1

Appeal Number : 26/2022

BEFORE THE RAJASTHAN REAL ESTATE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR

Appeal Number: 26/2022

In
Complaint No.RAJ-RERA-C-2021-4046

Yashoda Parihar …....Appellant

VERSUS

Ashapurna Buildcon Ltd. ..…Respondent

CORAM:
Mr. Justice Veerendr Singh Siradhana (Retd.), Hon’ble Chairperson
Mr. Rajendra Kumar Vijayvargia, Hon’ble Member (Technical)
PRESENT:
For appellant: Mr. Ajit Singh, Advocate
For respondent: Mr. Ankit Jain, Advocate

ORDER
Reserved on 27th February, 2024

Pronounced on 22nd March, 2024

Per Hon’ble Rajendra Kumar Vijayvargia, Member (Technical)

1. Rajasthan Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Jaipur (for short, “the Authority”), vide

impugned order dated 21st December, 2021, adjudicated upon the Complaint No. RAJ-

RERA-C-2021-4046 instituted by the appellant, of which the complainant-appellant is

aggrieved of, and therefore, has preferred the present appeal under Section 44 of the

Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short, “Act of 2016),

praying for the following reliefs:

John/*
 2

Appeal Number : 26/2022

(i) Order the respondent-promoter for refund of entire booking amount of

Rs.2,57,000/- along with interest on her complete booking amount from
date of booking till date.
(ii) Order the respondent-promoter to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- to
the complainant.
(iii) Any other order and directions which the Hon’ble Tribunal deemed just
and proper may kindly be passed in favour of petitioner.

2. Briefly, the essential skeletal material facts, which needs to be noted for the

purpose of adjudication of the controversy raised, are: that the complainant-appellant

instituted a complaint petition before the Authority below, the case of the

complainant-appellant is that she booked a Villa in a project namely, “Ashapurna

Anmol” in persuasion of the advertisement published by the respondent-promoter

claiming that a project namely, “Ashapurna Anmol”, Phase-I, situated near the new

building of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, coming with all the basic amenities and

the advertisement published showed the assurance that the possession of Villa will

be delivered within a period of 18 months from 02nd January, 2020. The offer, as

per advertisement dated 20th May, 2020, was valid only for 10 Villas on 30th and 31st

May, 2020. The complainant-applicant executed the procedure of registration and

boking on 30th May, 2020, after making payment of Rs.99,000.00 (Rupees ninety nine

thousand only), the registration form was duly signed by the complainant-applicant

and authorized person of the respondent-promoter company on the same day, i.e.,

30th May, 2020.

3. As per the detailed terms and conditions of registration form, complainant-

appellant was allotted Villa No.28 on a total cost of Rs.25,70,000/- (Rupees twenty

John/*
 3

Appeal Number : 26/2022

five lac seventy thousand only). The complainant-appellant paid further amount of

Rs.1,58,000/- (Rupees one lac fifty eight thousand only) on 26 th May, 2020,

therefore, the total amount paid to respondent-promoter comes to Rs.2,57,000/-

(Rupees two lac fifty seven thousand only), which is 10% of total cost of the Villa.

4. On enquiring about the project through the official website of “the Authority”,

the complainant-appellant found that the estimated date of completion of the project

is 06th November, 2023, which was in contradiction and double of the date mentioned

in the advertisement published in newspapers, which meant that the date of

completion of the project in the advertisement and other promotional material was

quite different, from the date of completion mentioned in the RERA registration.

Disillusioned with this, the complainant-appellant requested the respondent-promoter,

on 04th August, 2020, after about two months for cancellation of the booking and

sought refund of the amount deposited by her along with interest @18% per annum.

The respondent-promoter neither refunded the booking amount nor gave any

explanation regarding refund, therefore, in furtherance of this request letter dated

04th August, 2020, a legal notice was sent through registered post on 02 nd September,

2020, to the respondent promoter stating the entire facts and informed the

respondent-promoter to refund the entire booking amount of Rs.2,57,000/- (Rupees

two lakh fifty seven thousand only) along with interest @18% per annum, failing

which, she would initiate legal proceedings against the respondent-promoter.

