FAO NO.1156 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA SHALO DEVI AND ORS. Vs UNION OF INDIA 1 The date when the 2 The date when the judgment is pronounced 3 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website 4 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced 5 The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the appellant Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate with Ms. for the respondent HARKESH MANUJA, J. 1. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), whereby the claim application preferred by the appellants seeking compensation on account of death of Shambhu Roy in an untoward railway incident, came to be dismissed. 2. Briefly stating, the case of the appellants is that on 17.01.2 deceased, along with his brother Phillaur Railway Station with a view to travel to Amritsar. Nandan purchased a computerized ticket for two persons from Phillaur to Amritsar and handed over the same to the deceased. While the deceased was boarding Tata Mori Express from 2018 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH FAO No.1156 SHALO DEVI AND ORS. UNION OF INDIA The date when the judgment was reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is pronounced The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full judgment, and reasons thereof. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Ujval Mittal, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate with Ms. Monica Chawla, Advocate for the respondent-UOI. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for Tribunal’), whereby the claim application preferred by the appellants seeking compensation on account of death of Shambhu Roy in an untoward railway incident, came to be dismissed. Briefly stating, the case of the appellants is that on 17.01.2 deceased, along with his brother-in-law Rajkant Roy and one Nandan, reached Phillaur Railway Station with a view to travel to Amritsar. Nandan purchased a computerized ticket for two persons from Phillaur to Amritsar and handed over the e deceased. While the deceased was boarding Tata Mori Express from IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1156 of 2018 (O&M) …Appellants …Respondent judgment was reserved 06.08.2026 The date when the judgment is pronounced 02.09.2026 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 02.09.2026 Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced or whether the full judgment is Full The delay, if any, of the pronouncement of full Not applicable HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for Tribunal’), whereby the claim application preferred by the appellants seeking compensation on account of death of Shambhu Roy in an untoward Briefly stating, the case of the appellants is that on 17.01.2015, the law Rajkant Roy and one Nandan, reached Phillaur Railway Station with a view to travel to Amritsar. Nandan purchased a computerized ticket for two persons from Phillaur to Amritsar and handed over the e deceased. While the deceased was boarding Tata Mori Express from 1 By way of present appeal, challenge has been laid to the order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for Tribunal’), whereby the claim application preferred by the appellants seeking compensation on account of death of Shambhu Roy in an untoward 015, the law Rajkant Roy and one Nandan, reached Phillaur Railway Station with a view to travel to Amritsar. Nandan purchased a computerized ticket for two persons from Phillaur to Amritsar and handed over the e deceased. While the deceased was boarding Tata Mori Express from MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.02 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO NO.1156 of 2018 Platform No.2, the train started moving, as a result whereof he lost his balance, fell from the train and was dragged underneath it, resulting in his death at the spot. Nandan immediately i The inquest proceedings were thereafter conducted and the post examination was carried out. 3. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim principally on the ground that no journey tic therefore, his status as a bona fide passenger was not established. The Tribunal also disbelieved the testimony of AW in the statements recorded during th recorded by the Tribunal, as noticed from the impugned order, proceed substantially on the premise that absence of a ticket from the person of the deceased conclusively negatives his status as a bona fide passenge 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper 5. The issue regarding non of a deceased passenger is no longer (2019) 3 SCC 572 from the injured/deceased would not, by itself, negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden can be discharged by the claimant by placing on record an affid shifts upon the Railways to establish otherwise. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in India and others in somewhat similar circumstances, the dismissal of a railway compensation claim merely on account of non 2018 (O&M) Platform No.2, the train started moving, as a result whereof he lost his balance, fell from the train and was dragged underneath it, resulting in his death at the spot. Nandan immediately informed the Station Master, who issued a memo to the GRP. The inquest proceedings were thereafter conducted and the post examination was carried out. The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim principally on the ground that no journey ticket was recovered from the person of the deceased and, therefore, his status as a bona fide passenger was not established. The Tribunal also disbelieved the testimony of AW-2 Nandan and relied upon certain discrepancies in the statements recorded during the subsequent railway inquiry. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, as noticed from the impugned order, proceed substantially on the premise that absence of a ticket from the person of the deceased conclusively negatives his status as a bona fide passenge Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper The issue regarding non-recovery of a journey ticket from the person of a deceased passenger is no longer res integra 3 SCC 572, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere absence of a ticket from the injured/deceased would not, by itself, negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden can be discharged by the claimant by placing on record an affidavit or other relevant material, whereafter the burden shifts upon the Railways to establish otherwise. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kamukayi India and others, Civil Appeal No.3799 of 2023 in somewhat similar circumstances, the dismissal of a railway compensation claim merely on account of non-recovery of the journey ticket was set aside. The Court Platform No.2, the train started moving, as a result whereof he lost his balance, fell from the train and was dragged underneath it, resulting in his death at the spot. nformed the Station Master, who issued a memo to the GRP. The inquest proceedings were thereafter conducted and the post-mortem The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim principally on the ground ket was recovered from the person of the deceased and, therefore, his status as a bona fide passenger was not established. The Tribunal also 2 Nandan and relied upon certain discrepancies e subsequent railway inquiry. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, as noticed from the impugned order, proceed substantially on the premise that absence of a ticket from the person of the deceased conclusively negatives his status as a bona fide passenger. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book. recovery of a journey ticket from the person res integra. In Union of India v. Rina Devi , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere absence of a ticket from the injured/deceased would not, by itself, negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden can be discharged by the claimant by avit or other relevant material, whereafter the burden shifts upon the Railways to establish otherwise. The aforesaid principle has been Kamukayi and others v. Union of 23, decided on 16.05.2023, wherein, in somewhat similar circumstances, the dismissal of a railway compensation claim recovery of the journey ticket was set aside. The Court 2 Platform No.2, the train started moving, as a result whereof he lost his balance, fell from the train and was dragged underneath it, resulting in his death at the spot. nformed the Station Master, who issued a memo to the GRP. mortem The Tribunal, however, dismissed the claim principally on the ground ket was recovered from the person of the deceased and, therefore, his status as a bona fide passenger was not established. The Tribunal also 2 Nandan and relied upon certain discrepancies e subsequent railway inquiry. The findings recorded by the Tribunal, as noticed from the impugned order, proceed substantially on the premise that absence of a ticket from the person of the recovery of a journey ticket from the person Union of India v. Rina Devi, , the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere absence of a ticket from the injured/deceased would not, by itself, negative the claim that he was a bona fide passenger. The initial burden can be discharged by the claimant by avit or other relevant material, whereafter the burden shifts upon the Railways to establish otherwise. The aforesaid principle has been and others v. Union of , wherein, in somewhat similar circumstances, the dismissal of a railway compensation claim recovery of the journey ticket was set aside. The Court MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.02 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO NO.1156 of 2018 held that once the claimant discharges the initial burden valid ticket, the onus shifts upon the Railway Administration and mere absence of the ticket from the body cannot constitute sufficient basis to reject the claim. 5.1 In the present case, the appellants examined AW categorically stated that he purchased two tickets for the journey from Phillaur to Amritsar and handed over the same to the deceased before boarding the train. His statement finds material corroboration from the contemporaneous statement of the then Booking Clerk, Rajni Bala, recorded during the GRP proceedings, wherein purchase of ticket No.F03428685 from Phillaur to Amritsar at about 15:55 hours was confirmed. The fact that the said ticket was not subsequently recovered from the body of the decea be treated as conclusive proof that no ticket was purchased. The Tribunal also fell into error in placing undue reliance upon the subsequent statement recorded during the railway inquiry, part properly reconciled with the same. The Tribunal itself noticed that Nandan deposed regarding purchase of the ticket and the circumstances in which the deceased fell from the train. Merely because certain d statements of the witnesses, the entire claim could not have been discarded, particularly when the surrounding circumstances and official railway records supported the occurrence. 6. Even otherwise, the occurrence of the railway incident is substantially borne out from the official record. The Station Master issued a memo to the GRP immediately upon receiving information regarding the occurrence; the GRP reached the spot, conducted the subjected to post 2018 (O&M) held that once the claimant discharges the initial burden valid ticket, the onus shifts upon the Railway Administration and mere absence of the ticket from the body cannot constitute sufficient basis to reject the claim. In the present case, the appellants examined AW categorically stated that he purchased two tickets for the journey from Phillaur to Amritsar and handed over the same to the deceased before boarding the train. His statement finds material corroboration from the contemporaneous statement of the en Booking Clerk, Rajni Bala, recorded during the GRP proceedings, wherein purchase of ticket No.F03428685 from Phillaur