ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS

By /

 (..5..)

ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS[1]

(i.e. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION[2])

QUESTION BANK

Q.1. Explain the characteristics of Administrative Tribunal and distinguish between Court and Administrative Tribunals.

Q.2. Explain fully the Constitution and functions of Railway Rate Tribunal.

Q.3. Explain fully the Constitution and functions of Income Tax Appellate         Tribunal.

Q.4. Discuss fully characteristics of Administrative Tribunal and reasons for growth of Administrative Tribunal.

Q.5. What are the characteristics of Administrative Tribunal? Explain fully Industrial Tribunal.

Q.6. Explain fully the establishment, constitution, jurisdiction and procedure of Income Tax Appellate Tribunals.

Q.7. Discuss fully the establishment, procedure and functions of the Industrial Tribunal.

Q.8. Discuss the nature, need and utility of Administrative Tribunals and what is the difference between the Court and Tribunal.

Q.9. Explain fully the jurisdiction of Administrative Tribunals and other authorities.

Q.10. What is an administrative tribunal? Explain its salient features and state    whether its decisions are final?

SHORT NOTES

  1. Industrial Tribunals.
  2. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
  3. Characteristics of Administrative Tribunal.
  4. Railway Rate Tribunal.
  5. Administrative Appeal.

SYNOPISIS

  1. Introduction: –
  2. Definition and Meaning: –
  • Characteristics of ‘Administrative Tribunals’.
  1. Established by Statute.
  2. ‘Not courts’
  3. Judicial functions.
  4. Judicial proceedings.
  5. ‘Not bound by strict rules of proceedings’.
  6. Jurisdiction of Tribunal.
  7. Independent from administrative interference.
  8. Judicial control.
  9. Distinction between Administrative Tribunals and Courts.
  13. Presiding officer.
  15. Rules of evidence.
  16. Basis of decision.
  17. ‘Vires of legislature’.
  18. Distinction between ‘Administrative Tribunals’ and ‘Administrative Authorities’: –
  19. Reasons for growth of Administrative Tribunals: –
  20. Overburdened Judiciary.
  22. Adoption of preventive measures.
  23. Expert knowledge.
  24. Cheaper and speedy Justice.
  25. Basis of decision.
  • Some Administrative Tribunals in India.

  1).     Industrial Tribunal: –

  6. Powers of Tribunal: –

           2).   Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal.

  3). Railway Rates Tribunal: –

  1. INTRODUCTION: –           Normally, adjudicating disputes between two individuals or between the State and an individual is vested in the courts. However, today’s State is a Welfare State; its functions have increased enormously; therefore, the executives perform many judicial functions today. Executives or administrators perform judicial functions through Administrative Tribunals. These Administrative Tribunals[3] have become a modern necessity. The Tribunals have distinct advantages over the ordinary courts in some respects, such as the tribunals ensuring cheapness, accessibility, freedom from technicality, expedition and expert knowledge.[4] of their particular subject. The constitution has recognised the status of tribunals through Art.136[5], 227[6] and Arts. 32B and 323B[7].

          Administrative Tribunals may be’ central administrative tribunals’ established by the Parliament through an Act or State Administrative Tribunals established by the State legislatures through statute.

          Several administrative tribunals are working in India, e.g., the Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts.[8], established under Industrial Laws, Railway Rate Tribunals[9] established under the India Railways Act 1989, Consumer Forums[10] under the Consumer Act, and Commissioner under the Payment of Wages Act.1936, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal[11] under the Motor Vehicles Act.1939, Income Tax Tribunal[12] under the Income Tax-Tribunal Act, 1961, etc. Various Boards, which exercise quasi-judicial[1] powers, e.g., the Press and Registration Appellate Board, the Copyright Board, etc., are established under various Acts. Some administrative authorities, e.g., the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Settlement Commissioners, etc.

  1. DEFINITION AND MEANING:-

          The precise and scientific definition of the ‘tribunal’ is not possible.