5. On not receiving any response or any action for refund of the booking

amount, the complainant-appellant filed a complaint with “the Authority” bearing

John/*
 4

Appeal Number : 26/2022

No.RAJ-RERA-C-2021-4046, and prayed for refund of the entire booking amount i.e.

Rs.2,57,000/- (Rupees two lakh fifty seven thousand only), along with interest @18%

per annum. Learned Authority, after hearing both the parties, passed the following

order dated 21st December, 2021:

“Arguments of both the parties were heard and the records were looked into
and examined. It is correct that an amount of Rs.2,57,000/- was deposited
by the complainant and this is admitted to be correct. The application for
cancellation by the complainant has also been admitted by the respondent.
The only point of contention was the amount to be refunded by the
respondent to the complainant upon her application for cancellation. No
Agreement has been executed between the parties. The booking form,
however, mentions that the cancellation of a unit would attract deduction of
administrative charges equivalent to 1 per cent of the total value of the flat.
The newspaper advertisements on record also show that the project was
promoted that it would be completed within 18 months from 02.01.2020
while the registration documents with this Authority mentioned the
completion date as 06.11.2023. This was certainly misleading the general
public or potential allottees of the project. As per general norms, in the
absence of an agreement between the two parties, upon cancellation, 10 per
cent of the booking amount is deducted as cancellation charges which goes
towards the administrative changes. The deduction to such an extent is
justified and can be allowed. Accordingly, we direct that the respondent
promoter refunds the entire amount deposited by the complainant as
booking amount after deducting 15 per cent of the deposited amount and
taxes, if any, deposited by the respondent with the Government in this
regard. No interest will be payable as no agreement for sale has been
executed between the parties. The amount shall be paid by the respondent-

John/*
 5

Appeal Number : 26/2022

promoter within 45 days from the date of this order and submit a compliance
report to this Authority within fifteen days thereafter.

The matter stands disposed of in terms of the above directions.”

Sd/-
(Shailendra Agarwal)
Member”

6. Aggrieved by the order dated 21 st December, 2021, the complainant -

appellant filed the instant appeal before this Tribunal, and argued that in the

agreement-cum-application form, nowhere it has been binding on the parties that in

case the promoter fails to deliver the possession in time then 15% or anything is to

be deducted, in a normal course or in such a case when a builder or promoter fails

to deliver the possession within prescribed time shown in the agreement/application

signed by the parties then in such an eventuality, the promoter or builder shall be

bound to make refund of the entire amount deposited at the time of booking the flat

including all charges.

7. Learned counsel for the complainant-appellant submitted the judgement

dated 17th March, 2021, passed by Maharashtra Real Estate Tribunal, Mumbai, in

Appeal No.AT00600000041967, titled as Mr. Dinesh R. Humane & Anr. Vs. Primal

Estate Private Limited, and further added that the aforesaid pronouncement of

Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal entirely covered the case of the

appellant and although the complaint filed by the appellant has been partly allowed

but an unfair liberty was been given to the promoter to deduct 15% amount is not just

and proper, therefore, upto that extent the order passed by the learned Authority,
John/*
 6

Appeal Number : 26/2022

needs to be modified and respondent- promoter to be directed to refund entire

amount to the appellant with appropriate rate of interest.

8. Learned counsel of complainant- appellant further added that the appellant

has not violated any terms and conditions of the application/booking form, and,

perusal of the terms of agreement, advertisement, promotion and relating activities

clearly transpires that there is no binding agreement/clause exists between the

respondent and appellant either in the agreement or any other document which says

that promoter can deduct any amount deposited, in case of failure on the part of the

promoter or even on application by the purchaser for ccancellation, Hence, in view of

the aforesaid subsequent and simple chain of events clearly postulates the genuine

case of the appellant, and therefore appeal deserves to be allowed in the interest of

justice.

9. Per contra, the learned counsel Mr. Ankit Jain, appearing on behalf of the

respondent promoter, raised preliminary objections stating that the impugned order

passed by the learned authority is based upon the facts of the case and promoter-

respondent is not legally liable to refund the entire amount deposited at the time of

booking with or without any charges as the respondent herein acted according to the

term & conditions of the booking form/agreement/application.