to Amritsar at about 15:55 hours was confirmed. The fact that the said ticket was not subsequently recovered from the body of the deceased cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be treated as conclusive proof that no ticket was purchased. The Tribunal also fell into error in placing undue reliance upon the subsequent statement recorded during the railway inquiry, particularly when the contemporaneous material was not properly reconciled with the same. The Tribunal itself noticed that Nandan deposed regarding purchase of the ticket and the circumstances in which the deceased fell from the train. Merely because certain d statements of the witnesses, the entire claim could not have been discarded, particularly when the surrounding circumstances and official railway records supported the occurrence. Even otherwise, the occurrence of the railway incident is substantially borne out from the official record. The Station Master issued a memo to the GRP immediately upon receiving information regarding the occurrence; the GRP reached the spot, conducted the inquest proceedings and the dead body was subjected to post-mortem examination. The Tribunal itself noticed that the held that once the claimant discharges the initial burden regarding possession of a valid ticket, the onus shifts upon the Railway Administration and mere absence of the ticket from the body cannot constitute sufficient basis to reject the claim. In the present case, the appellants examined AW-2 Nandan, who categorically stated that he purchased two tickets for the journey from Phillaur to Amritsar and handed over the same to the deceased before boarding the train. His statement finds material corroboration from the contemporaneous statement of the en Booking Clerk, Rajni Bala, recorded during the GRP proceedings, wherein purchase of ticket No.F03428685 from Phillaur to Amritsar at about 15:55 hours was confirmed. The fact that the said ticket was not subsequently recovered from sed cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be treated as conclusive proof that no ticket was purchased. The Tribunal also fell into error in placing undue reliance upon the subsequent statement recorded during icularly when the contemporaneous material was not properly reconciled with the same. The Tribunal itself noticed that Nandan deposed regarding purchase of the ticket and the circumstances in which the deceased fell from the train. Merely because certain discrepancies existed in the statements of the witnesses, the entire claim could not have been discarded, particularly when the surrounding circumstances and official railway records Even otherwise, the occurrence of the railway incident is substantially borne out from the official record. The Station Master issued a memo to the GRP immediately upon receiving information regarding the occurrence; the GRP inquest proceedings and the dead body was mortem examination. The Tribunal itself noticed that the 3 regarding possession of a valid ticket, the onus shifts upon the Railway Administration and mere absence of an, who categorically stated that he purchased two tickets for the journey from Phillaur to Amritsar and handed over the same to the deceased before boarding the train. His statement finds material corroboration from the contemporaneous statement of the en Booking Clerk, Rajni Bala, recorded during the GRP proceedings, wherein purchase of ticket No.F03428685 from Phillaur to Amritsar at about 15:55 hours was confirmed. The fact that the said ticket was not subsequently recovered from sed cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be treated as conclusive proof that no ticket was purchased. The Tribunal also fell into error in placing undue reliance upon the subsequent statement recorded during icularly when the contemporaneous material was not properly reconciled with the same. The Tribunal itself noticed that Nandan deposed regarding purchase of the ticket and the circumstances in which the iscrepancies existed in the statements of the witnesses, the entire claim could not have been discarded, particularly when the surrounding circumstances and official railway records Even otherwise, the occurrence of the railway incident is substantially borne out from the official record. The Station Master issued a memo to the GRP immediately upon receiving information regarding the occurrence; the GRP inquest proceedings and the dead body was mortem examination. The Tribunal itself noticed that the MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.02 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO NO.1156 of 2018 deceased was found lying between the platform and the railway track and that the GRP proceedings was conducted. The mere fact that the Gua deceased falling from the train or that no alarm chain pulling was recorded cannot, by itself, disprove the occurrence. The expression ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 specifically includes accide of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Once the material on record establishes that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained after falling from the train in the course of his journey, the incident falls within the statutory definition. 7. Furthermore, the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal regarding the deceased and his companions allegedly having travelled in the reverse direction towards Amritsar is also based on conjectures. The Tribunal was required to examine the evidence on record and not to substitute its own assessment as to the prudence or otherwise of the travel plan adopted by the deceased. Such circumstances, in any event, cannot override the contemporaneous documentary evidence and the testimony of the wi settled that liability under Section 124 liability and the Railway Administration cannot escape its statutory liability merely by alleging negligence on the part of the decea brought within one of the exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124 the present case, the Tribunal did not record any finding bringing the occurrence within any such statutory exception. 