  1. According to Webster’s Dictionary: – ‘Tribunal[13]’ means a seat or a Bench upon which a judge sits in a ‘court’ or a ‘court of justice’. However, this is a very wide meaning since it includes even ordinary courts of law; however, in administrative law, the expression ‘tribunal’ is limited to ‘adjudicating authorities’ other than ordinary courts of law.
  2. Supreme Court: –

             “Tribunal’ means not the same thing as ‘court’ but includes, within its ambit, all adjudicating bodies, provided they are constituted by the Statute and are invested with judicial as distinguished from administrative or executive functions”[14].

           In other words, a Tribunal is a body carrying on judicial or quasi-judicial functions set up by statute and existing outside the usual judicial hierarchy of the Supreme Court and High Courts. In most cases, the chairman of the Tribunal is a judge or retired judge of the High Court appointed by the President of India. Though the Tribunal resembles a court in many respects, that is, it exercises judicial or quasi-judicial functions; however, they are not full-fledge courts. Hence, the tribunal has some trappings (characteristics) of a ‘court’, but not all.

              However, according to some jurists, the word ‘Administrative Tribunal’ is a misnomer because the Parliament constitutes it by passing a law (i.e. not by government), it exercises judicial functions rather than administrative, and it decides the question by applying the law with facts. In most cases, the Chairman of the ‘Tribunal’ is an existing or retired judge of the High Court. Therefore, they prefer to call it ‘Tribunal’ rather than “Administrative Tribunal”. Therefore, according to them, there are hardly any administrative functions.

  • CHARACTERISTICS OF ‘ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL[15]’:-

          The following are the characteristics of an administrative tribunal.

  1. Established by Statute[16]:-

          The legislatures establish administrative Tribunals by passing an Act.

  1. Not Courts[17]: –

          Though Administrative Tribunals exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions, they are not ‘courts’ in their strict sense.

  1. Judicial functions[18]: –

               Administrative Tribunals are entrusted with the judicial powers of the State and, thus, perform judicial and quasi-judicial functions, as distinguished from purely administrative or executive functions, and are bound to act judicially.

  1. Judicial proceedings: –

              Tribunals have the powers of ‘Civil Courts’ in certain matters, e.g. to summon witnesses, to administer an oath, to ‘compel production of documents’ etc.

  1. Not bound by strict rules of evidence[19]: –

 Strict rules of evidence and procedure do not bind an Administrative tribunal; however, it has to follow principles of ‘natural justice’.

  1. Jurisdiction of Tribunal[20]: –

 The tribunal decides cases in which the government is a party or even disputes between private parties. e.g. Election Tribunal, Rent Tribunal, Industrial Tribunal etc. Meanwhile, the Income Tax Tribunal always decides disputes between the government on the one hand and the Assessee (i.e. private persons) on the other. Tribunals are established by law and entrusted with specific jurisdiction on a particular subject such as election, industrial dispute, income tax, rent, etc.

  1. Independent from administrative interference[21]:-

          Like the judiciary, Administrative Tribunals are independent of administrative interference in discharging their judicial or quasi-judicial functions.

  1. Judicial Control[22]: –

          The High Courts or Supreme Court can issue writs.[23] of certiorari and prohibition against the decisions of the Administrative tribunals.

  1. DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS AND COURTS[24]: –

          Administrative Tribunals resemble the court in certain aspects, as they both discharge judicial functions and exercise judicial powers. However, there is a difference between these two. All courts are ‘tribunals’, but ‘tribunals’ are not courts in that a tribunal possesses some of the trappings (characteristics) of a court but not all.

          Following are the points of distinction between these two: –

  1. Functions: –

          A court of law is a part of the traditional judicial system[25] whereas the Administrative Tribunal is created by statute and endowed with judicial powers. However, it is primarily part and parcel of the executive branch (because the Minister of that department is answerable for the conduct of the Administrative Tribunal), exercising executive and judicial functions.

  1. Jurisdiction[26]: –

           Ordinary civil courts have judicial power to try all civil suits (except those expressly excluded from its jurisdiction by statute). Courts can also be constituted with limited jurisdiction. Whereas the Tribunals have the power to try those special matters[27]statutorily conferred on them, such as industrial disputes, railway rates, election disputes, etc.

  1. Independence[28]: –

           Ordinary courts of law are independent of executive interference in terms of tenure, terms and conditions of services of judges, etc., whereas government interference in matters of administrative tribunals is higher.

