← Library
High Court for State of TelanganaCC/149/2015closed no costs

Smt. Bommakanti Seetharamamma v. Sri Y Pojha,

2015-06-12Ramesh Ranganathan2 pages

ÐÏ​ࡱ​á>​þÿ ​I​K​þÿÿÿHÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ​ð​¿​1​bjbjqPqP ​;P​:​:​±(,%ÿÿ​ÿÿ​ÿÿ​¤Þ​Þ​Þ​î​¢​¢​¢​^​Ô​z​z​z​82​\​2 ÿ​p​6​6​"X​X​X​X​X​X​~​€​€​€​€​€​€​$o​h​×​:¤​¢​X​X​X​X​X​¤​¢​¢​X​X​1​z​z​z​X​2¢​X​¢​X​~​z​X​~​z​z​¢​¢​z​X​*​Pc@j​§Ð​z ​^z​~​Ï​0ÿ​z​h​ü​z​z​¢​Ž​ðX​X​z​X​X​X​X​X​¤​¤​d​X​X​X​ÿ​X​X​X​X​2 2 2 d​-​ä​2 2 2 -​¶​d​@Z​þ​db​@¢​¢​¢​¢​ÿÿÿÿ​THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN CONTEMPT CASE NO.149 OF 2015 ORDER: A 82 years old widow, who claims her husband is a freedom fighter, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court by filing W.P. No.

16434 of 2013 questioning the action of the respondents in not sanctioning her freedom fighter's pension under the Swatantra Sammaan Pension Scheme, 1980 on the ground of non-receipt of the re-verification report. On 28.06.2013 the Government Pleader for Revenue (Telangana), on instructions, submitted that the 2nd respondent (State Government) had, vide letter dated 27.06.2013, forwarded the re-verification report to the 1st respondent; and it is for the first respondent to take an appropriate decision whether or not to grant her freedom fighter's pension. In its order dated 01.07.

2013, this Court expressed its anguish at the indifference exhibited by the authorities to the needs of those who fought for the freedom of this country and observed that a debt of gratitude was owed to the family of those who valiantly fought in the freedom struggle, and had died in the process. As the petitioner's application had been forwarded along with the verification report to the 1st respondent, this Court directed the 1st respondent to examine the petitioner's application for grant of pension in accordance with law at the earliest and, in any event, not later than two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The order of this Court dated 01.07.2013 was received by the 1st respondent on 16.08.2013. Consequently they were required to pass an order, in compliance with the order of this Court dated 01.07.

2013, on or before 16.10.2013. An order was, however passed nearly two months thereafter on 09.12.2013 holding that, due to non-receipt of the details, her case was considered on the basis of available documents; and it was found that her claim for grant of family pension, on account of the claimed suffering of her late husband, could not be accepted. On this contempt case being filed, and on notice being ordered, both the 1st and 2nd respondents appeared before this Court. The 2nd respondent, a Secretary to the Government of Telangana, reiterated that, as her husband was a freedom fighter, the petitioner was entitled to pension; and the families of persons similarly situated to her husband were extended the benefit of pension.

With a view to settle the dispute, and provide succour to an eighty two year old, this Court called upon both the 1st and 2nd respondents to sit together and resolve the issue, instead of making the petitioner run from pillar to post for being extended the benefit of freedom fighter's pension. The efforts of this Court to resolve the dispute regarding her husband being a freedom fighter and, if so, to ensure that the petitioner received freedom fighter's pension, were of no avail. Despite the insistence of the Secretary to the Government of Telangana (the 2nd respondent), and the Government Pleader for Revenue appearing on his behalf, that the petitioner's husband was indeed, a freedom fighter, she has not been extended the freedom fighter's pension.

The continued procrastination of the 1st respondent culminated in a letter being addressed by them, to the 2nd respondent, on 14.05.2015 informing them that, in view of the revised policy guidelines, and insufficient documentary evidence having been produced to conclusively prove that the imprisonment suffering referred to in the imprisonment certificate was on account of participation of the petitioner's husband in the freedom fighters struggle, the facts of the case, the period of sentence awarded, and the reasons for his release as required under the scheme, the petitioner's claim was untenable and unacceptable and was, therefore, rejected. Learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the 1st respondent, would draw attention of this Court to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mahender Singh v.

