TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 1119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f No Confidence is in no manner repugnant to any of the provisions of the Constitution of India. The whole edifice of the challenge to the constitutionality of Section 28 is built on the status of the petitioner as a member belonging to the reserved category. It has nothing to do with the continuance, stability, dignity and the status of the Panchayat Institutions. The personal desire, of the petitioner to cling on to the office of Adhyaksha is camouflaged as a constitutional issue. The provision of No Confidence Motion, in our opinion, is not only consistent with Part IX of the Constitution, but is also foundational for ensuring transparency and accountability of the elected representatives, including Panchayat Adhyakshas. The provision sends out a clear message that an elected Panchayat Adhyaksha can continue to function as such only so long as he/she enjoys the confidence of the constituents. The provision for removing an elected representative such as Panchayat Adhyaksha is of fundamental importance to ensure the democratic functioning of the Institution as well as to ensure the transparency and accountability in the functions performed by the elected representatives. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. It was alleged that atleast three members whose names were mentioned in the Motion for No Confidence had not signed the motion/notice requesting the Collector to call a meeting. The appellant made the following prayers in the writ petition :- (i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned notice of intent to bring no-confidence motion against the petitioner; (ii) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the notice dated 31st October, 2012, issued by respondent No.3, as contained in Annexure No.1 to the writ petition. (iii) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent No.3 to verify the genuineness of the signature of the member s on the notice to bring motion against the petition dated 30th October, 2012, (iv) Issue a writ, order or direction or writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to let the petitioner to continue on the office of Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat Sitapur of Tehsil District Sitapur. (v) Issues an ad-interim mandamus to the above effect. (vi) Issue any other appropriate writ, order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of India, even though specifically raised the writ petition and argued before the High Court have neither been noticed nor considered. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, this Court passed the following order :- If that be so, in our opinion, the remedy of the petitioner would be to seek review of the judgment of the High Court rather than to challenge the same by way of this special leave petition. 10. The prayer made by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that the operation of the impugned order be stayed for two weeks to enable the appellant to approach the High Court by way of review petition was declined. It was, however, made clear that the result of the meeting, which was scheduled to be held on 22nd February, 2013, shall not be declared for a further period of two weeks. 11. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Review Petition No. 103 of 2013 before the High Court. The appellant stated that members owning allegiance to the Samajwadi Party led by Smt. Madhu Gupta, W/o Shri Hari Om Gupta Respondent No.5, were not able to muster any signature for the initiation of the Motion and, therefore, appended forged signature of several Members on the notice of intent to move the Mot ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d . Since Respondent No.5 had filed a caveat on 11th July, 2013 at about 11.00 A.M. and no notice had been given to her before hearing the Special Leave Petition, she filed an application seeking recall of the aforesaid order dated 12th July, 2013. It was claimed that Respondent No. 5 sought recall on the following grounds:- (i) No notice was given to Respondent before hearing and passing Order dated 12.07.2013. (ii) Counting of votes was already done and the no confidence Order was passed well before passing the Order dated 12.07.2013 by this Hon ble Court. (iii) Present SLP is not maintainable as per the settled law laid down by this Hon ble Court namely that an SLP is not maintainable against the dismissal of review filed before the HC after dismissal of SLP. (iv) In any case the SLP is also not maintainable as the issue raised in the SLP is already covered by the judgment of this Hon ble Court in Bhanumati and Ors. V. State of U.P. Ors. reported in 2010 (12) SCC 1. 13. Whilst the matter was pending, on 23rd July, 2013, the petitioner filed Contempt Petition No. 287 of 2013 for violating the orders of this Court dated 12th July, 2013. It is stated that Responden ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Special Leave Petition is not maintainable as it is directed only against the judgment rendered by the High Court in Review Petition No. 103 of 2013. In support of the submissions, learned senior counsel relied on judgments of this Court in State of Assam Vs. Ripa Sarma[(2013) 3 SCC 63] and Suseel Finance Leasing Co. Vs. M. Lata Ors.[ (2004) 13 SCC 675]. Dr. Dhawan also submitted that even otherwise, the SLP deserves to be dismissed as the matter is squarely covered against the petitioner/appellant by the judgment of this Court in Bhanumati Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh through its Principal Secretary Ors.