  1. Presiding officer[29]: –

          A court of law is presided over by an officer trained in law, whereas the president or member of the Tribunal may not be well trained in law.

  1. Impartiality[30]:-

          A judge in a court of law must be impartial (i.e., he should not be judged in his own case). An Administrative Tribunal may be a party to the dispute to be decided by it. It may be biased to decide cases per the department’s policy, e.g., Consumer forums are required to protect the interests of consumers, etc.

  1. Rule of Evidence[31]:-

A court of law is bound by all rules of evidence and procedure, i.e. C.P.C, Cr. P. C, Evidence, etc., and the principles there under, like precedents, res-judicata and estoppel[32], whereas rules of evidence do not strictly bind administrative tribunals.

  1. Basis of Decision[33]: –

           A court of law decides all questions objectively based on the evidence and material produced before it. Whereas administrative Tribunals decide cases considering departmental policy or expediency, the decision becomes more subjective.

  1. Vires of Legislation[34]: –

A court of law (i.e. High courts and Supreme Court) can decide the vires of legislation.[35]. Administrative tribunals can not decide the vires of legislation.

V]      DISTINCTION BETWEEN ADMINISTRATIVE            TRIBUNALS AND ADMINISTRATIVE AUTHORITIES[36]: –

          At the same time, Administrative Tribunals are different from administrative authorities of government.

1) The functions of administrative tribunals are quasi-judicial, whereas those of administrative authorities of government are purely administrative in nature.

2) Tribunals are ‘administrative’ only because they are part of an administrative scheme for which a minister is responsible to Parliament and are constituted for administrative reasons, i.e. cheapness, accessibility, freedom from technicality, expedition, etc.

VI]     REASONS FOR THE GROWTH OF ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS[37]:

          The main causes for the evolution of the adjudication system outside the courts are practically similar to that of delegated legislation, viz. extension in governmental operational activities and responsibilities, socio-economic changes, etc. They are in detail as follows: –

  • Overburdened Judiciary[38]: –

           The traditional judiciary is overburdened with various cases; therefore, speedy disposal of crucial matters cannot be expected, e.g. disputes between employers and employees like lockouts, strikes etc. Moreover, the traditional judicial system feels inadequate in deciding all cases and disputes. It is slow, costly, inexpert, complex and formalistic. Therefore, the Tribunals like Industrial Tribunals and Labour Courts are established.

  1. Technicality[39]: –

The traditional judiciary is conservative.[40], rigid and technical. These drawbacks are avoided in an administrative tribunal. The Tribunal is made cheaper, accessible, expeditious and free from technicality.

  1. Adoption of Preventive Measures[41]: –

          Administrative Tribunals can take preventive measures like licensing, rate-fixing, etc. and enforce them effectively, e.g., by suspending, revocation, or cancelling a license. In contrast, the ordinary court of law cannot adopt preventive measures but exercise jurisdiction after a dispute emerges.

  1. Expert Knowledge[42]: –

            Some questions are very technical, requiring expert knowledge to solve them. The traditional judiciary may not properly decide such questions for want of expert knowledge. That knowledge of experts may be provided in Tribunals, e.g. problems relating to atomic energy, gas, electricity, computers, etc.

  1. Cheaper and speedy justice[43]: –

             Administrative Tribunals provide cheaper and more speedy justice than ordinary courts. It is because strict rules of evidence do not bind the Tribunals and procedures; therefore, they are more informal.

  1. Basis of Decision[44]: –

              In ordinary courts, the decision is made impartially based on the evidence adduced before it. In contrast, Administrative Tribunals make decisions based on departmental policy, e.g., labour policies, consumer policies, etc.

VII.   SOME ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNALS IN INDIA[45]:-

          Several administrative tribunals are working in India, e.g., Industrial Tribunal and Labour Courts, established under Industrial Laws, Railway Rate Tribunals established under the India Railways Act, etc. Various Boards that exercise quasi-judicial powers, e.g. the Press and Registration Appellate Board, the Copyright Board, etc., are established under various Acts. Some administrative authorities exercise quasi-judicial powers, e.g., the Chief Settlement Commissioner, the Settlement Commissioners, etc.