10. The learned counsel for the respondent- promoter, though, admitted to the

extent that the advertisement published by the promoter, claiming that a project

namely “Ashapurna Anmol" phase-I situated near the new building of Rajasthan High
John/*
 7

Appeal Number : 26/2022

court- Jodhpur includes all the basic amenities and assured the delivery of the villa

within 18 months, but, denied the contents as stated by the appellant and submits

that as per the RERA norms, the date of completion of the project was given by the

promoter-respondent as 06th November, 2023, which is available on the official

website of RERA, and that the basic amenities shall be provided to the allottees at the

time of possession.

11. The learned counsel for the respondent- promoter would contend further that

the appellant booked a villa in the aforesaid scheme of the promoter-respondent by

depositing booking Amount of Rs. 2,57,000.00 (two lakhs fifty- seven thousand only)

and the receipt was executed for the same and further submits that the appellant after

going through all the documents personally and thoroughly agreed to book the unit in

the said scheme.

12. The learned counsel for the respondent-promoter further admits that the

appellant submitted a letter cum representation on 04th August, 2020, to the

Chairman- cum-Managing Director of the promoter-respondent requesting refund of

the entire booking amount after the cancellation of the booking application. According

to learned counsel for the respondent-promoter, no agreement of sale has been

executed by the parties till date and the booking form duly executed and signed

between the parties specifies clause-11 (eleven) regarding cancellation by the

allottee, which reads thus:

John/*
 8

Appeal Number : 26/2022

"Cancellation by allottee - if there is proposal by the allottee to cancel or

withdraw its allotment in the allocation plan, the builder has the right to

deduct as administration charges equivalent to 10% of the total amount of

the unit. Similarly, as per the terms & conditions of villa payment schedule,

point (5) States that in case of cancellation by the purchaser, deduction and

refund will be made as per the bye-laws of the company.”

13. The respondent-promoter also denies that he failed to deliver the villa

because the complaint was filed at a premature stage since the project was

registered on 04th May, 2020, the unit was booked by the appellant on 30th May,

2020, and the request for cancellation was filed on 04th August, 2020, just after three

months of booking, citing failure to provide the possession of the unit within 18

months. Hence, the respondent-promoter is not bound to refund the entire amount

deposited at the time of booking with or without any charges and thus the impugned

order passed by "the Authority" is based upon the facts of the case, and calls for no

interference by this Tribunal.

14. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant-appellant and

respondent-promoter, and with their assistance perused the material available on

record and gave our thoughtful consideration to rival submissions put forth.

15. A perusal of the advertisement published in newspaper dated 20th May,

2020, displays two major facts – (i) Advertisement says the project as "RERA

certified", and (ii) possession in 18 months which clearly indicated to the prospective

buyers that the project is registered with RERA and will be ready for possession in
John/*
 9

Appeal Number : 26/2022

18 months from the date of booking. This attracted the complainant- appellant for

booking a villa in the said project.

16. A bare perusal of copy of the registration of the project with RERA, would

reflect that the project details of Project, “Ashapurna Anmol” Phase-I shows

Estimated Finish Date as 06th November, 2023, which is in contravention with the

Advertisement published in Newspapers, wherein the project is advertised with the

caption "RERA certified" which means the date of possession or completion of

project is different than that what was submitted before the “Authority”, and

misleading to attract prospective buyers with false promise.

17. The Registration form / Booking form for Villa No.28 in “Ashapurna Anmol”

phase-I, is duly signed by both the parties and annexed with General Terms and

conditions of allotment, mentioning the total cost as well as the payment schedule.

Clause-11 of general terms & conditions specifies that on cancellation by the

allottee, the builder has right to deduct administrative charges equivalent to 10% of

the total amount of the flat/plot/bungalow. However, Clause no.7 clearly indicates

that the detailed terms and conditions shall form part of the Buyer's Agreement

which the applicant shall execute as and when required by the company, and at

the same time, the Clause No.8 of general terms and conditions, clearly indicates

that the general terms and conditions as mentioned above are not exhaustive for the

purchaser of final allotment and sale deed of bungalow, these terms and conditions

may further be supplemented and/for amended by terms and conditions of allotment

as mentioned in the allotment and thereafter in the sale/ conveyance deed.

