                   353
                [H.L. DATTU, CJI.]

     Government, State Government and any of its A
     apparatus within the scope of this section.

     35. Therefore, given the exceptionally wide scope of
     the definition, prima facie, it can be concluded that any
     person or entity that carries on any activity of selling B
     goods, could be categorized as a "dealer" under the
     Act, 1963. To test the aforesaid conclusion in the
     context of the issue at hand, we would delve into the
     interpretation ascribed by this Court to the term
     "dealer". A careful reading of the definition of "dealer" C
     under the Act, 1963, would make it evident that the
     legislature intended to provide for an inclusive criterion
     and broaden the ambit of the said classification. The
     legislature did not propose to restrict the scope of the
     term as perceived in common parlance."                     D

     16. Here, since the definition of "dealer" is wide to
include transactions conducted in the course of business or
otherwise, to answer the question posed before us, we do
not deem it necessary to examine the nature of activity E
carried out by the assessee-Port Trust in as much as
whether it falls under the definition of "business" under the
Act or not.

     17. In the instant case, the appellant-assessee would F
place reliance on the decision of this Court in Madras Port
Trust case, draw similarity between the provisions of TN Act
and the Act and therefore, submit that the observations of
the Madras Port Trust would be applicable to the instant
case. Therein, the question before this Court was whether G
the Madras Port Trust is a "dealer" under the TN Act or not.
The definition clauses contained in the TN Act under Section
2(g) and 2(d) have been dealt with to examine the aforesaid
question. For the sake of clarity, we would refer to Section
2(g) and 2(d) of the TN Act as under:                        H
354   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A      "Section 2(g) 'dealer' means any person who carries
      on the business of buying, selling, supplying or
      distributing goods, directly or otherwise, whether for
      cash, or for deferred payment, or for commission,
      remuneration or other valuable consideration, and
 B    includes-

      (i) a local authority... which carries on such business;

      (ii) ...
c     (iii) a factor, ... or an auctioneer, or any other
      mercantile agent by whatever name called, ... who
      carries on the business of buying, selling, supplying or
      qistributing goods on behalf of any principal, or through
      whom the goods are bought, sold, supplied or
D
      distributed;

      (iv) to (ix) ...

      Explanation (1) ...
 E
      Explanation (2).-The Central Government or any State
      Government which, whether or not in the course of
      business, buy, sell, supply or distribute goods, directly
      or otherwise, for cash, or for deferred payment, or for
 F    commission, remuneration or other valuable
      consideration, shall be deemed to be a dealer for the
      purposes of this Act;"

      ***
G     "Section 2(d) 'business' includes,-

      (i) any trade, or commerce or manufacture or any
      adventure or concern in the nature of trade, commerce
      or manufacture, whether or not such trade, commerce,
H     manufacture, adventure or concern is carried on with
      COCHIN PORT TRUST v. STATE OF KERALA                         355
                [H.L. DATTU, CJI.]

      a motive to make gain or profit and whether or not any        A
      profit accrues from such trade, commerce,
      manufacture, adventure or concern; and

     (ii) any transaction in connection with, or incidental or
     ancillary to, such trade, commerce, manufacture,               B
     adventure or concern."

     18. This Court in the said decision has elaborately
considered various provisions of the TN Act in the context of
the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963. This Court has noticed that        c
port trusts are not established for carrying on business and
thereafter, referred to the various activities of the Madras
Port Trust and observed that its activities and services only
indicate that the activity in question, that is, the sales of
unserviceable or unclaimed goods is infinitesimal as                o
cnmpared to the very large range of the activities and
services it is supposed to render. This Court has therefore
concluded that the Madras Port Trust is not involved in any
activity of "carrying on business" as provided for under
Section 2 (g) read with Section 2(d) of the TN Act and              E
therefore, it is not a "dealer' within the meaning of Section
2(g) of the TN Act.

     19. In our considered view, the aforesaid decision of this
Court would not enure to the benefit of the assessee in the         F
instant case. The said decision was rendered on the basis
of the question whether the Port Trust is carrying on
"business" under the TN Act and if it is a "dealer" under the
TN Act so as to be exigible to tax thereunder. The aforesaid
conclusion emanates from the stark distinction of definition        G
of "dealer" under the TN Act and the Act. The definition under
the Act is a wider definition while the TN Act as it then stood,
provides for a very restricted meaning of the term "dealer".
A comparison of the definition clauses in the Act and the TN
                                                                    H
356        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A  Act would show that the requirement of "carrying on business"
   by buying, selling, supplying or distributing goods directly or
   otherwise whether for cash or deferred payment or for
   commission, remuneration or other valuable consideration
   was a necessary ingredient of a dealer under the TN Act,
 B but clauses like (e}, (f) and (g) of Section 2(viii) of the Act
   were absent in the TN Act. Thus, the said definitions are not
   pari materia.