  1. Industrial Tribunal[46]: –
  2. a) Establishment:-

          An Industrial Tribunal is set up under the Industrial Dispute Act of 1947. It is constituted by the Central Government if an Industrial dispute concerning a Government of India undertaking (such as a controlled industry, insurance company, an oil exploration concern, etc.) arises. However, where the Government of India has no direct interest, the ‘appropriate government’ constitutes the tribunal (i.e. State Government).

  1. Composition: –

          A Tribunal consists of one or more members. When there is more than one member, one of them is appointed as Chairman.

  1. c) Qualification: –

  The Chairman of the Tribunal should possess the judicial qualification, i.e.:-

  1. He is or has been a judge of the High Court, or
  2. He is or has been a District Judge, or
  • He is qualified to be appointed as a high court judge.

          A member other than the Chairman shall possess such qualification as may be prescribed by law. For example, if an industrial dispute relates to a banking or insurance company, members should possess special knowledge in banking or insurance.

  1. d) Jurisdiction:-

          The tribunal’s jurisdiction extends to industrial disputes; such disputes may have occurred between ‘employer’ and ‘workmen’ or between ‘workmen and workmen’ regarding their employment.

  1. e) Procedure:-

          The tribunal follows the procedure prescribed by the Constituting Act and the rules made thereunder. It must act judicially and apply the law and principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.[47]The Industrial Tribunal’s decisions and awards are subject to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court and the Supreme Court.

  1. f) Powers of the Tribunal[48]: –

             The Tribunal exercises the same powers as of civil court in matters of: –

  1. Enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath.
  2. Compelling the production of documents and material objects.

iii.      Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses[49] etc.

2]    Income- Tax Appellate Tribunal[50]:-

  1. Establishment: –

          The Income Tax Tribunal was established under the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Central Government.

  1. Composition:-

          It comprises as many judicial and Accountant members as the Central Government thinks fit. The Chairman of the Tribunal is appointed from among the judicial members.

C    Qualification:-

          A judicial member must have been,

  1. Held at least for ten years a judicial post or
  2. A member of the Central Legal Service (not below grade III) for at least three years, or

iii.      in practice as an advocate for at least ten years.

An Accountant member must,

  1. be a Chartered Accountant;
  2. have practised as a Chartered Accountant for ten years; or

iii. have served as Assistant Commissioner for at least three years.

 D    Jurisdiction:-

          It has jurisdiction over income-tax disputes (Appeals) between the Assessee and the Commissioner of Income Tax. The Tribunal’s decision is final, but the question of law may be referred to the High Court. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal hears appeals from the Commissioner of Income Tax order.

  1. Procedure:-

          The strict rules of evidence do not apply to

Income-Tax-Appellate Tribunal. It regulates its own procedure. It gives oral hearing to both parties. It may decide matter ex-parte if any party does not appear before it even after giving notice of appearance.

          The matter is decided unanimously or by the majority of members; in case of a tie, the President’s opinion will prevail.

  1. Powers of the Tribunal[51]:-

           The proceeding before the tribunal is considered judicial proceedings. It has the powers of civil court in matters of,

  1. Summoning witnesses,
  2. Enforcement of attendance,

iii.   Discovery and inspection,

  • Production of documents and,
  1. Issue of commissions etc.

3]    RAILWAY RATES TRIBUNAL:-

  1. Establishment:-

          Indian Railway Rates Tribunal is established under the Indian Railways Act of 1989 by the Central Government.

  1. Composition:- It consists of a Chairman and two other members.
  2. Qualification:-

          A Chairman is a person who;

  1. is or has been a judge of the Supreme Court, or
  2. is or has been a judge of the High Court;

Among the two members;

  1. One shall be a person having special knowledge of commercial, industrial or economic conditions of the country and,
  2. The other shall be a person with special knowledge and experience of commercial working at the railway.
  3. Jurisdiction:-

          The Tribunal has jurisdiction over the complaints against the railway administration relating to

  1. a) Discrimination or unreasonable rates levied by it;
  2. b) Classification of goods; or
  3. c) Giving undue preference to a particular person over another.
  4. e) Procedure:-

          The tribunal is not bound by strict rules of evidence and procedure and is empowered to frame its own rules for practice and procedure, subject to the approval of the Central Government. A party before the tribunal is entitled to be heard in person or through an agent, including a lawyer. The decision of the majority of members prevails. The tribunal’s decision is final.

  1. Powers of the Tribunal:-

The tribunal is a quasi-judicial body with powers of civil courts. It has power,

  1. a) To summon witnesses;
  2. b) Take evidence;
  3. c) Order discovery,
    1. Inspection of documents, and
    2. Issue commission, etc. The Tribunal proceedings are deemed to be judicial proceedings.

===================================================

NOTE

  1. ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL[52]:-

Various statutes provide for appeals and revisions of the tribunal’s order. Under the Bombay Relations Act, 1946, an appeal can be filed before the Industrial Tribunal against the order passed by the Labour Court, to the Rent Control Tribunal against the order passed by the Rent Controller, to the Income Tax Tribunal against the order passed by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner etc.

          However, sometimes, the statute provides for the finality of the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal. This is called ‘statutory finality’, wherein statute, either by express provision or impliedly, ousts the appellate jurisdiction of ordinary Civil Courts, e.g. under the Income Tax Act, 1961, the decision given by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal on a question of fact is final, and no provision as to appeal against it is made in the statute. Whereas S. 170 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 expressly states, “No civil court shall have jurisdiction to question the legality of any action taken or any decision given by the Returning Officer[53] or by any other person appointed under this Act in connection with an election.”

******

[1] प्रषासकीय न्यायाधिकरण/न्यायासन [प्रशासनिक न्यायाधिकरण/न्यायासन]

[2] प्रषासकीय न्यायनिवाडा [प्रशासनिक अधिनिर्णय]

[3] प्रषासकीय न्यायासन [प्रशासनिक न्यायाधिकरण]

[4] स्वस्तपणा, सहज साध्य, तांत्रिकतेचा अभाव, जलद आणि तज्ञ ज्ञान [ सस्तापन, हासिल करना आसान, तकनीकी की कमी, त्वरित और विशेषज्ञ ज्ञान]

[5] Art. 136, provides, the Supreme Court to grant ‘special leave to appeal’ from any judgement, decree, determination, sentence or order passed or made by any tribunal in India.

[6] Art. 227, empowers High court to exercise power of superintendence over all tribunals throughout the territories over which it exercises jurisdiction.

[7] Art. 323A and 323B, authorize Parliament to constitute administrative tribunals for settlement of disputes and adjudication of matters specified therein.

[8] औदयोगिक न्यायासन आणि कामगार न्यायालय [औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण और श्रम न्यायालय]

[9] रेल्वे भाडे न्यायासन [रेलवे किराया न्यायाधिकरण]

[10] ग्राहक मंच

[11] वाहन अपघात भरपाई न्यायासन [मोटर दुर्घटना मुआवजा न्यायाधिकरण]

[12] प्राप्ती कर न्यायासन [आयकर न्यायाधिकरण]

[13] प्रषासकीय कायदयाप्रमाणे ‘न्यायाधीकरण’ हा षब्द, ‘निवाडा करणारे अधिकारी/अधिकारी मंडळ’ की जे सर्व साधारण न्यायालयापेक्षा वेगळे असतात अषा मर्यादीत अर्थाने वापरलेला आहे [‘न्यायपालिका’ शब्द का प्रयोग, प्रशासकीय कानून अनुसार, एक सीमित अर्थ में किया जाता है  इसमे सिर्फ , ‘अधिनिर्णय प्राधिकरण/अधिकारियों का बोर्ड’  सामाविष्ट होता है  सामान्य अदालतों से अलग हैं।]

[14] “याधिकरण’’ म्हणजे ‘कोर्ट’ असे नाही, तर त्यामध्ये सर्व निवाडा करणाÚया मंडळांचा समावेष असतो परंतु अषी मंडळे/न्यायाधिकारी हे कायदयाने स्थापन केलेले असले पाहिजेत व ज्याला प्रषासनाऐवजी न्यायिक अधिकार दिलेले असले पाहिजेत’ * Supreme Court defined ‘Tribunal’ in Durga Shankar Mehta V/s. Raghuraj Singh. (AIR 1954 SC 520)