Union of India​ to submit that the recommendations of the State Government are not final or conclusive and it is for the authorities of the Central Government, granting such pension, to make further inquiry in the matter in terms of various conditions prescribed in the scheme, and to take a final decision. Sri A.K. Jayaprakash Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would refer to State of Maharashtra v. Namdeo​ wherein the Supreme Court summed up the legal position as under: "The aforementioned discussion leads us to sum up the legal position as under:- (a) The claims of the freedom fighters are to be dealt with, with sympathy. (b) The authorities are not to go by the test of "beyond reasonable doubt" and standard of proof based on this principle has to be discarded.

(c) On the contrary, the principle of probability is to be applied and eschewing the technicalities, the approach should be to uphold the entitlement. (d) When scheme itself mentions the documents which are required to be produced by the applicant, normally those documents need to be produced to prove the claim. (e) The High Court exercising writ jurisdiction does not sit in judgment over the decision of the State Government like an appellate authority. The order of the State Government is to be examined applying the parameters of judicial review which are available in examining the validity of such orders. (f) Even if order is found to be perverse or flawed, the High Court can, at the most, remit back to the State Government to reconsider the case.

However, this Court has also observed that there may be cases where because of long lapse of time or other circumstances beyond the control of the applicant, it is almost impossible or cumbersome to procure and produce all the stipulated documents. In such cases, the claim cannot be summarily rejected for want of documents, even though as per the Pension Scheme, such documents are to be provided. We are of the opinion that to meet such eventualities, following principle needs to be added: (g) On the basis of evidence/documents/material submitted by the applicant, the Government should examine whether it is a genuine case and the documents produced establish that the applicant had participated in the freedom movement. It should be done applying the principle of probability.

If the material/documents produced are otherwise convincing, the Government in appropriate cases may not insist on strict compliance with all the requirements stated in the Scheme...................." (emphasis supplied) Learned Counsel would submit that, in view of the law declared by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, applications of freedom fighters must be dealt with sympathetically; the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt must be discarded; and the principle of probability must be applied eschewing technicalities. I find considerable force in the submission of Sri A.K.

Jayaprakash Rao, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the cases of families, of those who participated in the freedom struggle, must be examined with sympathy; and their dependents should not be made to run from pillar to post, for grant of pension which is little compensation for those whose immense sacrifice has enabled us to enjoy the freedom now available in this country. This Court cannot, however, lose sight of the fact that the jurisdiction which it exercises, under the Contempt of Courts Act, is limited. It is only when the order of this Court is violated, and the violation is willful and deliberate, would this Court be justified in exercising jurisdiction to take action against the contemnors.

In the order, violation of which has resulted in the present Contempt Case being filed, this Court had only directed the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner. Her case has, indeed, been considered. Whether such consideration is proper or improper are matters which can only be examined in writ proceedings, and cannot be the subject matter of enquiry under the Contempt of Courts Act. While this Court would not fight shy to record its sympathy for the petitioner it cannot, merely on that score, proceed to punish the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act. The fact, however, remains that the order of this Court required the respondents to consider the petitioner's case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing on his behalf, would fairly state that, as the order of this Court was received by the 1st respondent on 16.08.2013, the 1st respondent ought to have considered the petitioner's application, and should have passed orders thereon, on or before 16.10.2013. Though the order was passed long after the time stipulated by this Court expired, there was no expression of remorse or regret in the counter-affidavit filed earlier. It is only during the course of hearing today, that too only when this Court pointed out that the 1st respondent had neither filed an application seeking extension of time to comply with the order of this Court nor did he even choose to express his contrition, did the Learned Additional Solicitor General fairly state that the 1st respondent ought to have done so.

An affidavit was, thereafter, filed by the 1st respondent wherein he has tendered his unconditional apology. While violation of the orders of Court must, undoubtedly, be dealt with sternly, this Court would, ordinarily, refrain from punishing the person if it is satisfied that the expression of regret is genuine, and is not made only to avoid proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. While it is doubtful whether the expression of regret in the present case is, indeed, genuine, considering the submission of the Learned Additional Solicitor General that the 1st respondent would be advised to, hereafter, ensure prompt compliance with the orders of Court, I see no reason to take action against him under the Contempt of Courts Act.

