Dismissed

North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. B R Lakshmana S/O Ramachandrappa

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023RSA/3332/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal, the appellant (KSRTC) challenged the civil court decreeing a suit filed by a former trainee driver seeking declaration that his dismissal was void. The court addressed jurisdiction bars under the Industrial Disputes Act for trainees, ruling that a suit based on violations of natural justice is maintainable in civil court.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed; original decree confirming declaration of void dismissal and direction to pay salary and emoluments stands upheld.

North-East Karnataka Road Transport… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.3332 OF 2006

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NORTH-EAST KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, SARIGE SADAN, GULBARGA-585101, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,

¶10

NOW R/BY ITS CHIEF LAW OFFICER.

¶11

… APPELLANT

¶12

(BY SRI. SUNIL S. DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

B.R. LAKSHMANA S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, (SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S)

¶15

1(A) HAMPAMMA W/O LATE B.R. LAKSHMANNA, AGE. 64 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. W.23, GADANG STREET, NEAR NILAKANTESHWARA TEMPLE, COWAL BAZAAR, BELLARY-583102.

¶16

VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Digitally signedbyVIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPIDate:2023.11.1712:58:31 +0530

¶17

1(B) B.L. MADHAVI D/O B.R. LAXMAN, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. W.23, GADANG STREET, NEAR NILAKANTESHWARA TEMPLE, COWAL BAZAAR, BELLARY-583102.

¶18

… RESPONDENT

¶19

(BY SRI. K. RAGHAVENDRA RAO & V. VIDHYA, ADVOCATE FOR R1(A) & R1(B))

¶20

THIS RSA FILED U/S.100 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT & DECREE DATED: 21.08.2006 PASSED IN R.A.NO.7/2004 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.), BELLARY, DISMISSING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE JUDGEMENT AND DECREE DATED:20.12.2003 PASSED IN OS.NO.438/1998 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.), BELLARY.

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶23

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶24

JUDGMENT

¶25

This second appeal is filled praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 21.08.2006 passed in RA No.7/2004 by the Additional Civil Judge,(Senior Division) Ballari and judgment and decree dated 10.12.2003 passed in O.S No.438/1998 by the Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division), Ballari.

¶26

The appellant was defendant and respondent was plaintiff in the trial Court in O.S.No.438/1998. Parties herein are referred as per their ranks in the Trial Court.

¶27

The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration of the proceedings of the appellant/plaintiff bearing reference No.4651/1998-99 dated:12.08.1998 bearing Divisional Order No.460/1998 as void, illegal and non-est in the eyes of the law and declare that the plaintiff is deemed to be in service as a driver and to grant mandatory injunction directing to defendant to continue to

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶29

¶30

pay salary and all emoluments which the plaintiff was receiving prior to the illegal order.

¶31

The case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court

¶32

was that he was appointed as a job trainee driver in KSRTC, Ballari Division, Ballari on 05.12.1995. The plaintiff has studied upto 6^th standard. He enrolled himself in the District Employment Exchange and subsequently applied for the post of Driver in the defendant’s department. He received an intimation for interview dated 12.09.1995 and

¶33

as he was successful and selected as per selection list No.7961/1995-96 dated 05.12.1995. Thereafter, the plaintiff was issued with an appointment order dated 08.05.1999 with effect from 27.11.1995 and he was working as a driver since then. In the meantime, after completion of two years of service, he was shocked to receive a show cause notice from the defendant dated 11.05.1998 bearing No.2123/1997-98, wherein defendant has asked him to submit his explanation to the violation of Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶35

¶36

(Conduct and Discipline) Regulations. Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted his explanation stating that transfer certificate obtained by him from the school is genuine. Prior to this, the defendant has sent Transfer Certificate to the concerned school for verification and it received a communication from the Head Master of the School stating that there was no 6^th standard during the relevant point of time and the Transfer certificate issued by earlier Head Master cannot be certified. Subsequently, the defendant requested the Deputy Commissioner to enquire into the matter. Accordingly, the Block Education Officer went to the school, searched for documents and found from records that the 6^th standard was commenced in the year 1995-96 only and therefore, the alleged transfer certificate was fake one. After receiving the said explanation to the show cause notice, without hearing the plaintiff an order of dismissal was passed. The said order is against the procedures contemplated in Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (conduct and Discipline) Regulations. The defendant did not follow the prescribed

¶37

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶38

procedures. With this, the plaintiff prayed to decree the suit.