[15] प्रशासकीय न्यायासन – वैषिश्ठे [प्रशासनिक न्यायाधिकरण – सुविशिष्ठताएँ]

[16] कायदयाद्वारे निर्मिती [कानून द्वारा निर्माण]

[17] न्यायालयापेक्षा वेगळेपण [न्यायालय से अलग]

[18] न्यायिक कार्ये [न्यायिक कार्य]

[19] पुराव्याचे नियम बंधनकारक नाहीत [साक्ष्य के नियम बाध्यकारी नहीं हैं]

[20] न्यायासनाचे अधिकारक्षेत्र [न्यायालय का क्षेत्राधिकार]

[21] प्रशासकीय हस्तक्षेपापासून स्वातंत्र्य [प्रशासनिक हस्तक्षेप से मुक्ति]

[22] न्यायालयाचे नियंत्रण [न्यायालय का नियंत्रण]

[23] लेखादेष

[24] प्रषासकीय न्यायासन आणि न्यायालये यामधील फरक [प्रशासनिक न्यायाधिकरणों और न्यायालयों के बीच अंतर]

[25] परंपरागत न्यायदान पद्धत [पारंपरिक न्याय प्रणाली]

[26] अधिकारक्षेत्र [क्षेत्राधिकार]

[27] वविशिष्ठ बाबी [विशिष्ट मामले]

[28] स्वतंत्र

[29] अध्यक्ष

[30] निश्पक्षपातीपणा [निष्पक्षता]

[31] पुराव्याचे नियम/तत्वे [साक्ष्य के नियम / सिद्धांत]

[32] पूर्वीचे निकाल, पूर्व न्याय, प्रतिबंधक कबुली [पूर्व निर्णय, पूर्व न्याय, प्रतिबंधात्मक स्वीकारोक्ति]

[33] निर्णयाचा आधार

[34] कायदयाची घटनात्मकता/वैधता [अधिनियम की संवैधानिकता/वैधता]

[35] In Mithu Singh V/s.. State of Punjab 1983, SC, removed Sec.303 of I.P.C. on ground of Constitutional Ultra–Vires.

[36] प्रषासकीय न्यायासन आणि प्रषासकीय अधिकारी फरक [प्रशासनिक न्यायाधिकरण और प्रशासनिक अधिकारी के बीच अंतर]

[37] प्रषासकीय न्यायासनाच्या वाढीची कारणे [प्रशासनिक न्यायपालिका के विकास के कारण]

[38] न्यायपालिकेवर असणारा कामाचा ताण/बोजा [न्यायपालिका पर कार्यभार/बोझ]

[39] तांत्रिकता

[40] पुराणमतवादी [अपरिवर्तनवादी]

[41] प्रतिबंधात्मक उपायांचा अधिकार [निवारक उपायों का अधिकार]

[42] तज्ञ ज्ञान [विशेषज्ञ ज्ञान]

[43] स्वस्त आणि जलद न्याय [सस्ता और जल्द न्याय]

[44] निर्णय/निकालांचा आधार [निर्णयों/निष्कर्षों के लिए आधार]

[45] भारतातील काही प्रषासकीय न्यायासने [भारत में कुछ प्रशासनिक न्यायाधिकरण]

[46] औदयोगिक न्यायासन [औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण]

[47] U न्याय, सत्ता आणि सदसद्विवकबुद्धी [न्याय, शक्ति और विवेक]

[48] न्यायासनाचे अधिकार [न्यायालय की शक्तियाँ]

[49] साक्षीदाराची साक्ष घेण्यासाठी कमिषन नेमणे [गवाह का सबूत लेने के लिए एक आयोग की नियुक्ति]

[50] प्राप्तीकर न्यायासन [आयकर न्यायाधिकरण]

[51] न्यायासनाचे अधिकार [न्यायालय की शक्तियाँ]

[52] प्रशासकीय अपिले [प्रशासनिक अपील]

[53] निवडणूक निर्णय अधिकारी [चुनाव निर्णायक अधिकारी]

error: Content is protected !!
Scroll to Top