It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits, and this order shall not preclude the petitioner from questioning the orders, passed by the 1st respondent, in appropriate legal proceedings. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the Contempt Case is closed. The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. Date:12.06.2015. MRKR ​ 2010 (12) SCC 675 ​ 2014 (2) ALD 74 (SC) ​ ​ ​ ​ ​PAGE ​ ​PAGE ​6 ​+​,​G​H​O​R​S​Z​[​g​„​"​•​À​Ç​ ​ B b c ¦ § ​ ​ + ^ _ { } ​ ° òäÖÈÖ» ̄¢•¢ˆ¢ˆ¢ˆ¢{¢nˆnˆn`nˆn{n`nS​ha_c​h7UqOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h,zAH*​OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h,zAOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hkJvOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h​%AOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h?

Ü ß å é ​(​w​x​Ë​Ý​ß​)​*​/​3​‹​§​©​ ́​μ​Ï​Ñ​D E R S ¡ ¢ £ á ã ü ​1​\​n​ˆ​‹​'​¥​Á​Ä​ÿ​<​D​ˆ​óæóæóæóæóÙæÌæÌæÌ¿±¿æ¿±¿¤¿¤¿š​¿±¿æ¿€æ€æ€æ€æ€æ€æ€​ha_c​hÊ!QOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hiÏOJ​QJ​aJ​h# ROJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h7UqOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hŒwEH*​OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hŒwEOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h​$"OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hÄ$​OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h# ROJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h,zAOJ​QJ​aJ​/ˆ​‰​2​3​Ë​Ì​Í​Î​Ó​Õ​Ö​ï​ð​õ​ø​ ​ ​"​-​.​/​D​Q​S​^​a​Š​‹​›​¤​Á​Ñ​é​ÿ​.​M​§​Ã​Å​Ë​Í​ÿ​"​0​:​>​\​v​w​óæóæóÜóæóæóÏæÏæÏÂÏ ́Ï ́ÏÂÏ§Ï ́Ï§Ï§Ï§Ï§Ï§Ï§Ï§Ï ́Ï ́ϧϧÂÏ​§Ï​ha_c​hÊ!QOJ​QJ​aJ​hfKîOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hZ\cOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​häQ​H*​OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h7UqOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​häQ​OJ​QJ​aJ​hiÏOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h# ROJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hJ5@OJ​QJ​aJ​8w​‰​‹​"​å​#​$​1​2​5​9​c​r​~​...​‡​"​ ̈​3​Ó​Ô​ó​÷​ý​#​L​r​t​Ž​- °​ ̧​o​Å​Æ​ß​ä​è​é​j​n​„​...

​'​å​í​ï​&​*​J​N​Z​^​3⁄4​Ã​Ì​Í​×​óæóæóÙóæóÙóæóÙóæËæóæóæóæóæóæóæËæóæóæó1⁄2óæóæóæóæó°óæóæ°óæóæ°æ°æ°æ°æ -​TM​à​%​&​<​=​›​œ​o​»​1⁄4​æ​é​ø​óæÙÏÙÁÙæÙ3 "†"y†y†y†y†yobUHU​ha_c​h​>OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h ́ qOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hiÏOJ​QJ​aJ​hˆRyOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h@​æOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h> [¬OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hb​©OJ​QJ​aJ​%​j​ha_c​h7Uq0J​OJ​QJ​U​aJ​ha_c​hb​©5​OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hˆRyH*​OJ​QJ​aJ​hfKîOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hˆRyOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h7UqOJ​QJ ​'​(​F​I​j​o​¿​- -​.​/​Ò​Ó​'​"​‚​W!_!`!a!v!w!x!óæÙË ̧æóæ©šŠzŠzŠzš©š©š©š©šn©šnbV​hiÏCJ​OJ​QJ​aJ​h​^"CJ​OJ​QJ​aJ​h​>CJ​OJ​QJ​aJ​h​>​h7Uq5​CJ​OJ​QJ​aJ​h​>​h​^"5​CJ​O ́ q5​OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h​>OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h ́ qOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h7UqOJ​QJ​aJ​/​Ó​"​‚​w!x!y!·" ̧"​(Ð/Ñ/`0a0€0-0 ̃0óóóóóçóØçØÉ1⁄2ÉØ®®¢​$​„Øý]„Øýa$​gd​- †​$​„Øý​dð​]„Øýa$​gd​-†​$​„Ð​`„Ð​a$​gd¿ b​$​„Ð​dà​`„Ð​a$​gds​ú​$​„Ð​dà​`„Ð​a$​gd‚​q​$​„Ð​`„Ð​a$​gdiÏ​$​„Ð​`„Ð​a$​gd'​x!y!{!è!#","h"i"¶"·" ̧"##$#?