¶39

The defendant in his written statement

¶40

admitted that appointed of the plaintiff as a job trainee driver; subsequent issue of show cause notice and his dismissal from service. The defendant contended that plaintiff has executed an undertaking stating that in the case of any suppression of facts is liable to be dismissed from service and also liable for criminal prosecution. The defendant contended that it is not mandatory for conducting rules to issue show cause notice for breach of undertaking. Still, he has issued a show cause notice in order to provide an opportunity to the plaintiff to defend his case. The defendant contended that suit is not maintainable as Court has no jurisdiction. Since it is a dispute as defined under Industrial Laws and the Court cannot entertain the suit as it has no jurisdiction. The remedy available to the plaintiff is in the different forum and not before the Court. The plaintiff has filed a fake

¶41

- 6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶42

transfer certificate so as to make defendant to believe that he has passed 6^th standard and managed to get an appointment. It was subsequently found that transfer certificate furnished by him was a fake one. Accordingly, as per the undertaking, the plaintiff was removed from the service by following due procedures of law. With this, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit.

¶43

On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court has framed the following issues:

¶44

1) Whether plaintiff proves that proceedings bearing reference No.4651/98-99, dated 12.08.1998, bearing Divisional Order No.460/98 passed by the defendant is void?

¶45

2) Whether plaintiff proves that he is deemed to be in service as a driver?

¶46

3) Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction to direct the defendant to continue to pay salary and all such emoluments which plaintiff was receiving prior to the illegal order?

¶47

4) Whether defendant proves that this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit.

¶48

5) What or decree?

¶49

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶50

The plaintiff has been examined as PW-1 and he

¶51

got examined two witnesses as PW-2 and PW-3 and got marked 10 documents as EX.P1 to P10. On behalf of the defendant one witness has been examined as DW-1 and got marked 10 documents as DW-1 to DW-10. The trial Court after hearing arguments of both sides and appreciating evidence on record has answered issue No.1 to 3 in the affirmative, issue No.4 in the negative and decreed the suit.

¶52

Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree

¶53

passed by the Trial Court the defendant has filed an appeal in RA No.7/2004. The learned Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Bellari after hearing both parties has formulated following points for consideration:

¶54

1) Whether the trial Court is right in holding that the dismissal of the plaintiff is illegal and consequently decreeing the suit?

¶55

2) Whether the trial Court is right in holding that the Civil Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit?

¶56

3) What decree or order?

¶57

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶58

The First Appellant Court has answered Point Nos.1 and 2 in the affirmative and dismissed the appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Civil Judge, (Junior Division) Bellari.

¶59

Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Trail Court and the First Appellate Court the defendant has filed this second appeal. This second appeal came to be admitted to consider the following substantial questions of law.

¶60

”(1) Whether the Civil Courts have jurisdiction to entertain the dispute pertaining to the industrial dispute?

¶61

(2) Whether the Civil Court could entrain a suit notwithstanding the bar under the statute?”

¶62

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and

¶63

learned counsel for the respondent. As the respondent died during pendency of this appeal, his LRs were brought on record.