8. Conse recorded by the Tribunal on Issues No.1 and 2 are contrary to the evidence available on record and the settled legal position. The deceased has to be treated as 2018 (O&M) deceased was found lying between the platform and the railway track and that the GRP proceedings was conducted. The mere fact that the Gua deceased falling from the train or that no alarm chain pulling was recorded cannot, by itself, disprove the occurrence. The expression ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 specifically includes accide of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Once the material on record establishes that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained after falling from the train in the course of his journey, the incident falls within the statutory Furthermore, the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal regarding the deceased and his companions allegedly having travelled in the reverse direction towards Amritsar is also based on conjectures. The Tribunal was required to e evidence on record and not to substitute its own assessment as to the prudence or otherwise of the travel plan adopted by the deceased. Such circumstances, in any event, cannot override the contemporaneous documentary evidence and the testimony of the witness who purchased the ticket. It is also settled that liability under Section 124-A of the Railways Act is one of strict liability and the Railway Administration cannot escape its statutory liability merely by alleging negligence on the part of the decea brought within one of the exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124 the present case, the Tribunal did not record any finding bringing the occurrence within any such statutory exception. Consequently, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issues No.1 and 2 are contrary to the evidence available on record and the settled legal position. The deceased has to be treated as deceased was found lying between the platform and the railway track and that the GRP proceedings was conducted. The mere fact that the Guard did not witness the deceased falling from the train or that no alarm chain pulling was recorded cannot, by itself, disprove the occurrence. The expression ‘untoward incident’ under Section 123(c)(2) of the Railways Act, 1989 specifically includes accidental falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Once the material on record establishes that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained after falling from the train in the course of his journey, the incident falls within the statutory Furthermore, the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal regarding the deceased and his companions allegedly having travelled in the reverse direction towards Amritsar is also based on conjectures. The Tribunal was required to e evidence on record and not to substitute its own assessment as to the prudence or otherwise of the travel plan adopted by the deceased. Such circumstances, in any event, cannot override the contemporaneous documentary tness who purchased the ticket. It is also A of the Railways Act is one of strict liability and the Railway Administration cannot escape its statutory liability merely by alleging negligence on the part of the deceased, unless the case is specifically brought within one of the exceptions contained in the proviso to Section 124-A. In the present case, the Tribunal did not record any finding bringing the occurrence quently, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issues No.1 and 2 are contrary to the evidence available on record and the settled legal position. The deceased has to be treated as 4 deceased was found lying between the platform and the railway track and that the rd did not witness the deceased falling from the train or that no alarm chain pulling was recorded cannot, by itself, disprove the occurrence. The expression ‘untoward incident’ under ntal falling of a passenger from a train carrying passengers. Once the material on record establishes that the deceased died on account of injuries sustained after falling from the train in the course of his journey, the incident falls within the statutory Furthermore, the reasoning adopted by the Tribunal regarding the deceased and his companions allegedly having travelled in the reverse direction towards Amritsar is also based on conjectures. The Tribunal was required to e evidence on record and not to substitute its own assessment as to the prudence or otherwise of the travel plan adopted by the deceased. Such circumstances, in any event, cannot override the contemporaneous documentary tness who purchased the ticket. It is also A of the Railways Act is one of strict liability and the Railway Administration cannot escape its statutory liability merely sed, unless the case is specifically A. In the present case, the Tribunal did not record any finding bringing the occurrence quently, this Court is of the considered view that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on Issues No.1 and 2 are contrary to the evidence available on record and the settled legal position. The deceased has to be treated as MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.02 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO NO.1156 of 2018 a bona fide passenger and his d within the meaning of Sections 123(c)(2) and 124 9. As regards the quantum, the accident took place on 17.01.2015, whereas the order of the learned Tribunal was passed on principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in subsequently reiterated in compensation applicable on the date of the accident, together with reason interest thereon, is to be compared with the amount of compensation prescribed on the date of the award, and the higher of the two is to be awarded. In the present case, the accident having occurred in the year 2015, the appellants would be entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/ with interest thereon, or the enhanced prescribed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/ applicable on the date of the award, whichever is higher. 