       20. In the Madras Port Trust case, this Court has laid
 Cemphasis on the expression "carrying on business" in the
  context of the TN Act, and it is in that context it has reached
  the conclusion that the Madras Port Trust is not engaged in
  any business which is a necessary prerequisite under the
  definition of a "dealer" under the TN Act. In the Act herein,
D the necessity of a person carrying on business to be placed
  under the definition of "dealer" is absent. The definition
  expressly includes the persons who whether in course of
  business or not engage in the sale or transfer of goods and
  thus, does not mandate the requirement of conducting
E business for a person to be exigible under the Act. The
  contradistinction between the definition of "dealer" under the
  TN Act and the Act makes it abundantly clear that the
  observations of this Court in Madras Port Trust case, which
F refer to the definition of TN Act and interprets it to reach the
  conclusion of the Trust not being exigible to tax, cannot be
  accepted in the instant case.

       21. Further, it is brought to our notice that in Madras Port
G Trust case the applications were preferred by the Port Trusts
  of Cochin, Kandla and Calcutta before this Court for
  intervention. However, this Court has only permitted them to
  support the submissions of the Madras Port Trust in the
  context of the Tamil Nadu statute and in paragraph 6 of the
H said judgment observed that the exigibility of the said Port
     COCHIN PORT TRUST v. STATE OF KERALA                   357
               [H.L. DATIU, CJI.]

Trusts under the respective State enactments is not A
examined thereunder. Therefore, this Court has only referred
to the provisions of TN Act and not examined the scope of
the Act vis-a-vis the assessee-Port Trust in Madras Port
Trust case.
                                                               B
     22. It is further pertinent to notice that the TN Act was
amended by Act 22 of 2002 whereby explanation (3) was
added to definition clause 2(g) of the TN Act. By the said
amendment the Madras Port Trust has now been declared
as a dealer under the TN Act. Explanation (3) states that if C
the port trust disposes of any goods including unclaimed or
confiscated or unserviceable or scrap surplus, old or
obsolete goods or discarded material or waste products
whether by auction or otherwise directly or through an agent
for cash or for deferred payment or for any other valuable D
consideration, notwithstanding anything contained in the
TNGST Act, it shall be deemed to be a dealer for the
purpose of the Act. Therefore, by amendment act the
legislature has specifically brought in Port Trust also within E
the definition of "dealer" under Section 2(g) of the Act and
thus, the substratum of the judgment in Madras Port Trust
case has been lost.

     23. Shri Giri has relied upon the decision of this Court
in CST v. Sai Publication Fund, (2002) 4 SCC 57 and F
submitted that where the main activity is not a business then
any incidental or ancillary transaction would only amount to
business if an independent intention to carry on business in
the incidental or ancillary transaction is established. In the G
said case, the provisions of Bombay Sales Tax Act, 1959
were examined to ascertain whether the ancillary activity of
publication and sale of books by Saibaba Trust amounted
to "business" under the said Act, when the dominant activity
of the said Trust was non-profit dissemination of message H
358       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2015] 4 S.C.R.


A of Saibaba. Therein the Court has examined the definition
  of dealer under Section 2(11) of the said Act and observed
  that every person is not a "dealer" but only those persons
  "who carry on the business" by buying or selling goods are
  regarded as "dealers". Thus, under the said Act, from the very
B definition of dealer, it follows that a person would not be a
  dealer in respect of the goods sold or purchased by him            •
  unless he carries on the business of buying and selling such
  goods. In the instant case, the definition of dealer under
  Section 2(viii) is wide and specifically includes persons who
C have effected sale or transfer of goods irrespective of the
  said sale or transfer being in course of business or not.
  Therefore, the dictum of this Court in the said decision would
  also not be applicable in the instant case.

D       24. Therefore, in light of the foregoing discussions, we
  are of the considered opinion that the activities of the
  assessee in respect of buying, selling, supplying or
  distributing goods, executing works contract, transferring the
  right to use any goods or supplying by way of or as part of
E any service, any goods directly or otherwise, whether for
  cash or for deferred payment or for commission,
  remuneration or other valuable consideration, whether in
  course of business or not, would fall within the purview of
F Section 2(viii) of the Act. Hence, the assessee-Port Trust
  would fall within the meaning of "dealer'' under Section 2(viii)
  of the Act and is consequently assessable to tax under the
  Act.

       25. We are of the considered opinion that the High Court
G has not committed any error, whatsoever, and therefore, the
  civil appeal being devoid of any merit requires to be
  dismissed.

        26. In the result, the appeal is dismissed and the
H
      COCHIN PORT TRUST v. STATE OF KERALA                   359
                [H.L. DATTU, CJI.]

judgment and order passed by the High Court is confirmed.     A
No costs.

     Ordered accordingly.

Nidhi Jain                               Appeal dismissed.