#@#r#s#'#"#¦# ̈#​#Í#Ö#m$​$‹$1$¿$Â$Í$í$î$\%]%ü% &​&​&"&&&x&​&‡&•&ã&ì&ÿ&'​'​'%'- 'T'U'Š'‹'ñä×ä×ä×äÍÀä×ä×ä×ä×ä×ä3ä×ä¦ä¦œ¦ä¦ä¦ä3ä3ä​ä​ä​ä​ä​ä3ä​ä3ä​ha_c​h¤​©OJ​QJ​aJ​hÆMTOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h​_​OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h7UqOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h bOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hs​úH*​OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h7UqOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hh​ÒOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h¤​©OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hs​úOJ​QJ​aJ​B​,​,5,;,=,​,", ̈,©,μ,¶,Ì,Í,Þ,ß,ê,ë,I-J-Ì-à-ã-äë-ì-ô-õ-G.I.h.i.j.s.t.u.¦.§.».Æ.>/?

/I/O/Y/b/q/v/‰/Š/Œ/​/​/Ÿ/a/«/Ï/Ñ/à/ê/ö/÷/ü/ 0​0_0`0a0óæóØóæóæóæóËóæóæóæóæóæóæóæóØóÁóæÁæóËóæóæóËóæóæóËóæóØóæóËóæóËóËó ́ó ̈​h ́ qCJ​OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hÂcêOJ​QJ​aJ​höFKOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h¿ bOJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hs​úH*​OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​h¤​©OJ​QJ​aJ​ha_c​hs​úOJ​QJ​aJ​Ba0€00 ̃0©0®0 ̄0°0±020Ä0Å0Æ0Û0Ü0Ý0Þ0à0á0ã0ä0æ0ç0é0ê0ð0ñ0ò0ô0õ0û0ñåØÐÃ1μ±œ​zœ​okc_c_c_c_UOUO_UO ​höFK0J​j​höFK0J​U​höFK​j​höFKU​h¿ b​h7Uq​höFKmH @sH @$​h'​höFKCJ​OJ​QJ​aJ​mH @sH @​h'​höFKCJ​OJ​QJ​aJ​)​j​h'​höFK0J​CJ​OJ​QJ​U​aJ​h,gE​h​-†​h​-†CJ​OJ​QJ​h​-†CJ​OJ​QJ​]​^J​h​-†OJ​QJ​h​-†5​OJ​QJ​\​^J​h​-†CJ​OJ​QJ​^J​h​- †5​>*​CJ​OJ​QJ​^J​ ̃0©0®0 ̄0°0±0Å0Ü0Ý0ß0à0â0ã0å0æ0è0é0ò0ó0ô0ÿ01​1​1​1÷ééäâààâââââââââÔÒâÔÒâââ​„üÿ​„​&`#$​gdíjÃ​gd​- †​$​¤(7$8$H$a$​gd​-†​$​a$​gd​-†​û0ü0ý0þ0ÿ0​1​1​1õêõäàÜØ​h,gE​h¿ b​höFK ​höFK0J​hiÏ0J​mH​nH​u​j​höFK0J​U​9 0​&P​1​h​:p​u_​°Ð/ °ÀN!

°p​"°p​#​p​$​p​%°​°Â​°Â​Ä​†​œ​@@ñÿ​@​-†​Normal​CJ​_H​aJ​mH ​sH ​tH ​DA@òÿ¡D​Default Paragraph FontRióÿ3R​Table Normal​ö​4Ö ​l4Ö​aö​(kôÿÁ(​No List​P>@​òP​-†​Title​$​dà​a$​5​CJ​OJ​QJ​\​^J​_HJ​aJ​>​@​>​7Uq Footnote Text​CJ​aJ​@&@¢​@​7Uq​Footnote Reference​H*​4​@​"​4​íjÃ​Header ​ Æ​9​r ​.)@¢1​.​íjÃ​Page Number•​'​)​+.​ÿÿ​ÿÿ​ÿÿ​ÿÿ​ÿÿ​ÿÿ​+++.​)​P​ÿÿÿÿ​!