10. Accordingly, the present appeal i 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to compensation of with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filin application till realization, or Rs.8,00,000/ principles laid down in Administration shall deposit the amount so determined, along with accrued interest, before the learned Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The learned Tribunal shall thereafter disburse the amount amongst the eligible dependants law. In case the respondents fail to deposit the amount within the aforesaid period of three months, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 2018 (O&M) a bona fide passenger and his death as having occurred in an untoward incident within the meaning of Sections 123(c)(2) and 124 As regards the quantum, the accident took place on 17.01.2015, whereas the order of the learned Tribunal was passed on principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in subsequently reiterated in Radha Yadav v. Union of India compensation applicable on the date of the accident, together with reason interest thereon, is to be compared with the amount of compensation prescribed on the date of the award, and the higher of the two is to be awarded. In the present case, the accident having occurred in the year 2015, the appellants would be o compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- applicable at the relevant time, along with interest thereon, or the enhanced prescribed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/ applicable on the date of the award, whichever is higher. Accordingly, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to compensation of with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filin application till realization, or Rs.8,00,000/-, whichever is higher principles laid down in Rina Devi (supra) and Radha Yadav (supra) Administration shall deposit the amount so determined, along with accrued erest, before the learned Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The learned Tribunal shall thereafter disburse the amount amongst the eligible dependants n case the respondents fail to deposit the amount within the aforesaid period of three months, they shall be liable to pay interest @ eath as having occurred in an untoward incident within the meaning of Sections 123(c)(2) and 124-A of the Railways Act, 1989. As regards the quantum, the accident took place on 17.01.2015, whereas the order of the learned Tribunal was passed on 30.10.2017. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rina Devi (supra) and Radha Yadav v. Union of India, (2019) 3 SCC 410, the compensation applicable on the date of the accident, together with reasonable interest thereon, is to be compared with the amount of compensation prescribed on the date of the award, and the higher of the two is to be awarded. In the present case, the accident having occurred in the year 2015, the appellants would be applicable at the relevant time, along with interest thereon, or the enhanced prescribed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/ applicable on the date of the award, whichever is higher. s allowed. The impugned order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is set aside. The appellants shall be entitled to compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim , whichever is higher, in terms of the Radha Yadav (supra). The Railway Administration shall deposit the amount so determined, along with accrued erest, before the learned Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The learned Tribunal shall thereafter disburse the amount amongst the eligible dependants-appellants in accordance with n case the respondents fail to deposit the amount within the aforesaid period of three months, they shall be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum on the 5 eath as having occurred in an untoward incident As regards the quantum, the accident took place on 17.01.2015, 30.10.2017. In view of the and , the able interest thereon, is to be compared with the amount of compensation prescribed on the date of the award, and the higher of the two is to be awarded. In the present case, the accident having occurred in the year 2015, the appellants would be applicable at the relevant time, along with interest thereon, or the enhanced prescribed compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- s allowed. The impugned order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, is along g of the claim , in terms of the . The Railway Administration shall deposit the amount so determined, along with accrued erest, before the learned Tribunal within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. The learned Tribunal shall thereafter in accordance with n case the respondents fail to deposit the amount within the aforesaid period on the MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.02 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document FAO NO.1156 of 2018 amount payable from the expiry of the said period of three months till the date of actual realization 11. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. September 02, Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2018 (O&M) amount payable from the expiry of the said period of three months till the date of actual realization. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed 2026 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No amount payable from the expiry of the said period of three months till the date of Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE 6 amount payable from the expiry of the said period of three months till the date of Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed MOHMED ATIK 2026.09.02 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document