[ (2010) 12 SCC 1] Relying on the aforesaid judgment, it was submitted by Dr. Dhawan that the petitioner can not even be heard on the proposition that Section 28 of the Act is inconsistent with Part IX of the Constitution. Mr. Ashok Desai, learned senior counsel also submitted that in view of the law laid down in Bhanumati Ors. (supra), the issue raised herein is no longer res integra. Learned senior counsel also submitted that the SLP against the judgment of the High Court rendered in the Review Petition would not be maintainable without challenging the judgment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the 73rd Amendment of the Constitution of India, which came into effect from 24th April, 1993. Such continuance would be inconsistent with the provisions contained in Article 243N of the Constitution of India. (v) Learned senior counsel further submitted that Article 243D for the first time introduced reservation of seats for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes as well as ladies both in the election of members of Panchayat as well as for the office of Chairperson. It is submitted that the provision of No Confidence like Section 28 of the Act can frustrate the provision for such reservation. SC, ST and ladies always being in minority in Panchayat, a Chairperson from the reserved category can easily be removed from the said office by majority of general category Panchayat members. Such a result was not envisaged by the provisions contained in Article 243D. It is further submitted that Part IX of the Constitution has exhaustively specified the areas for which a State Legislature, as local self-governance falls in the State List, can make laws in order to have complete decentralization of the governance. This, according to the learned senior counsel was the main objective of the 73 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. A provision for moving a Motion for No Confidence is in other words the right to recall of an elected member by the voters. The Constitution may or may not provide for moving a Motion for No Confidence. He submitted that provision for moving the Motion for No Confidence is not necessarily part of democracy. In fact, right to recall an elected member has not been legally recognized. In support of this submission, he makes a reference to Article 243N read with Article 243(c)(iv) and (v) and in particular, sub-clause 5(b). He further submits that the reservation was introduced for the first time by 73rd amendment, which incorporated Article 243 in the Constitution of India w.e.f. 24th April, 1993. He, thereafter, outlined the various provisions for reservation of seats as contained in Article 243D. It is emphasized that the provision contained in Article 243D(ii) makes it mandatory that not less than one third of the total number of seats reserved under Clause 1 shall be reserved for ladies belonging to the Scheduled Castes or as the case may be, the Scheduled Tribes. Articles 243F(1)(a) and Article 243F(1)(b) which correspond to Article 102 and 103 provides for disqualification fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nged the main writ petition by way of SLP No. 8542 of 2013. The same was disposed of with opportunity to file review petition before the High Court after noticing the objections raised by the petitioner, which were not considered by the High Court. The earlier judgment of the High Court in the writ petition clearly merged in the judgment of the High Court dismissing the review petition. Therefore, it was necessary only, in the peculiar facts of this case, to challenge only the judgment of the High Court in the review petition. It is submitted by Mr. Shanti Bhushan that Section 114 of the CPC contains no limits on the circumstances under which the Court can review its own judgment. The section merely states that the person aggrieved may apply for a review of judgment to the Court, which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order on it as it thinks fit. So far as the High Court is concerned, it would have inherent powers to review any decision. (x) Learned senior counsel elaborated that Section 114 CPC gives full powers to the Court to pass any order in the interest of justice. It can not be curtailed by the Rules made by the High Court or the Supreme C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on is not provided for in Part IX of the Constitution of India. Therefore, if Paragraph 28 and Paragraph 31 are read with Ground F, it would clearly indicate that the removal under the Act can only be under Section 29 which does not provide for moving a Motion for No Confidence. (xii) Coming back to the submission that Section 28 is inconsistent with Part IX of the Constitution of India, he submits that Part IX is a complete code in relation to Panchayats. Therefore, State Legislature can not make a provision inconsistent to Part IX. Similar power has been reserved for the Stated Legislature as exceptions as enumerated in Articles 243a, 243C(iv) (v). He further submitted that Article 243f, 243G and 243H only give limited powers to the State Legislature. This clearly show that Part IX is a complete code. Therefore, unless power is specifically conferred on the State Legislature, it would not be competent to legislate on matters which are specifically dealt with in Part IX. He also refers to Articles 243I (ii), (iii) (iv), J(iv) and K to emphasise that even in these Articles no provision existed for moving a Motion for No Confidence. Finally, it is submitted by Mr. Shanti Bhus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower during the term for which such a person is elected. (xvi) Mr. P.N. Mishra appearing for Respondent No.1 to 4 submitted that the Special Leave Petition deserves to be dismissed on the short ground that it is filed only against the judgment rendered by the High Court in review petition. He has relied on judgment of this Court in Shanker Motiram Nale Vs. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput[(1994) 2 SCC 753]. He also relied on an unreported judgment in Sandhya Educational Society Anr. Vs. Union of India Ors. [SLP(C) No. 2429 of 2012] to the same effect. He submitted that the powers of review would not permit this Court to reopen the entire issue and to rehear the entire matter on merits. The review is limited to the provision contained in Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1. He submits that under this provision, review is limited only to circumstances where review is sought on discovery of new and important matter; or where evidence could not be produced in spite of exercise of due diligence or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. He submits that the expression or for any other sufficient reason would not permit the Court to reopen the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sha, so reserved, shall bear, as nearly as may be the same proportion to the total number of such offices in the State as the population of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes in the State, bears to the total population of the State. The Section even provides that the offices so reserved shall be allotted by rotation to different Zila Panchayats in the State in such manner as may be prescribed by the State Government. But the reservation for the Backward Classes shall not exceed 27% of the total number of offices of the Adhyakshas in the State. Section 19- A(2) is important in the present context which provides that not less than one-third of the offices shall be reserved for the ladies belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or the Backward Classes as the case may be. Under this Section, on a seat reserved for the aforesaid categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes, a person belonging to that category would be elected from a particular Panchayat in which reservation is made on the basis of the roster provided in Section 19-A(3). Section 20 of the Act provides that a Zila Panchayat shall continue for five yea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer is not permitted to speak on the merits of the motion, and also not entitled to vote. Sub- section (11) provides that if the motion is carried with the support of (more than half) of the total number of (elected members) of the Zila Panchayat for the time being . In our opinion, the aforesaid provision contained in Section 28 is, in no manner, inconsistent with the provisions contained in Article 243N. To accept the submission of Mr. Bhushan of inconsistency would be contrary to the fundamental right of democracy that those who elect can also remove elected person by expressing No Confidence Motion for the elected person. Undoubtedly, such No Confidence Motion can only be passed upon observing the procedure prescribed under the relevant statute, in the present case the Act. 21. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhushan that removal of Adhyaksha can only be on the grounds of misconduct as provided under Section 29 of the Act. The aforesaid Section provides that a procedure for removing an Adhyaksha who is found guilty of misconduct in the discharge of his/her duties. This Section, in no manner, either overrides the provisions contained in Section 28 or is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at shall be filled by persons chosen by direct election from territorial constituencies in the Panchayat area and, for this purpose, each Panchayat area shall be divided into territorial constituencies in such manner that the ratio between the population of each constituency and the number of seats allotted to it shall, so far as practicable, be the same throughout the Panchayat area. (3) The Legislature of a State may, by law, provide for the representation- (a) of the Chairpersons of the Panchayats at the village level, in the Panchayats at the intermediate level or, in the case of a State not having Panchayats at the intermediate level, in the Panchayats at the district level; (b) of the Chairpersons of the Panchayats at the intermediate level, in the Panchayats at the district level; (c) of the members of the House of the People and the members of the Legislative Assembly of the State representing constituencies which comprise wholly or partly a Panchayat area at a level other than the village level, in such Panchayat; (d) of the members of the Council of States and the members of the Legislative Council of the State, where they are registered as electors within- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hoose. Rather Section 28 ensures that an elected representative can only stay in power so long as such person enjoys the support of the majority of the elected members of the Zila Panchayat. In the present case, at the time of election, the petitioner was the chosen one, but, at the time when the Motion of No Confidence in the petitioner was passed, she was not wanted. Therefore, the right to chose of the electorate, is very much alive as a consequence of the provision contained in Section 28. 27. We are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhushan that the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Act cannot be sustained in the eyes of law as it fails to satisfy the twin test of reasonable classification and rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. In support of this submission, Mr. Bhushan has relied on the judgment of this Court in D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India[(1983) 1 SCC 305]. We fail to see how the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Act would take away the autonomy of the Panchayati Raj Institutions. In our opinion, the judgments relied upon by Mr. Bhushan in support of the submissions that provisions of No Confidence Motion in Section 28 of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idates. It was not specifically reserved for Ladies belonging to the reserved categories of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the Backward Classes. The petitioner contested as a Lady Candidate and not as a candidate belonging to any reserved category and was elected on a seat reserved for Ladies generally. 