ÿÿ​@Và ÿÿ​@VÃ​ ÿÿ​@Và ÿÿ​@VÃ​ ÿÿ​@Và ÿÿ​@VÃb​R "​‡​[%​)j​†​ï​|​u​+,IJRS¢​£​Ì​Î​Ø​Ù​»​1⁄4​j​»​-​/​Ó​"​‚​w​x​y​·​ ̧​ Ð'Ñ'`(a(€(- ( ̃(©(®( ̄(°(±(Å(ô(ÿ(​)​ð​Ëo​ð​Ëo​ð​Ëo​ð​Ëo​ÿð​1​ð​€​ÿð​_¥r​ð​Ëo​ÿð​M"1​ð​Ëo​ÿð​Ü ̃​ð​Ëo​ÿð​·¬+​ð​Ëo​ÿð​[Ö​ð​TF​ð​TF​ð​TF​ð​TF​ð​TF​ð​TF​ð​TF​ð​TF​ð​TF​ð​TF​ð​TF​ÿð​‰Á ​ð​Ëo​ÿð​ö​x​ÿð​C=©​ð​Ëo​ÿð​Ä`​ÿð​ ​ð​Ëo​ð​Ëo​ð​Ëo​ð​Ëo​ð​ð​ð​¬​ð​¬​ð​ð​y​¬​ð​¬​+,IJRS¢​£​Ì​Î​Ø​Ù​»​1⁄4​j​»​-​/​Ó​"​‚​w​x​y​·​ ̧​ Ð'Ñ'`(a(€(- ( ̃(©(®( ̄(°(±(Å(Ü(Ý(ß(à(â(ã(å(æ(è(é(ò(ó(ô(ÿ()​)​) ̃​0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃0€€ ̃ 0​Iˆ0 0​€​ ̃​0€€​0€€Iˆ0 0​èD ̃​Iˆ0​@​+JRj​»​y​a(€(-( ̃(©(®( ̄(°(​)KÈ00​_​KÈ00​_​KÈ00​_​Kˆ0​0​ ​ØÇL​Kˆ0​0 ​KÈ00​KÈ00​_​KÈ00​_​KÈ00​_​KÈ00​_​KÈ00​IÈ00​IÈ00​IÈ00​š​€€​ ​$$$$$'​° ˆ​w​×​ø​x!‹'​,a0û0​1​ "#$%'​/​ ̃0​1​!&​1​ '​!•​!

​ÿ•€B​K​L​S​Ù​â​Š​ † u​~​u​}​Å​Ð​Ñ​Ô​!​'​ð​û​ü​ÿ​±(Ý(​)​ST*​0​_​a​d​l​ Å œ(§(±(Ý(​)​:​:​:​:​:​:​¡​¢​Ë​Ì​: > ý​þ​o​»​v​w​¶​·​¿​Â​ }#}#†#‡#‰#‰#¥# ̈#​$​$​$5$​$"$ž$ž$ ̈$©$μ$¶$Þ$ß$ê$ë$I%J%Ì%à%ã%ä%ë%ì%ô%õ%h&i&j&u&¡&¡&»&Æ&>'?'Y'b'f'f'q'v'Œ'​'a'«'à'ê'ö'ö'°(Ý(é RÆMT​u_¿ bZ\ca_c‚​q ́ q7UqW​skJvˆRybZ}2​€​-†'​$"Çw ̃¤​©b​©>[¬RL​¥51íjà ̈ ÅñnÌiÏ:EÐh​Ò​-Ò'​Ý? 5à@​æÂcêfKî​ùs​úöAÿÿ@​€​·​·​ð​‰​·​·​)`​@ÿÿ​Unknownÿÿ​ÿÿ​ÿÿ​ÿÿÿÿ​ÿÿ​G​ÿ>àCxