TMI Blog1999 (3) TMI 666X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... riginally, Tata Iron Steel Co. Ltd. (for short TISCO) was granted mining lease for 50 square kilometres of area in Sukinda Valley by order of the Collector, Cuttack sometime in September, 1952. Originally, mining lease over 1813 hectares of area was granted to TISCO for chromite extraction after preliminary exploration for a period of 20 years on 12.1.1953. After the Orissa Estates Abolition Act, 1951 (for short the O.E.A Act) came into force, the rights of erstwhile Zamindar (Raja of Sukinda) were vested in the State which granted the lease to TISCO. In 1973, renewal was granted for an area of 1261.476 hectares subject to the condition that TISCO will establish a beneficiating plant as to the friable and lean ore in the leasehold area for the purpose of improving the quality for use in the indigenous plants, namely, Ferro-Chrome and Refractories. Before the aforesaid lease could expire by efflux of time on 3rd October, 1991 TISCO applied to the State authorities for second renewal of the mining lease for 20 more years under Section 8(3) of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act, 1957 (for short the MMRD Act). The State Government of Orissa recommended to the Cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... O, the present appellant M/s. Ferro Alloys Corporation Ltd. (for short FACOR) was made a party Respondent on its request for intervention. Indian Charge Chrome Limited (for short ICCL) and Indian Metals Ferro Alloys Limited (for short IMFA) Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 respectively herein, in their turn also filed Writ Petition OJC No.5422/94 in the Orissa High Court opposing the grant of renewal of mining lease to TISCO. The present Respondent No. 7 M/s. Ispat Alloys (for short ISPAT) had not filed any Writ Petition in the Orissa High Court though it is also a claimant for mining lease for the very same mineral. The High Court of Orissa, after hearing the parties concerned in the writ petitions, by its order and judgment dated 4.4.1995, took the view that the entire matter was required to be re- considered by the Central Government. It held that the order dated 3rd June, 1993 of the Central Government granting approval for renewal of lease to TISCO for the entire area and the subsequent order dated 5th October, 1993 could not be sustained in law. The matter had got to be reconsidered by the Central Government as to the proposal of subsequent renewal of the lease of TISCO and as to w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date of the order of the Central Government i.e. 24th May 1995. The Committee was also required to give a personal hearing to all the parties concerned as stipulated in the judgment of the Orissa High court. The aforesaid expert committee known as Sharma Committee, after hearing the parties concerned gave a detailed report on 16th August, 1995. As per the said report second renewal of TISCOs lease was recommended for a smaller area, namely, 406 hectares. The Sharma Committee also gave personal hearing to other claimants for mining lease in the area and who were opposing renewal of lease claimed by TISCO. The Sharma Committee after hearing them assessed the needs of these rival claimants and came to its own estimates regarding the requirements of these rival claimants. The Committee made it clear that it was not undertaking the task of granting any lease to any of these rival claimants in connection with the remaining area which might become available after reducing the occupied mining lease area with TISCO. In other words, after confirming TISCOs renewal of lease of 406 hectares, the balance of 855 hectares land which was to be available with the State of Orissa for granting mining ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e ore of these 4 parties, besides TISCO, which appeared before the committee, as finally accepted by the Central Government were listed as Annexure I to Appendix A of the aforesaid order of the Central Government. In the said order it was also stated for information of the State Government that in the pending SLP filed by TISCO in the Supreme Court against the High Court Judgment, the Supreme Court on 17th July, 1995 had granted six weeks time to the Government to pass appropriate orders and the matter was to be listed after 8 weeks. The aforesaid order of the Central Government which was partly in favour of TISCO and partly in favour of the present appellant as well as the aforesaid contesting Respondents 3 to 7 was also produced before this Court in the pending SLPs of TISCO and Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (for short IDCOL). The present appellant and Respondents 3 to 7 in this appeal were also party Respondents to the said proceedings before this Court. In addition to these contesting Respondents, the State of Orissa and the Union of India were also party Respondents. After hearing the contesting parties in their respective cases, relevant points for determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... four claimants, namely, IMFA/ICCL, Jindals, Ispat and FACOR over 50% of the left over area totally admeasuring 855.476 hectares on the basis of 50% of their respective requirements as assessed by the Sharma Committee, the remaining 50% of the balance area out of 855.476 hectares was sought to be thrown open for consideration of claims of other claimants for such mining leases along with aforesaid four claimants to the extent their requirements were not fully met by reduction of their estimated requirements by 50% as per the said recommendation of the State Government. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the State Government dated 29th June, 1997 and the earlier order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 the appellant filed a fresh Writ Petition being OJC No.12032/97 in the Orissa High Court out of which the present appeal arises. The High Court after hearing the parties concerned, took the view that the writ petition filed by the appellant after the decision rendered by this Court in TISCOs case (supra) challenging the very same order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 which was confirmed by this Court in the aforesaid decision was not maint ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... challenge the assessment of its need by the Committee as accepted by the Central Government. Thus, at least on the principle of constructive res judicata, if not actual res judicata, the appellants present grievance is barred. It is also barred on the principle of estoppel and acquiescence. Shri Shanti Bhushan, in this connection, invited our attention to relevant provisions of MMRD Act and submitted that the Central Governments order was perfectly justified and binding on all parties especially when it was wholly approved by this Court. Shri Vaidyanathan, learned Addl. Solicitor General, appearing for Respondent No.1 - Union of India, submitted that the Sharma Committee was appointed by the Central Government in the light of the directions issued by the High Court in TISCOs writ petition. That the Central Governments order of 17th August, 1995 was merely recommendatory in nature and it was for the State Government to pass appropriate orders. He, however, submitted that the Central Government would request this Court to issue appropriate directions in the light of the earlier decision of the Central Government laying down the scope and ambit thereof. Learned counsel for Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d TISCOs claim on the basis of its need for chrome ore, necessarily implied therein was the finding of this Court that the assessment of needs of other claimants like the appellant and other Respondents was rightly done by the Central Government on the basis of the report of the Sharma Committee. Hence, the issue about proper assessment of appellants need was not only res judicata but even on the ground of constructive res judicata and also on the ground that the appellant cannot blow hot and cold subsequently, the appellants writ petition was rightly dismissed by the High Court. Our attention was invited to a decision of an English Court to which we will make a reference hereafter. Shri Chidambaram also placed reliance on Order 41 Rule 22 CPC in support of his contention. Learned senior counsel, Shri Gupta for Respondent no.7, also adopted the arguments of learned senior counsel appearing for contesting Respondents 2 to 6 and submitted that equitable distribution of a scarce mineral like chrome ore has to be done. This principle is also settled by this Court in the case of Indian Metals Ferro Ltd. vs. Union of India, (1992 (Suppl.1) SCC 191). On the basis of this principle, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t aside. Points for determination: In the light of the aforesaid rival contentions, the following points arise for our determination. 1. Whether the writ petition filed by the appellant before the High Court was barred by res judicata; 2. In the alternative, whether the said petition was barred by the principle of constructive res judicata; 3. Even if the findings on the aforesaid points are in negative, whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on the additional ground that the appellant had waived its grievance in the writ petition and, therefore, the writ petition was not maintainable on the grounds of waiver, estoppel and acquiescence on the part of the appellant and also on the ground that it was barred by delay and laches; 4. Whether the order of the State of Orissa dated 29th June, 1997 was in conflict with the earlier order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 as upheld by this court in TISCOs case (Supra). Whether the order of the State Government dated 29th June, 1997 is binding on the appellant as well as on the contesting Respondents 2 to 7; 5. In any case, whether it is a fit case for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case in paragraph 2 of this Report, clearly mentioned the grounds of challenge for consideration of the Court. They were listed as two grounds being (1) the challenge to the common judgment and order of the Orissa High Court dated 4.4.1995 arising out of OJC No. 7729 of 1993; and (2) the decision of the Central Government dated 17.8.1995 made pursuant to the said judgment of the High Court. Shri Shanti Bhushan, learned Senior Counsel for the contesting Respondents 3 4, submitted that the decision of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 was challenged before this Court not only by TISCO but also by IDCOL. That so far as IDCOL is concerned, its challenge was clearly against paragraph 2 of the final directions of the Central Government in the order dated 17th August, 1995. Two directions were issued by the Central Government to the State Government in the said order which have to be noted in extenso. The relevant averments in paragraph 17 of the order read as under : 17. the Honble High Court of Orissa in para 96 of its judgment dated 4.4.1995 has taken note of the dire necessity of the parties before it for chrome ore and observed that ..the parties are in the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1960. The Government has carefully seen the observations of Honble Orissa High Court in OJC No. 7729 and others contained in its judgment dated 4.4.1995. Since the other 4 (four) parties are in dire necessity of the raw material (chrome ore) as observed by the Honble High Court and have set up mineral based industries and are suffering for want of chrome ore, the Central Government in conformity with the observations of Honble Orissa High Court (in para 96 of its judgment dated 4.4.1995) and in exercise of powers conferred by sub rule (2) of rules 59 hereby relaxes the provisions of sub rules (1) of the said rule 59 objective of expediting the process for making available the raw material, which is chrome ore, to the needy industries in the interest of the mineral development. The chrome ore requirements of these 4 (four) parties besides TISCO, which appeared before the committee constituted by the Central Government, as finally accepted by the Central Government, are listed as Annexure I of Appendix A of this letter, and the assessment of area for TISCO as finally accepted by Central Governments listed as Annexure II of Appendix A and in case of M/s Ispat Alloys Limited, the req ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... : (i) Whether the High Court of Orissa was justified in striking down the decisions of the Central Government dated 3.6.1993 and 5.10.1993 on the ground that the requirement of Section 8(3) of the Act had not been met; (ii) Whether the report of the Rao Committee and the decision of this Court in Indian Metals case are relevant for the consideration of renewal of leases under Section 8(3) of the Act; (iii) Whether the High court and the Committee were justified in hearing prospective applicants while considering the issue of renewal of TISCOs lease; (iv) Whether the Committee was justified in interpreting the concept of mineral development under Section 8(3) of the Act as requiring the assessment of the captive mining requirement of different industries and the application of the principle of equitable distribution of mining leases; (v) Whether the Central Government in its order dated 17.8.1995, had correctly analysed the needs and requirements of TISCO in recommending that its lease be renewed over land measuring 406 hectares. It is obvious that in the aforesaid proceedings no issue arose for consideration as to whether the assessment of the need of the appellant for chrome o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between the contesting parties was a limited one, namely, whether TISCO and IDCOL should be granted lease of the entire land in question or whether the contesting Respondents including the appellant were entitled to get their assessed requirements for chrome ore as considered by the authorities upheld while considering the question of re-grant of appropriate mining lease to TISCO. It becomes at once clear that the inter se dispute between the appellant, on the one hand, and the other contesting three claimants on the other centering round the correct assessment of their respective requirements of chrome ore was not in the anvil of controversy between the contesting Respondents including the appellant in those proceedings. In fact they all had a common defence against TISCO and IDCOL who were the appellants before this Court. Under these circumstances, the question arises whether the appellant as one of the Respondents might have raised the further question regarding its claim for further upward revision of its assessed requirement of chrome ore and also whether it ought to have raised such a question for consideration of this Court in those proceedings. It is obvious that in or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esting Respondents with a view to successfully meet the case of the appellant, then such a plea inter se contesting Respondents would remain in the domain of an independent proceedings giving an entirely different cause of action inter se the contesting Respondents with which the appellants would not be concerned. Such pleas based on independent causes of action inter se Respondents cannot be said to be barred by constructive res judicata in the earlier proceedings where the lis is between the appellants on the one hand and all the contesting Respondents on the other. In other words, when the appellants are not