¶64

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶65

Learned counsel for the appellant would

¶66

contend that plaintiff was a job trainee driver. On verification of documents/transfer certificate furnished by the plaintiff was found fake. Show-cause notice was issued to him and he gave reply to the same. Thereafter, the defendant sent communication to the District Commissioner to verify the transfer certificate. On getting report of the BEO, as the transfer certificate is reported to be fake, the defendant passed an order as per EX.D9 and removed the plaintiff from roll of trainee driver and from selection list. Learned counsel for the appellant would further contend that the plaintiff is not an employee of the corporation and he was workmen and his remedy is to approach the Labour Court. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable. He further contend that decision relied by the trial Court are pertaining to the Association and Cooperative Society and therefore, they have not applicable to the parties of this case. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the

¶67

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶68

R.S.R.T.C and Ors Vs Deen Dayal Sharma¹ contending

¶69

that “If the infringement of the Standing Orders is alleged, the civil court’s jurisdiction may be held to be barred but if the suit is based on the violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on other grounds, the civil court’s jurisdiction may not be held to be barred”. He also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation And Another Vs Bal Mukund Bairwa(2)² contending that “ if dispute arises out of right and obligations under the ID Act or sister laws like Industrial Employment(Standing Orders) Act, 1946, civil court’s jurisdiction is barred-If, however, employeremployee disputes pertain to matter like non-observance of principles of natural justice or constitutional provisions, civil suit is maintainable. ” He contends that the plaintiff has alleged that the orders passed by the defendant are in violation of the rules and therefore, he ought to have

¶70

1 AIR 2010 SC 2662

¶71

2 2009 4 SCC 299

¶72

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶73

approached the Labour Court and suit is not maintainable. With this, he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the judgments passed by the Trial Court and First Appellate Court.

¶74

Learned counsel for the respondent would contend that as per Ex.P.1-Endorsement, it is a letter for interview for the post of appointment of driver. The plaintiff has studied 6^th standard and he has obtained Ex.P.7 i.e., Transfer Certificate three years prior to advertisement by the defendant. The defendant has removed the plaintiff by passing the order as per Ex.D.9 without holding any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the plaintiff. The defendant has obtained report of BEO as per Ex.D8 addressing the letter to Deputy Commissioner as per x.D.7 and thereafter, without giving an opportunity to the plaintiff has passed an order of removal as per Ex.D.9. The plaintiff has not been given any opportunity prior to passing of the order as per Ex.D.9 after receipt of report of BEO as per Ex.D.8. The defendant

¶75

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶76

has not held any enquiry prior to removing the plaintiff. As per The Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Servants (Conduct And Discipline) Regulations, 1971, the procedure for imposing major penalty as per regulation 23 is to hold an enquiry. The defendant without holding any enquiry has removed the plaintiff. She contended that the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Hanumanth Ramanna Bajantri v/s The North West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation Chikkodi Division, Rep. by its Chief Law Officer, Dharwad (Writ Appeal No. 100556 of 2015 [L-KSRTC]) decided on 02.08.2021 has held that the ‘trainee conductor’ selected on a temporary basis and deputing him to undergo training for a period of two years and during training period he has been removed from select list, he could not be considered as ‘corporation servant’ since a ‘corporation servant’ would not come under the definition of ‘workman’ as stipulated under the provisions of 2(s) of the Act. This Court in the said case has confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the order passed by Labour Court. She

¶77

- 13 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶78

also placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench

¶79

of this Court in W.P.No.60037/2010 C/w W.P.No.105352/2016 (Ramesh Harijan S/O Channappa Bhemappa Harijan Vs The Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, Nayadegula, Shiddayya Road, Bangalore), wherein it is held that a probationer cannot be discharged on the ground of mis-conduct or inefficiency or for any such reason without a proper enquiry and an order purporting an order of discharge but in essence an order punishing probationer cannot be sustainable in law. She contended that the plaintiff has been dismissed without giving any opportunity to him and without holding any enquiry, which affects his right of principles of natural justice. If there is violation of principles of natural justice even as per decision of Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by learned counsel appearing for appellant in the case of R.S.R.T.C & Ors Vs Deen Dayal Sharma³ , the suit is maintainable. With this, she prays to dismiss the appeal.

¶80

3 AIR 2010 SC 2662

¶81

14 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶82

The jurisdiction of Civil Court is governed by

¶83

Section 9 of CPC, which reads as under;

¶84

“ 9. Courts to try all civil suits unless barred . - The Courts shall (subject to the provisions herein contained) have jurisdiction to try all suits of a civil nature excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred.”