John/*
 10

Appeal Number : 26/2022

Therefore, this Clause No. 8 makes it evidently clear that the General terms and

conditions annexed with Registration/Booking form are, though mutually agreed

upon, but not final, till the final agreement to sale is executed between the parties

and these provisional terms and conditions cannot be enforced as legally binding on

both the parties.

18. The promoter-respondent, on receipt of cancellation request dated 04th

August, 2020, from the complainant appellant, and in furtherance to this, on receipt

of legal notice dated 02nd September, 2020, neither responded nor bothered to

reply to legal notice and did not make any effort, either to give any explanation

about the progress/date of completion of the project or to make any effort to refund

the booking amount as requested by complainant- appellant and also, neither

informed the complainant- appellant for execution of agreement to sale despite

receipt of 10 % of the total cost as booking amount nor about cancellation of

booking or forfeiting the deposited amount.

19. The judgement passed by Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate Tribunal,

Mumbai in appeal No. AT006000000 41967 - Mr. Dinesh R. Humane & Another v/s

Primal Estate Private Limited, decided on 17th March, 2021, is based on similar facts

and circumstances where in the allottee of flat decided to cancel the booking, on

account of medical emergency, immediately after payment of booking amount plus

some additional amount towards cost of the flat. The agreement to sale between

allottees and promoter had also not taken place and the only document executed by

both the parties was booking form. The promoter forfeited the amount paid by

John/*
 11

Appeal Number : 26/2022

allottees on account of cancellation of booking by allottees. The Complaint no.

CC006000000089770 was in Maharashtra RERA filed by allottees, for recovery of

amount deposited with the promoter. Maharashtra RERA conducted inquiry and

passed an order thereby directing the promoter to refund the booking amount to

allottees in accordance with booking form signed by both the parties.

Being dissatisfied with the order, allottees preferred the appeal, and

challenged propriety, correctness and legality of the order with Maharashtra Real

Estate Appellate Tribunal. The Maharashtra REAT allowed this appeal and set aside

the order passed, by Maharashtra RERA. The reasons and order are reproduced as

below:-

“9“. Impugned order is passed without proper application of mind and without
correct appreciation of facts of the dispute. In the instant case, Allottees
have submitted printed form of "request for reservation" of the flat on 29th
January, 2019 to Promoter and paid booking amount of Rs. 1,12,393.00.
Admittedly, Allottees have again paid an amount Rs. 4,49,571/- on 1st
March, 2019 towards price of the flat. So, Allottees have paid total amount of
Rs. 5,61,967/- (Five Lacs Sixty-One Thousand Nine Hundred Sixty-Seven
only) to Promoter. Allottees informed the Promoter on 18th May, 2019 that
Allottees have cancelled the booking due to some reason and requested to
return the amount paid to Promoter. Copy of form of "request for reservation"
is at exhibit -A. It is revealed from exhibit-A that it is signed by Allottees.
Detailed information of Allottees is mentioned in the said form. Terms and
conditions recited in Annexure-A are to be followed and observed by
Allottees only. Exhibit-A is not signed by Promoter. Now, as per impugned
order amount is to be refunded in accordance with the booking form signed
by both the parties. It may be pointed out that Annexure-A is not styled as
John/*
 12

Appeal Number : 26/2022

"booking form". There is no document having nomenclature as "booking

form" which is signed by Allottees or by both the parties. Impugned order is
passed on the basis of booking form signed by both the parties. Thus,
impugned order is based on such document which does not exist on record.
Moreover, execution and operation of the impugned order will be according
to the booking form signed by both the parties and it is not in existence and
on record. So, impugned order is incorrectly and wrongly passed by giving
reference of signatures of both the parties thereon and it is not executable
by the parties.