concerned with the inter se disputes between the contesting Respondents such inter se disputes amongst Respondents would not give rise to a situation wherein it can be said that such contesting Respondents might and ought to have raised such a ground of defence or attack for decision of the Court. In this connection, it would be profitable to refer to a decision of this Court in the case of Iftikhar Ahmed Ors. vs. Syed Meharban Ali and Ors., (AIR 1974 SC 749), dealing with the principle of res judicata which obviously would include also the question of constructive res jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icata amongst co-Respondents in TISCO and IDCOLs appeals, it has to be found out whether inter se those co-Respondents the question of correct assessments of present appellants need for chrome ore was necessary to be agitated by the present appellant for enabling the Court to give appropriate relief to TISCO and IDCOL in their appeals before this Court. It becomes absolutely clear on the facts of the present case that the grievance of the appellant in the present proceedings regarding the alleged error in the assessment of its requirement for chrome ore and the question whether such assessment was required to be revised upwards, which may be relevant for deciding the appellants independent claim against the Central Government as well as the State of Orissa and also vis-a-vis other contesting claimants being three other Respondents had nothing to do with the question of granting relief to the appellants TISCO and IDCOL in the said earlier proceedings. As this important condition was not satisfied for attracting the bar of constructive res judicata against the appellant, it is not possible to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the Respondents that the appellants grievan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder dated 17th August, 1995, upholding of the total requirements of all contesting co- Respondents. It was sufficient to reject the claim of TISCO for getting lease of any additional area. It was not then necessary for the contesting Respondents before this Court in the said proceedings to go further and require this Court to decide their inter se conflict of interest or claims. That dispute was entirely foreign to the scope of the proceedings before this Court wherein there was lis only between TISCO on the one hand who had been granted 400 and odd hectares of land and the contesting Respondents on the other including the present appellant whose total assessment of comparative needs together was a sufficient defence for rejecting the claim of TISCO for any additional grant of land. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy inter-parties amongst rival claimants in the earlier proceedings before this Court, it would be profitable to take a simple illustration. Suppose A, B and C each claims 100 per cent share in a given property. A files a suit against B and C for getting its claim adjudicated. The Trial Court holds on evidence that A has got only 50 per cent share ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and there were 5 claimants including TISCO whose needs were ascertained by the Central Government on the basis of the report of Sharma Committee and when brought in the arena of contest by TISCO the inter se claims between present appellant and other contesting Respondents namely 3 to 7 who were all co-Respondents before this Court in the earlier proceedings could be said to have been barred by constructive res judicata on account of the earlier decision of this Court and could not have been made subject matter of future litigation like the present one. It is also not possible to appreciate how Mr. Chidambaram could press in service Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC which can apply only when the Respondent in appeal can support the order of the lower court on any ground held against it. In TISCOs appeal there was no occasion for the appellant to support the earlier judgment of the High Court on any ground which could have been said to be wrongly decided against it nor could the appellant support the Central Governments order dated 17th August, 1995 on the ground that it underestimated its needs. Such a grievance would amount to attacking the order and not supporting it. The second point ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 17th August, 1995 wholly confirmed. It never raised any dispute inter se among the other Respondents who were the present contesting Respondents or even against the Central Government which was also a party to the proceedings before this Court. It kept mum on this aspect and invited this Court to wholly confirm the order of 17th August, 1995 and also successfully got it confirmed by this Court. It was, therefore, too late for FACOR to subsequently turn round and try to go behind the said order. Thus, on the principle of conscious waiver of its objections to the order dated 17th August, 1995 it must be held that FACOR gave up its grievance regarding assessment of its requirement of chrome ore as approved by the Sharma Committee and accepted by the Central Government. Its conduct showed that it was satisfied by the order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 recommending grant of lease of appropriate extent of land for meeting the assessed need of the appellant for chrome ore for the coming 50 years. We, therefore, find considerable force in the submission of the learned Senior counsel for the contesting Respondents that FACOR by its own conduct had waived its disput ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 50% of its assessed need acted upon by the State Government which can grant appropriate lease of land to that extent in the first instance. Therefore, the order of the State Government dated 29th June, 1997 must be held to have proceeded on the admitted stand taken not only by FACOR but also by the other claimants before this Court when it delivered its Judgment in TISCOs case (Supra). Thus, because of non- contentious attitude adopted by FACOR before this Court in the proceedings culminating in the aforesaid judgment not only the other three rival claimants but also the Central and the State Governments changed their positions and acted upon the representation flowing from the non-contentious attitude adopted by the FACOR in connection with the order of Central Government dated 17th August, 1995. Not only the said order was supported by FACOR before this Court, but it became successful in getting it confirmed by this Court and thereafter the said decision was acted upon by all the contesting Respondents. Hence, it is too late for FACOR to turn round and try to get out of the order of this Court. Therefore, even on the principle of estoppel, FACOR must be held to be bound by the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or that has to be kept in mind while granting leases but, it is to be done on a comparative scale. While the Central Government exercises its discretion in granting or renewing a lease, it is clear that the capacity of an industsry to effectively exploit the ore, will be a predominant consideration. The submission of the learned counsel that none of the other parties before this Court required the mineral ore for captive consumption cannot be accepted. This aspect has been specifically examined by the Committee at pages 260-263 of its report. In order to properly appreciate the issue of captives consumption, the Committee examined the needs of the other parties before it. It stated that each of these parties had manufacturing industries which produce value-added products and earn considerable foreign exchange for the country, and it was therefore of the view that an analysis of their total requirement was necessary in the interests of mineral development as also that of the nation. Based on the information supplied to it, the Committee thereafter made an assessment, for a total period of 50 years, of the captive and net requirements of ICCL, IMFA, FACOR and JSL. At page 349 of its ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of policy and a plethora of technical issues. In such a situation, courts of law have to be very wary and must exercise their jurisdiction with circumspection for they must not transgress into the realm of policy-making, unless the policy is inconsistent with the Constitution and the laws. In the present matter, in its impugned judgment, the High Court had directed the Central Government to set up a Committee to analyse the entire gamut of issues thrown up by the present controversy. The Central Government had consequently constituted a Committee comprising high level functionaries drawn from various governmental/institutional agencies who were equipped to deal with the entire range of technical and long-term considerations involved. This Committee, in reaching its decision, consulted a number of policy documents and approached the issue from a holistic perspective. We have sought to give our opinion on the legal issues that arise for our consideration. From the scheme of the Act it is clear that the Central Government is vested with discretion to determine the policy regarding the grant or renewal of leases. On matters affecting policy and those that require technical expertis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Respondents 3 to 7 for being granted additional land for mining leases from the very same Sukinda Valley for meeting the balance of 50 per cent of their assessed needs as per Central Governments order dated 17th August, 1995. In fact, in the light of the aforesaid order dated 29th June, 1997, the State of Orissa has already appointed a committee under the Chairmanship of Sri Jagadish Prasad Dash, IAS, Addl. Secretary to Government, Steel and Mines Deptt., by its order dated 16.11.1998 for doing the needful. Learned counsel for the State of Orissa made it clear that the said Committee will also consider the question of granting of further mining leases of chromite in Sukinda Valley to FACOR and the remaining three claimants namely, IMFA, ICCL, ISPAT and M/s. Jindal Strips, as mentioned in the order of 27th June , 1997. When we turn to the said order, we find that after slicing down the assessed need of all the aforesaid four claimants by 50 per cent, the total area which will be earmarked for them out of the available 855.476 hectares of land will be 419.18 hectares. Meaning thereby, on a conjoint reading of the order of the State Government of Orissa and its Notification dated 16.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this Court to confirm that order again turned round subsequently and adopted a volte-face. It is also interesting to note that after this Court in TISCOs case heard the parties in October, 1995 and reserved its judgment which was delivered nine months thereafter on 23.7.96 and in the mean time, when the appellant itself thought it fit to raise the dispute about the assessment of its need as accepted by the Central Government by its order dated 17th August, 1995 by filing a substantive Writ Petition in the Orissa High Court on 16.12.96 being OJC 1474/96 nothing prevented the appellant from at least filing an I.A. in this Court for getting clarification regarding reserving its right to challenge the order of 17th August, 1995 on the ground raised in writ petition OJC No.1474/96. If that would have been done this Court would have either reserved it that liberty when it ultimately pronounced its judgment on 23.7.96 or it would have rejected the said liberty. In either case the appellant would have got its claim either kept open for future adjudication or would have got it expressly barred. The appellant, for the obvious reasons, was not inclined to take that risk and sat on the fence, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined by him against all the three defendants as a debt at common law. In the said proceedings in the English Court, Defendant No.3 Mr. Macleod took up a contention that the earlier decision of the Irish Court rejecting the plea of fraud of the plaintiff was not binding on him as he was not a party to the said proceedings in Ireland challenging the plaintiffs decree on the ground of fraud. It was held by the Court of Appeal that such a plea was not available to Mr. Macleod on the ground of estoppel. It was observed that where common defendants were estopped from pleading that a foreign judgment had been obtained by fraud in consequence of a judgment in a separate, second action in the foreign jurisdiction, a defendant who had not been a party to the second action would nevertheless, because of the privity of interest between himself and the other defendants, be bound by the estoppel if he had been aware of the proceedings and would have been entitled to be joined with them but had decided without explanation not to apply for being so joined. Accordingly, the third defendant was privy to the estoppel binding the other defendants and was therefore bound by the decision in the second I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-suit the appellant, at least on the grounds of estoppel and acquiescence as well as waiver, the appellant can be said to have given up its challenge regarding upward revision of the assessment of its need as arrived at by the Expert Committee and as confirmed by the Central Government when it saw to it by keeping mum that the entire order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 got confirmed by this Court in TISCOs appeal. Though the appellants present grievance is held to be barred on the ground of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, it cannot, however, be held that it is barred by delay and laches, as the appellant had rightly or wrongly but promptly challenged the order of the Central Government dated 17th August, 1995 before the Orissa High Court not by one but by three writ petitions, first of which was filed on 16th February, 1996 being OJC 1474/96. Once this conclusion is reached against the appellant on the aforesaid grounds, the alternative plea of Mr. Nariman that appellants claim be considered to be premature, necessarily fails. The 3rd point for determination, therefore, is accordingly answered in affirmative against the appellant and in favour of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entirely different ground namely, that its need for chrome ore was more than as assessed and therefore, the Central Governments Order dated 17th August, 1995 and the consequent order of the State Government dated 29th June, 1997, were not legal and valid but no alternative challenge was mounted or pressed before us in connection with the State Governments Order of 29th June, 1997 on the aspect of slicing down or reserving 50% of 855.476 hectares for consideration of claims of other parties including the captive consumers. As seen earlier, this challenge of the appellant about assessment of its need by the Central Government is not maintainable. We must, therefore, hold that the order of the State Government dated 29th June, 1997 slicing down up by 50% the need of the appellant as assessed and also reserving the remaining 50 per cent of 855.476 hectares of land for consideration of claims of other parties including the captive consumers and also permitting consideration of claims of the appellant and Respondents 3 to 7 for meeting their remaining 50% assessed need will remain binding on the appellant as well on the contesting Respondents 3 to 7. The said order also cannot be said t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