¶85

The jurisdiction of the Civil Court in terms of the aforesaid provision is a plenary one. The provision relating to bar to entertain a suit must, therefore, be laid down by a statute either expressly or by necessary implication.

¶86

Section 9 of the Code is in enforcement of the fundamental principles of law laid down in the maxim Ubi jus Ibi remedium . A litigant, thus, having a grievance of a civil nature has a right to institute a civil suit in a competent civil court unless its cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred by any statute. Ex facie, in terms of Section 9 of the Code, civil Courts can try all suits, unless bared by statute, either expressly or by necessary implication.

¶87

15 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶88

It is also well settled that there is a

¶89

presumption that a civil court will have jurisdiction and the ouster of civil court's jurisdiction is not to be readily inferred. A person taking a plea contra must establish the same. Even in a case where jurisdiction of a civil court is sought to be barred under a statute, the civil court can exercise its jurisdiction in respect of some matters particularly when the statutory authority or Tribunal acts without jurisdiction.

¶90

Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the respondent-plaintiff is a workman and remedy for him is to approach the Labour Court-Industrial Tribunal.

¶91

In the case of Hanumanth Ramanna

¶92

Bajantri ’s case ( supra ), the trainee conductor, found during training, failed to issue tickets and failed to collect the fare from passengers. The Disciplinary Authority has issued a show- cause notice to the trainee conductor and thereafter, article of Charges has been issued and the Disciplinary Authority has held an enquiry by appointing an

¶93

16 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶94

Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report holding that the appellant is guilty of charges leveled against him. The Disciplinary Authority accepting the enquiry report has deleted the trainee conductor from the selected list. The said trainee conductor has raised an industrial dispute and matter was referred to the Labour Court. The Labour Court allowed the reference and setaside the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and directed the N.W.K.R.T.C to reinstate the appellant into service with other reliefs. The said N.W.K.R.T.C has challenged the said order of the Labour Court in a writ petition and contended as under;

¶95

“Aggrieved by the said order of the Labour Court, the respondent/Corporation filed Writ Petition No.63014/2009 before this Court contending that the order passed by the Labour Court was without any authority of law and the Labour Court failed to take note of the fact that the appellant could not be considered as a Labourer as he was only a ‘trainee conductor’ who was undergoing training in the Corporation and as such, the dispute raised by the ‘trainee candidate’ could not be considered as an Industrial Dispute and the Labour Court ought not to have allowed the Reference. The learned Single Judge of this

¶96

17 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶97

Court, considering the entire material on record, by the impugned order dated 10.07.2015 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Labour Court holding that Labour Court was not justified in accepting the reference. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant has filed the present intra Court appeal.

¶98

The said writ petition filed by N.W.K.R.T.C came

¶99

to be allowed by setting-aside the Labour Court order. The order of the learned Single Judge has been challenged before the Division Bench of this Court. The Division Bench of this Court after referring to the decisions of earlier Division Bench rendered in W.A.No.100369/2014 disposed

¶100

of on 18.08.2014 ( Santosh K.Menasinakai Vs The Management of NEKRTC ) and W.A.No.100383/2014 disposed of on 15.10.2014 ( The Management of NEKRTC Vs Raju S.Jaydi ), which was the subject before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.11117/2015, which came to be dismissed by order dated 31.07.2017 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, wherein it is held that the trainee is not a corporation servant. Considering the above

¶101

18 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶102

aspects, the Division Bench of this Court has held as under;

¶103

“Once the appellant was selected on a temporary basis as a ‘trainee conductor’ and was deputed to undergo training for a period of two years and during the training period, he has been removed from select list, he cannot be considered as ‘Corporation Servant’ since a corporation servant would not come under the definition of ‘workman’ as stipulated under the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the Act as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant. Therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the appellant into the post held by him with all consequential benefits, suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and it cannot be sustained. The learned Judge considering the dictum of the coordinate bench of this Court has rightly held that the appellant being a ‘trainee conductor’ was not a ‘Corporation Servant’ and rightly set aside the order passed by the Labour Court by allowing the writ petition filed by the Corporation.”