31. Having said all this, we would like to point out that in normal circumstances the present SLP would not have been entertained. Dr. Rajiv Dhawan and Mr. Ashok Desai had pointed out at the very initial hearing that the SLP would not be maintainable as it challenges only the judgment of the High Court rendered in review petition. The main judgment dated 5th February, 2013 rendered in W.P.(C) No.9654 of 2012 which has been reviewed by the High Court in the impugned order has not been challenged. As a pure statement of law, the aforesaid proposition is unexceptionable. However, in the present case, we have been persuaded to entertain the present SLP in view of the order passed by this Court on 19th February, 2013. In Ripa Sarma case (supra), it was not disputed before this Court that the judgment and order dated 20th November, 2007 passed in Ripa Sarma (supra) was not chal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned the Special Leave Petition. Having said that, it must be pointed out that the raising of such an issue is neither justified nor relevant in the facts of the present case. As pointed out earlier, the petitioner herein had contested the election as an Adhyaksha, Zila Panchayat from a seat reserved for Ladies. Merely because she happens to belong to the reserved category, it can not be permitted to be argued, that the provision with regard to the reservation for the members of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Backward Classes has been in any manner diluted, let alone nullified. It has been specifically noted in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the 73rd Amendment as follows:- Though the Panchayati Raj institutions have been in existence for a long time, it has been observed that these institutions have not been able to acquire the status and dignity of viable and responsive people s bodies due to a number of reasons including absence of regular elections, prolonged supersessions, insufficient representation of weaker sections like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Women, inadequate devolution of powers and lack of financial resources. 2. Article 40 of the Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e least. We are in respectful agreement with aforesaid conclusion. 39. We reiterate the view earlier expressed by this Court in Bhanumati Ors. (supra), wherein this Court observed as follows:- 57. It has already been pointed out that the object and the reasons of Part IX are to lend status and dignity to Panchayati Raj institutions and to impart certainty, continuity and strength to them. The learned counsel for the appellant unfortunately, in his argument, missed the distinction between an individual and an institution. If a no-confidence motion is passed against the Chairperson of a panchayat, he/she ceases to be a Chairperson, but continues to be a member of the panchayat and the panchayat continues with a newly-elected Chairperson. Therefore, there is no institutional setback or impediment to the continuity or stability of the Panchayati Raj institutions. 58. These institutions must run on democratic principles. In democracy all persons heading public bodies can continue provided they enjoy the confidence of the persons who comprise such bodies. This is the essence of democratic republicanism. This explains why this provision of no-confidence motion was there in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S.No. District 1 Chatrapati Sahuji Maharajnagar 1 Allahabad 2 Sant Ravidas Nagar 2 Sitapur (Bhadohi) 3 Jaunpur 3 Hardoi 4 Ghajipur 4 Lakhimpur Khiri 5 Sant Kabir Nagar 5 Azamgadh 42. It is a matter of record that the petitioner was elected as Panchayat Adhyaksha of Sitapur District Reserved for Ladies, it is not reserved for a Schedule Caste Lady. Therefore, we are not able to accept the submission of Mr. Bhushan. 43. We also do not accept the submission of Mr. Bhushan that the aforesaid judgment needs reconsideration. A perusal of the judgment would show that this Court traced the history leading upto the insertion of Article 40 of the Constitution of India. The Court examined the relevant commentaries of many learned authors, Indian as well as Foreign; Constituent Assembly Debates; a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y as provided under various Panchayat Acts throughout the country. The judgment analyses the changes introduced by the 73rd Amendment and concludes as follows : 34. The changes introduced by the Seventy-third Amendment of the Constitution have given Panchayati Raj institutions a constitutional status as a result of which it has become permanent in the Indian political system as a third Government. On a careful reading of this amendment, it appears that under Article 243-B of the Constitution, it has been mandated that there shall be panchayat at the village, intermediate and district levels in accordance with the provisions of Part IX of the Constitution. 46. This Court concluded upon examination of the Constitutional scheme introduced by the 73rd Amendment as follows: 39. Thus, the composition of the panchayat, its function, its election and various other aspects of its administration are now provided in great detail under the Constitution with provisions enabling the State Legislature to enact laws to implement the constitutional mandate. Thus, formation of panchayat and its functioning is now a vital part of the constitutional scheme under Part IX of the Constitution ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the argument that the provision of no-confidence motion against the Chairman, being not in the Constitution, cannot be provided in the statute, is wholly unacceptable when the Constitution specifically enables the State Legislature to provide the details of election of the Chairperson. The Court also mentions that the statutory provision of No Confidence Motion against the Chairperson is a pre-constitutional provision and was there in Section 15 of the 1961 Act (Para 44). After taking into consideration Article 243N of the Constitution of India, it is observed as follows:- 45. It is clear that the provision for no-confidence motion against the Chairperson was never repealed by any competent legislature as being inconsistent with any of the provisions of Part IX. On the other hand by subsequent statutory provisions the said provision of no-confidence has been confirmed with some ancillary changes but the essence of the no-confidence provision was continued. This Court is clearly of the opinion that the provision of no-confidence is not inconsistent with Part IX of the Constitution. 50. In the face of these findings, it would not be possible to accept the submission of Mr. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Chairperson of the panchayat just because of its silence on that aspect. We are in respectful agreement with the aforesaid opinion. 52. The Court thereafter notices the submission that the position of Panchayat Adhyaksha is comparable with that of the President of India. On this analogy, it was submitted that the office of Chairperson, i.e. Panchayat Adhyaksha should have the same immunity. This Court rejected the submission with the observation that this is an argument of desperation and has been advanced, with respect, without any regard to the vast difference in constitutional status and position between the two posts. Mr. Bhushan has made the same submission before us. We would like to add here, that even by stretching the imagination beyond all reasonable bounds, we are unable to accept the submission of Mr. Bhushan that Chairman of a District Panchayat should be put on the same pedestal as the President of India. 53. Mr. Shanti Bhushan had also submitted that since the issues raised herein pertained to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, the matter needs to be referred to the five Judges as provided in Article 145(3) of the Constitution of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... opinion, the provision contained in Section 28 can not be said to be repugnant to the 73rd Amendment on the basis of the aforesaid tests laid down by this Court. 59. On the issue of per incuriam, Mr. Bhushan has cited following judgments: (1) N. Bhargawan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala (supra) Mr. Bhushan had relied on observations made by this Court in Paragraph 14 of the judgment. It was held that the judgment in the case of Bore Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka[(2000) 10 SCC 620] was per incuriam as it did not consider the impact of Section 18 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. In Bhanumati Ors. (supra), it can not be said that any relevant provision of the Constitution or the Act had not been taken into consideration. (2) State of U.P. Vs. Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. (supra) The observations made in Paragraph 86 in the earlier judgment of Synthetics and Chemicals Ltd. Ors. Vs. State of U.P. Ors.[ (1990) 1 SCC 109] were found to be per incuriam. The aforesaid observations would not be applicable in the present case as no such legitimate criticism can be made against the judgment of this Court in Bhanumati Ors. (supra). (3) Babu Parasu Kaikadi Vs. Babu ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner. 60. On the submission with regard to the Validity/Legality of a Legislative Act, reliance was placed upon: D.S.Nakara vs. Union of India[(1983) 1 SCC 305]; Union of India vs. G.Ganayutham[(1997) 7 SCC 463]; Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Maddula Ratnavalli(2007) 6 SCC 81] and State of A.P. v/s McDowell Co.[ (1996) 3 SCC 709]. In our opinion, all these judgments are inapplicable to the facts of this case. 61. On the submission with regard to Arbitrary/discretionary/unguided power to executive authority, Mr. Bhushan relied upon following judgments: Senior Superintendent of Post Offices vs. Izhar Hussain [(1989) 4 SCC 318], Khoday Distilleries Ltd. vs. State of Karnataka[(1996) 10 SCC 304], Maganlal Chhagalal (P) Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay[(1974) 2 SCC 402] Director of Industries vs. Deep Chand Agarwal[(1980) 2 SCC 332]. In our opinion, these judgments have no application whatsoever either to the legal issue or to the facts of this case. 62. We have no hesitation in accepting the submission of Mr. Bhushan that the High Court or this Court, in exercise of its powers of review can reopen the case and rehear the entire matt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore, the ratio of Green View Tea is not applicable in this case. 64. In view of the observations made in the aforesaid judgments, this Court would not be justified in holding that the High Court has erred in law in not reviewing its earlier judgment. 65. This apart, we have examined the entire issue threadbare ourselves as the issue with regard to the adverse impact on the candidates belonging to the reserves categories has not been raised before the High Court nor considered by it. In the earlier round, the issue was also neither raised nor considered by this Court. When the order dated 19th February, 2013 was passed, the issue with regard to reservation was also not canvassed. But now that the issue had been raised, we thought it appropriate to examine the issue to put an end to the litigation between the parties. 66. In view of the above, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. Contempt Petition No.287 of 2013 in CIVIL APPEAL NO . OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.22035 of 2013) 67. This Petition was filed by the Petitioner/Appellant, seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against alleged contemnors/respondent for disobeying the order of status quo dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
