DATABASE UPDATES

Judgments

ITC Limited, Branch Manager vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretary To

Government Department of Revenue (Commercial Taxes) Andhra Pradesh
Secretariat, Hyderabad and Others [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 29 Apr 2009]
Sales Tax - A.P. Tax on Luxuries in Hotel & Lodging Houses Act, 1987 - Luxury Tax - Effect of the
law being declared unconstitutional for lack of legislative competence - Held, if an act is void or
ultra vires it is enough for the court to declare it so and it collapses automatically - It need not be
set aside - Aggrieved party can simply seek a declaration that it is void and not binding upon him -
A judicial declaration of the unconstitutionality of a statute has the effect of ignoring or
disregarding it so far as the determination of the rights of private parties is concerned - As the
Luxury Tax Act, on its being declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in M/s. Godfrey
Philips India Ltd, 2005 (2) SCC 515 must be held as never to have possessed any legal force, the
revisional order passed by the Deputy Commissioner there under must also be, and is, declared
non-est and a nullity - Since the very revisional order of the Deputy Commissioner is a nullity, the
impugned notice, calling upon the petitioner to pay luxury tax, pursuant to the said revisional order
must also be set aside - Petition allowed.

S. L. S. Power Limited, Managing Driector Vemuri Chenchaiah vs Joint

Commissioner (Ct) Legal, Hyderabad and Another [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH
COURT, 29 Apr 2009]
Sales Tax - Andhra Pradesh General Sales Tax Act, 1957 - Tax towards purchase of coal and fire-
wood from unregistered dealers within the State - Request for deferment of the revision
proceedings under s. 20(2-A) till the disposal on the same issue for the earlier assessment year
2001-02 rejected - Writ petition against - Held, since the order of remand was only on a question
of fact, and not of law, s. 20(2-A) did not prohibit the revisional authority from passing such an
order merely because an issue of law relating to the same assessee had been decided by the
Tribunal earlier - Petitioner has an effective alternative remedy, of an appeal to the Sales Tax
Appellate Tribunal under s. 21 - Petition dismissed.

Kolapalli Murali Krishna and Others vs Bommadevara Krishna Murthy (Died) and
Others [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 24 Apr 2009]
Civil Procedure - CPC, 1908, O. 6 r. 17 - Amendment to the plaint not allowed - Revision petition
against - Held. petitioners are unable to specify the ingredients of the proviso even if it is to be
taken as a subsequent event because of the lapse of time even after the Court allowing the
application for impleading of the party - Petition dismissed.

G. Sudharani and Another vs Icfai Academy, Registrar of Icfai [ANDHRA PRADESH

HIGH COURT, 23 Apr 2009]
Civil Procedure - CPC, 1908, s. 24 - Lease agreement - Whether the petitioners are entitled to the
relief as prayed for in the present Transfer C.M.P. in the facts and circumstances of the case? -
Held, where two courts are having jurisdiction and if the parties stipulate in the contract to vest
jurisdiction in one such court to try the disputes and if the contract is unambiguous, explicit and
clear and it not pleaded to be void and opposed to s. 23 of the Contract Act, then suit would like in
the Court agreed to by the parties and the other court will have no jurisdiction even though the
cause of action arose might have arisen partly within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court - Relief
prayed for by the petitioners granted - Petition ordered.

Karre Mohan Krishna, Secunderabad vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Public

Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH
COURT, 21 Apr 2009]
Criminal - IPC, 1860, s. 306 - Appeal against conviction and sentence - Held, even if the evidence
of P.Ws-1 to 3 is believed, their evidence is only based on what all stated by the deceased to them
and in the strict sense it is only hear say evidence and the same is not admissible against the
appellant - Absolutely there is no direct evidence showing that the deceased had been subjected
to cruelty by the appellant - Conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court against the
appellant is not based on any legal evidence warranting conviction under s. 306 - Appeal allowed.

Hanumanthu Krishna Rao and Others vs Sub-Registrar, Ponduru, Srikakulam

District and Another [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 21 Apr 2009]
Practice & Procedure - Trusts & Associations - Registration Act, 1908 - Refusal to register a
document holding that land belongs to the Temple - Writ petition against - Held, s. 22-A imposes a
bar against registration of the documents, in relation to the categories of lands, mentioned in
clauses (a) to (e) of sub-section (1) - Lands owned by religious institutions are covered under
clause (c) - Once the Registering Authority come to know, or is informed that the subject- matter of
a document presented before him for registration is a land, falling into any of the categories
mentioned in clauses (a) to (e) of s. 22-A(1), he has no option, except to desist from registering
the document - Petition dismissed.

M. Anumakka and Another vs Turpu Gopal Reddy [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH

COURT, 21 Apr 2009]
Land & Property - A.P. Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977 - Decree of
attachment of assigned property - Held, mortgage of the assigned land by assignee in favour of
the organization of the State Government does not in any way authorize a private individual to
attach the property in execution of a decree - There is a specific bar against the execution of a
decree or order of a civil Court in respect of an assigned land - Respondent/decree holder is
precluded from bringing the E.P. schedule property which is an assigned one for attachment and
sale in execution of the decree passed in his favour by the civil Court - Petition allowed.

M. Satyanarayana Raju, West Godavari District and Another vs Union of India,

Secretary Law and Legislative Affairs, New Delhi and Others [ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT, 20 Apr 2009]
Criminal - Cr.P.C, 1973, s. 321 - Misappropriation of public monies through wrongful medical
reimbursement by 4th Respondent - Issuance of government orders to protect the respondents -
Withdrawal of prosecution - Writ petition against - Held, SC held that it is always open to the
Government to issue advice and instructions to the Public Prosecutor with regard to the
withdrawal from prosecution in a particular case, the Court was also at pains to stress that the
Public Prosecutor must necessarily apply his mind independent of external pressure and decide
on the facts and circumstances of that case as to whether withdrawal from prosecution is
warranted - No reason is stated as to what prompted the officer to hold that it was a fit case for
withdrawal - Mere recommendation of the Ethics Committee could not have formed the basis for
such a decision on the part of the Additional Public Prosecutor - Petition partly allowed.

Thota Sambasiva Rao and Two Others vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Public
Prosecutor, Andhra Pradesh High Court and Another [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH
COURT, 20 Apr 2009]
Criminal - Cr.P.C, 1973, s. 482 - IPC, 1860, s. 498-A - Petition to quash further proceedings - Plea
that alleged acts of ill-treatment and harassment have taken place only at Hyderabad and no part
of the cause of action arose at Vijayawada and therefore, the police at Vijayawada have no
jurisdiction to investigate - Held, part of cause of action arose at Vijayawada and the offence
alleged under s. 498-A IPC is found to be continuous offence in the present case and therefore,
the police at Vijayawada are certainly entitled to investigate - Petition dismissed.
Bolla Perayya and Others vs Bolla Venkata Rao and Another [ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT, 20 Apr 2009]
Civil Procedure - CPC, 1908, O. 39, r. 2A - Contempt - Suit for permanent injunction as well as
mandatory injunction - Exparte injunction granted in interim application made absolute - Another
application filed by plaintiff under O. 39, r. 2A was under enquiry when suit was to start for trial -
Application filed by defendant to record common evidence in suit as well as for pending
application filed by plaintiff, dismissed - Hence revision petition - Whether trial court was justified in
dismissing defendant's application by holding that once the suit is concluded the Court become
functus officio and it cannot take up the application for contempt? - Pending decision on the
question of its jurisdiction to entertain suit, Civil Court has jurisdiction to pass interim orders or
interim injunction, as the case may be - All the interlocutory orders passed in such circumstances
are deemed within jurisdiction of the Court and have to be obeyed and implemented; and if
interlocutory orders passed by Civil Court, even where its jurisdiction is challenged or doubted, are
violated, Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain cases for contempt and in appropriate cases while
disposing of the suit, can modify orders even when the Court comes to conclusion that it has no
jurisdiction - Held, no infirmity in the trial Court dismissing petitioners' application - Petition
dismissed.

M. Satyanarayana Murthy and Company, Managing.Partner M. S. Murthy vs

Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Marketing Division, Senior Divisional Retail Sales
Manager and 3 Others [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 18 Apr 2009]
Administrative - Petroleum and Gas - Motor Spirit and High Speed Diesel (Regulation of Supply,
Distribution and Prevention of Malpractices) Order, 1998 - Marketing Discipline Guidelines 2001 -
Adulteration of product - Penalty - Petition for declaration that order suspending sales and
supplies of all products by petitioner for period of 30 days on ground of alleged adulation of
petroleum products at the petitioner's retail outlet as arbitrary and illegal - Corporation came to
conclusion that petitioner's retail outlet was adulterated on the ground that Research Octane
Number test of the said product did not meet the specifications and had to imposed penalty since
the petitioner failed to retain the sample of product supplied to it by the transporter at the time of
delivery - Whether it is permissible for the Corporation to draw an adverse inference against the
petitioner on the ground that it had failed to retain the "tank lorry sample"? - Specific provisions
under MSHSDO, 1998 as well as MDG, 2001 with regard to drawing the samples are mandatory
and in case of violation of any such provision, the Corporation shall be restrained from taking
penal action against the dealer - Held, since the Corporation failed to comply with the provisions of
MDG, 2001 which mandated that the samples drawn from the supply location shall also be sent
for analysis along with the samples drawn from the petitioner's retail outlet, it is not open to the
Corporation to draw an adverse inference that the product was adulterated merely on the ground
that the petitioner failed to retain the tank lorry sample - No show cause notice was issued to the
petitioner proposing to impose the penalty on the ground that MS sample drawn from the
petitioner's outlet did not meet the stipulated specification for Research Octane Number, thus
impugned order imposing penalty is liable to be set aside being in violation of fundamental
principles of natural justice - Petition disposed of.

S. Gangadhar Goud vs Chikkela Laxman and Others [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH

COURT, 17 Apr 2009]
Election - Civil Procedure - Andhra Pradesh Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, s. 19(3) - Indian Evidence
Act, 1872, ss. 61, 101, 107 - Petition to challenge order of tribunal setting aside election of
petitioner - Election of the petitioner challenged on the ground that the latter incurred
disqualification u/s. 19(3) of APPRA, 1994 by giving birth to third child after one year of coming
into force of APPRA, 1994 -Exemption provided under APPRA, 1994, in case the third child was
born within one year from the date on which, APPRA, 1994 came into force i.e., 29-05-1994 -
Petitioner submitted that third child was born on 12-09-1994 and though filed certificate Ex.A-6 but
did not take any steps to prove, at least the contents of his counter and also failed to enter the
witness box and was not available to be cross-examined, vis-a-vis the document - Whether order
of tribunal setting aside petitioner's election justifiable? - Held, though the filing of a document, by
itself, may be treated as proof of it, u/s. 61 of IEA, 1872, the person, who opposes it, is entitled to
cross-examine the party, who derives benefit out of such document - Though the burden is upon
the 1st respondent, by operation of s. 101 of IEA, 1872, the petitioner has to share the burden,
placed upon him, u/s. 107 of IEA, 1872, viz., to prove a fact, which is specially within his
knowledge, i.e., the date of birth of the third child - Mere filing of pleadings would not be sufficient
in a case - Because the entries in Ex.A-6 supported the case of the petitioner, he did not feel the
necessity of adducing any evidence - Petitioner to be given an opportunity, particularly in view of
the fact that the disqualification would remain for the rest of the life of the petitioner as well as his
wife - Petition allowed.

Dr. Kollipara Bhargavi vs Dr. Lt. Col. Kollipara Ravi Kanth [ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT, 17 Apr 2009]
Practice and Procedure - Family and Personal - CPC, 1908, s. 20 - Territorial jurisdiction -
Maintenance - Suit for maintenance and for recovery of arrears of maintenance for the month of
December 2007 to October 2008-period when party did not reside at Gudivada - Marriage
solemnized at Gudivada - Appeal to challenge order dismissing suit on ground of its non-
maintainability on the point of territorial jurisdiction - Whether order of trial court returning the plaint
to be presented in appropriate court on ground that it did not have jurisdiction as for the periods
specifically claimed parties did not reside at Gudivada, was justified? - Held, principal relief is the
claim of maintenance - May be that further relief had been prayed for specifying some period, by
that itself, cannot be said that no part of cause of action arise at Gudivada, especially in the light of
the general claim of maintenance - Since part of cause of action arose at Gudivada, it cannot be
said that the said suit cannot be instituted at all at Gudivada - Appeal allowed.

Chellkani Gopala Rao vs Damera Venkata Muralikrishna Rao [ANDHRA PRADESH

HIGH COURT, 17 Apr 2009]
Civil Procedure - Practice and Procedure - CPC, 1908, s. 20 - Transfer petition - Contradictory
decisions in suits filed on strength of two identical promissory notes - Petition for transfer of suit
from Senior Civil Judge, Rajam to Senior Civil Judge in Srikakulam District - Suit filed before
Senior Civil Judge, Rajam for recovery of amount on strength of promissory note executed by the
respondent decreed - On appeal filed before Additional District Judge, Srikakulam against decree,
matter remanded to trial court - Similar suit filed by petitioner's son before Senior Civil Judge,
Rajam for recovery of the amount based on identical promissory notes dismissed - Petitioner filed
transfer petition on apprehension that promissory notes in both the suits being identical and the
attestors and the scribe being the same, Judge may record different finding than what had been
recorded already - Whether transfer petition maintainable - Held, no party is entitled to get a case
transferred from one Bench to the other, unless the Bench is biased or there are some reasonable
grounds for the same, but no right to get a case transferred to any other Bench can legitimately be
claimed merely because the Judges express opinion on the merits of the case on the conclusion
of hearing - Petition dismissed.

(1) Venkatarayanakota Krishnappa Raghavendra; (2) Buvanahalli Muniyappa

Nagesh Babu vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Public Prosecutor, High Court of
Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 17 Apr 2009]
Criminal - CrPC, 1973, ss. 173, 167 - Non-filing of charge sheet with expert reports within statutory
period - Right of accused to seek bail - Chargesheet filed with all documents except expert reports
which were pending with the experts - Whether the charge sheet, which was filed within 90 days,
but was returned for compliance of certain technical objections of not filing the scientific expert's
opinion, is a proper compliance u/s. 173 CrPC, 1973 and whether the same confer any right on
the accused to seek bail as a matter of right, as required u/s. 167 CrPC, 1973? - Held, once the
charge is filed within 90 days, but was returned for compliance of certain technical objections of
not filing the scientific expert's opinion, is a proper compliance u/s. 173 (2) CrPC, 1973 and the
same will not confer any right on the accused to seek bail, as a matter of right - Even in a case
where the charge sheet is filed after 90 days, but before accused seeks bail availing the benefit
under proviso to sub-s. (2) of s. 167, his indefeasible right will be extinguished on filing such
charge sheet - Petition dismissed.

P. Yagna Narayana vs State of Andhra Pradesh, Secretary To Governemnt,

Revenue (Regn. and Stamps) Department, Hyderabad and Others [ANDHRA
PRADESH HIGH COURT, 15 Apr 2009]
Service - Transfer order - Petition to challenge transfer order - Transfer order to non-focal places
passed on ground that during the raid conducted by the ACB in the office of the Sub-Registrar
petitioner was found in unauthorized possession of an amount of Rs.40, 000/- and there were
other serious allegations against the petitioner - Whether transfer order suffers from legal
infirmity? - Petitioner, who had completed one year five months service, contended that transfer
order was in violation of executive instructions issued by the second respondent-Commissioner
and Inspector General of Registration and Stamps Department, as per which, an employee with
less than two years of service in the present place of working should not have been transferred -
Held, said instructions are applicable only to the employees, who are not facing any allegations or
involved in ACB cases - Inasmuch as several allegations were made against the petitioner
besides his involvement in the ACB case, there is every possibility of hampering the investigation
if he is retained at the former place, therefore, it is always open to the Government to take a
decision for transfer of an employee, if the situation warrants in the course of disciplinary action -
Transfer is an incidence of service and no employee can claim any right to be transferred to a
particular place - Petition dismissed.

N. Sreenivasulu vs N. Prakash Reddy and Another [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH

COURT, 09 Apr 2009]
Civil Procedure - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 45 - Second opinion - Execution petition filed for
realization of decretal amount by sale of properties - Execution application filed by revision
petitioner to claim title based on original unregistered Will which was in his mother's favour who
executed registered Will in his favour and unregistered Will on application of decree holder was
sent to private Handwriting expert for comparison of signatures who opined Will to be forged
document - Revision petitioner instead of filing objections to the said opinion wanted to send the
very same documents to another Handwriting Expert for comparison - Whether it is open to the
Revision Petitioner to seek opinion from another expert on comparison of the signatures on the
very same set of documents which were already examined by one expert? - Handwriting Expert is
not conclusive on the issue and it is always open to the parties to raise their objections to the
findings/conclusions recorded by the Expert and it is also open to cross-examine the expert and
elicit information from him - Held, revision petitioner wanted comparison of the signatures on the
very same set of documents which were earlier sent for opinion of the Expert to be sent for a
second opinion by another Expert alleging that the decree-holder managed to get the opinion in
his favour; such a course is impermissible under law - Petition dismissed.

Lingamdinne Rama Reddy vs Vongole Venkatarami Reddy [ANDHRA PRADESH

HIGH COURT, 09 Apr 2009]
Civil Procedure - Suit for recovery of amount - Prayer to summon a witness for being cross-
examined - Held, petitioner cannot compel the Court to summon an individual as a witness cited
by the respondent - Petition dismissed.

S. Usha Rao @ Pavitra vs Bathula Sharath Kumar Goud [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH
COURT, 09 Apr 2009]
Practice and Procedure - CPC, 1908, s. 24 - Transfer of case - Petition for transfer of divorce
petition from Family Court, Ranga Reddy District to Court of Senior Civil Judge, Gadwal,
Mahaboobnagar District - Marriage was celebrated at Gadwal, Mahaboobnagar District, petitioner
was native of Gadwal working as Teacher in Government Practicing High School at Gadwal
whereas her husband/respondent was native of Wanaparthy, Mahaboobnagar District was
working as a Teacher at Moghiligadda Tanda, Farooq Nagar Mandal in the same Mahaboobnagar
District - Divorce petition filed by husband in Principal Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District
which had been transferred to Family Court, Ranga Reddy District and not at his native place
Wanaparthy or place of working at Shadnagar - Petitioner contended that divorce petition had
been filed in Ranga Reddy district to create inconvenience to the petitioner in attending the Court
from Gadwal which is nearly 200 kms. away from Hyderabad - Whether petition maintainable? -
Held, since respondent/husband had not chosen to file divorce petition either at Wanaparthy or at
Shadnagar and had chosen to file the same at Ranga Reddy, relief needs to be granted to
petitioner - Petition disposed of.

Lingamdinne Chandrasekhar Reddy and Others vs Joint Collector, Kadapa and

Others [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 09 Apr 2009]
Land and Property - Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971, s. 9 -
Andhra Pradesh (A.A.) Inams (Abolition and Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956 - Dispute as to
the ownership of rights - Petition to challenge order holding ryotwari patta in favour of petitioners
improper - Petitioners claimed for issuance pattadar pass books based upon the ryotwari patta
granted in favour of their ancestors whereas Temple authorities claimed on basis of recording of
land in their name - Whether Joint Collector-first respondent in revision u/s. 9 of APRLPPBA, 1971
had the jurisdiction to interfere with the ryotwari patta granted in favour of petitioners' family under
the provisions of APIA, 1956 by observing that ryotwari patta issued to the ancestors of the
petitioners was improper? - In a revision, u/s. 9 of APRLPPBA, 1971, filed against the issuance of
pattadar pass books, the Joint Collector has only to verify, whether there existed proper legal
basis for issuance of pattadar pass books in favour of the concerned individual and he cannot go
into the basis upon which, the title of a party rests - Held, 1st respondent has no jurisdiction to
pronounce upon the legality of a ryotwari patta issued to the petitioners, while hearing the revision
u/s. 9 of APRLPPBA, 1971 - Petition disposed of.

Eluru Prakasam and Four Others vs Chief Commissioner of Land Acquisition,

Government of Andhra Pradesh Hyderabad and Seven Others [ANDHRA
PRADESH HIGH COURT, 08 Apr 2009]
Land and Property - Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Inams (Abolition and Conversion Into
Ryotwari) Act, 1956 - Ryotwari pattas - Locus standi - Petition to challenge grant of ryotwari
paatas in favour of respondents under APIA, 1956 in respect of suit land - Petitioner contended
that there existed a tank over the land and tank vested in the Government and it was
impermissible to grant ryotwari pattas over the same - Held, petitioners have not placed any
material to show that they have ever drawn water from the alleged tank to irrigate their lands, they
tacitly admit that their lands are being irrigated by Sarvepalli Canal, therefore, the petitioners
cannot be said to have suffered detriment on account of grant of ryotwari pattas, in favour of
respondents 4 to 8 - Third respondent declared the land as "Inam Dry Arable"; neither the
petitioners nor any other individual or authority have challenged the said order, therefore, it
becomes impermissible for any one, including the petitioners, to treat the land in question as tank,
as long as the said order remains - Petitioners have neither locus standi nor genuine grievance by
grant of ryotwari pattas in favour of respondents 4 to 8 - Petition dismissed.

Bodala Suresh Kumar vs Turibilli Narasimgarao and Four Others [ANDHRA

PRADESH HIGH COURT, 08 Apr 2009]
Election - Recounting of votes - Petition to challenge order directing recounting of votes - First
respondent contended that though the counting took place during day, the light was poor due to
heavy rain and absence of electric power and thereby, verification of the votes was not properly
done - Whether the first respondent made out a case for recounting? - Held, allegation that the
lighting was poor, hardly constitutes any ground, to order recounting of votes - Observation that
one iron bucket was utilized as a container to put the counted ballot papers does not, by itself,
constitute any deviation from the prescribed procedure; rules do not stipulate any particular
category of containers; the first respondent did not raise any objection at the commencement of
counting for utilizing such containers - A direction issued for recounting of votes, in the absence of
any specific finding as to the number and category of votes, is prone to become a roving and
fishing inquiry and violate the secrecy of ballot - Petition allowed.

(1) Mandadi Satyanarayana Reddy; (2) Soyam Bapu Rao vs Andhra Pradesh
Legislative Assembly, Secretary, Hyderabad and Others [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH
COURT, 08 Apr 2009]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN"The evil of
political defections has been a matter of national concern. If it is not combated, it is likely to
undermine the very foundations of our democracy and the principles

Padala Ramakrishna and Others vs Commissioner of Appeals and Chief

Commissioner of Land Administration, Hyderabad and Others [ANDHRA PRADESH
HIGH COURT, 08 Apr 2009]
The Order of the Court was as follows :The petitioners challenge the order, dated 28.02.2009,
passed by the Commissioner of Appeals and Chief Commissioner of Land Administration,
Hyderabad, the 1st respondent herein.The matter arises under the A.P.

Chukka Ravindra Babu vs State, Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra

Pradesh Hyderabad [ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, 07 Apr 2009]
Criminal - IPC, 1860, s. 304A - Petition to challenge conviction and sentence - Petitioner convicted
for offence u/s. 304A of IPC, 1860 - Held, petitioner had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent
manner, due to which the vehicle fell in a ditch and in that process, the deceased fell in between
the tractor and trailer and sustained injuries, which resulted in fatal - Very fact that the tractor fell in
a road side ditch shows that the vehicle was not under the control of the petitioner - No
interference - Petition dismissed.