10. Project Involved in the matter is registered and governed by RERA.

Rights and liabilities of the parties are also governed by provisions of RERA.
In the instant case Allottees entered into the transaction of purchase of the
flat on 29th January, 2019. Within period of four months, Allottees cancelled
the transaction by informing Promoter to that effect on 20th May, 2019 and
demanded refund of the amount paid to Promoter. Promoter replied to
Allottees that the amount paid by Allottees stands forfeited as per clause 17
of form of "request for reservation" i.e., Annexure-A. We are aware that
RERA is social and beneficial legislation. One of the objects of RERA is to
protect the interest of consumers i.e., Allottees. Promoter has relied on
clause 17 of Annexure-A. It reads as under:

"The Applicant(s) shall not withdraw this Request for Reservation. If the
Applicant(s) withdraw this Request for Reservation, the Company shall be
entitled to forfeit 10% of the Sale consideration or the amounts paid by the
Applicant(s) till such date, whichever is less and balance (if any) will be
refundable in 60 days without any interest. Provided however the taxes and
outgoings, including GST if any, already paid (including on the forfeited
amount) or due and payable by the Applicant(s) in respect of the said
Residential Flat shall be borne by the Applicant(s) and the company shall not
John/*
 13

Appeal Number : 26/2022

be liable to refund/reimburse the same. Applicant(s) agrees not to raise any

objection in future whatsoever".

11. It cannot be ignored that agreement for sale between Allottees and
Promoter had not taken place yet. Moreover, Promoter had neither issued
confirmation letter nor allotment letter to the Allottees. The only document
signed by Allottees is the printed form which is styled as "request for
reservation". So, at the time of making request for reservation of the flat on
the part of Allottees, Promoter obtained the signatures of Allottees on such
form of request which consists of 33 different terms and conditions to be
observed and complied by Allottees only. As per clause 17, Allottees have
no right to withdraw their request for reservation. This is absolutely unfair
and unreasonable and one-sided condition imposed on the Allottees.
Allottees cannot be restrained from exercising their right of withdrawing the
request. Right to make request for reservation of flat includes the right to
withdraw such request for reservation of flat. Clause 17 providing forfeiture
of 10% amount of the total price of flat or the amount paid till date whichever
is lesser in case of withdrawal by Allottees is ex facie unreasonable, unfair
and inequitable. Existence of such a condition in the printed form of "request
for reservation" to be filed in by Allottees is against the object and purpose of
RERA. In fact, clause 17 being against statute of RERA, it is not binding on
the parties. So, Promoter is not entitled to forfeit any amount as per clause
17 of request form.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the transaction between Allottees
and Promoter is revealed from request form, we would like to point out that
such unreasonable and unfair transaction cannot be enforced.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court, while deciding the case in favour of an Allottee,
held the view in Pioneer Urban Land and Infrastructure Vs. Govindan
Raghavan in Civil Appeal No. 12238 of 2018 on 02.04.2019 signifying that
court will not enforce an unreasonable, unfair contract or an unreasonable
John/*
 14

Appeal Number : 26/2022

and unfair clause in a contract where contracting parties are not equal in
bargaining power and where a man has no choice or rather a meaningful
choice but to give his assent to a contract or to sign on the dotted line in a
prescribed or standard form... as a part of the contract, however unfair,
unreasonable and unconscionable a clause in that contract or form or rule
may be."

In the instant case, while applying for the flat, Allottees had no choice but to
sign the printed form of request prepared one-sided by the Promoter. Thus,
Promoter cannot take undue advantage of such one sided and unreasonable
condition.

12. Learned counsel for Promoter argued that Allottees have claimed
relief on the basis of clause 18 of "model agreement" for sale as given under
rules of RERA. He also submitted that there is no violation of the provisions
of RERA or rules and regulations thereunder. According to him, complaint
under Section 31 of RERA is not maintainable unless there is violation. He
further argues that clause of forfeiture is given in model agreement under
RERA rules and it is not against the spirit of RERA. He also argued that
Allottees cannot cancel the booking on personal ground for claiming the
refund.

13. In the instant case the transaction of sale and purchase of the flat is
cancelled at initial stage. Allottees merely booked the flat and paid some
amount towards booking and executed letter for request of reservation of the
flat in printed form. Thereafter there is no progress in the transaction and
neither allotment letter nor confirmation letter is issued by Promoter.
Agreement for sale is not executed between the parties. Parties never
reached to the stage of executing agreement for sale. There was no attempt
to execute agreement on the part of either party. In such circumstances,
Allottees cannot claim refund on the basis of binding effect at clause (18) of
"model agreement" for sale under rules of RERA. In fact, claim of Allottees
John/*
 15

Appeal Number : 26/2022

for refund cannot be supported by clause 18 of model agreement for sale

under RERA rules. Refund of amount paid to Promoter can be demanded as
per Section 18 of RERA on the ground that Promoter fails to give possession
on agreed date or fails to complete the project as per terms and conditions
of agreement for sale. Transaction in the instant case is not governed by
Section 18 of RERA. In this peculiar matter, though the claim of refund is not
governed by any specific provision of RERA, it cannot be ignored that object
of RERA is to protect interest of consumer. So, whatever amount is paid by
home-buyer to the Promoter should be refunded to the Allottee on his
withdrawal from the project.

14. It cannot be ignored that Regulations are framed to carry out

purposes of the Act. Regulation 39 of Maharashtra Real Estate Regulatory
Authority (general regulation 2017) is in respect of saving of inherent powers
of Authority. It reads as under.

“Regulation 39:-

Nothing in the Regulations shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the

inherent power of the Authority to make such orders as may be necessary
for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the
Authority."

15. Similarly, Regulation No. 25 of Maharashtra Real Estate Appellate

Tribunal Regulation, 2019 is in respect of inherent powers of the Tribunal. It
reads as under.

‘25(1)

Nothing in these Regulations shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect the

inherent powers of the Tribunal to make such orders as may be necessary
for meeting the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the
Tribunal".

John/*
 16

Appeal Number : 26/2022

So Regulatory Authority and Appellate Tribunal are having Inherent powers

under the Regulations framed under RERA to pass such orders which are
necessary to meet the ends of justice. In exercise thereof in the instant case,
it is in the interest of justice to direct the Promoter to refund the total amount
paid by Allottee accordingly. In our view, the Impugned order is not correct,
proper and legal and therefore it deserves to be set aside. We pass the
order accordingly as follows.

ORDER

Appeal No. AT006000000041967 is allowed.

Impugned order dated 3rd October, 2019 passed in Complaint No.

CC006000000089770 is set-aside.

Complaint No. CC006000000089770 is allowed as under:

Promoter shall pay Rs. 5,61,967/- (Rupees Five Lacs Sixty-One Thousand
Nine Hundred Sixty-Seven) to Allottees.

Parties to bear their respective costs throughout.

Copy be sent to both the parties and MahaRERA as per Section 44(4) of
RERA.

Sd/- Sd/-

(S.S. Sandhu) (Sumant Kolhe)

20. It is evidently clear before this Tribunal that the respondent-promoter did not

make any effort to refund the amount till date to the complainant- appellant after

passing of order dated 21st December, 2021 by "the Authority” and neither made

any initiative or keenness to settle the grievance even after filing of the appeal with

John/*
 17

Appeal Number : 26/2022

this tribunal, and on the contrary, the respondent-promoter has been utilizing the

amount deposited with him. Needless to observe that if the appellant-complainant

had deposited the amount in any Bank, she would have earned interest on his

deposit, Hence, the appellant should not be made to suffer the loss of money when

at the same time her desire, for timely possession, as displayed in the

advertisement, which attracted her for booking a villa in the said project, is also not

being committed by the promoter.

21. We are fully convinced that in view of the aforesaid facts, material available

on record, and factual matrix of the case at hand in totality, and also relying on

order passed by Maharashtra REAT bearing similar facts, the impugned order dated

21st December 2021, needs to be set aside and is hereby quashed.

22. In the result, we make the following order :

(1) That the respondent-promoter would refund the entire booking amount
deposited by the complainant- appellant along with interest at the rate
prescribed in the Rajasthan Real Estate (Regulation and Development)
Rules, 2017 at SBI highest MCLR + 2%, i.e. 8.00 + 2, i.e.,10.00% from
the date of deposit, till the date of refund of amount.

(2) That the Respondent- promoter would do needful to ensure compliance

of this order within forty five (45) days from the receipt of copy of this
order, failing which the interest payable on the amount deposited by the
complainant- appellant, shall be @ 12% per annum.

(3) Costs made easy.

John/*
 18

Appeal Number : 26/2022

23. A copy of this order be transmitted to the learned counsel for the
party/parties and RAJ-RERA, Jaipur.

24. File be consigned to records.

Mr. Rajendra Kumar Vijayvargia, Justice Veerendr Singh Siradhana (Retd.),

Member (Technical) Chairperson.

John/*