¶104

In the above case, it is held that the trainee conductor cannot be considered as ‘Corporation Servant’

¶105

19 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶106

since a corporation servant would not come under the definition of ‘workman’ as stipulated under the provisions of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act and confirmed the setting aside of the Labour Court order by the learned Single Judge.

¶107

In view of the above, trainee undergoing a training, cannot raise dispute and dispute raised by the trainee would not be considered as an Industrial Dispute.

¶108

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Deen Dayal

¶109

Sharma ( supra ) has held as under:

¶110

“14. The case of the respondent as set up in the plaint, therefore, is that in the absence of departmental enquiry as contemplated in the Standing Orders, the order of dismissal is bad in law. It is true that the respondent pleaded that he has been dismissed from service without affording any opportunity of defence and hearing and in breach of the principles of natural justice but the said plea has to be understood in the backdrop of his pleading that the dismissal order has been passed contrary to the Standing Orders without holding any departmental enquiry.

¶111

15. The legal position that Standing Orders have no statutory force and are not in the nature of

¶112

20 -

¶113

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶114

delegated/subordinate legislation is clearly stated by this Court in Krishna Kant [(1995) 5 SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110] . In that case (Krishna Kant [(1995) 5 SCC 75 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 1207 : (1995) 31 ATC 110] ), this Court while summarising the legal principles in para 35(6) stated that the certified Standing Orders framed under and in accordance with the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 are statutorily imposed conditions of service and are binding both upon the employers and employees, though they do not amount to “statutory provisions” and any violation of these Standing Orders entitles an employee to appropriate relief either before the forum created by the Industrial Disputes Act or the civil court where recourse to civil court is open according to the principles indicated therein.

¶115

16. In Bal Mukund Bairwa (2) [(2009) 4 SCC 299 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 812] , in para 37 of the Report, the position has been explained that if the infringement of the Standing Orders is alleged, the civil court's jurisdiction may be held to be barred but if the suit is based on the violation of principles of common law or constitutional provisions or on other grounds, the civil court's jurisdiction may not be held to be barred. In our opinion, the nature of right sought to be enforced is decisive in determining whether the jurisdiction of civil court is excluded or not.”

¶116

If there is infringement on standing orders is alleged, Civil Court’s jurisdiction held to

¶117

21 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶118

be barred. In the case on hand, there is no allegation of infringement of standing order. The present suit of plaintiff is based on violation of principles of common law i.e. principles of natural justice. Therefore Civil Court jurisdiction is not held to be barred.

¶119

The plaintiff has been removed by defendant from the trainee list without holding an enquiry and giving an opportunity to the plaintiff. The report has been accepted by defendant behind the back of the plaintiff which is basis for passing order Ex.D.9 and removal of the plaintiff from the trainee list and select list. Therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking declaration that the order passed by the defendant as per the Ex.D.9 is void is maintainable.

¶120

Learned counsel for the appellant/ defendant did not point out any express or implead bar in any statute or in Rules to file civil suit.

¶121

22 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13140 RSA No. 3332 of 2006

¶122

Considering all these aspects, the trial Court and First Appellate Court have held that suit of the plaintiff is maintainable and rightly decreed the same. Accordingly, the substantial question of law is answered. In the result, the following:

¶123

ORDER

¶124

The appeal is dismissed.

¶125

Sd/JUDGE

¶126

DSP,AM & AC CT:BCK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. B R Lakshmana S/O Ramachandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

North-East Karnataka Road Transport Corporation v. B R Lakshmana S/O Ramachandrappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jubedabanu W/O Mardansab Vadavi Vs Mardansab S/O. Davalsab Vadavi

Kusum W/O Satyanarayana Wahi Vs the State of Karnataka

Iranna S/O Basayya Ganachari Vs State of Karnataka

Mohammad Asif S/O. Abdul Rahim Chittewale Vs Rehana Begum @ Rehanabanu W/O Mohammad Asif Chittewale

Bahubali S/O Gangappa Teradal Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Ningappa S/O Laxmappa Arakeri Vs Shri. Raju S/O Ashok Potadar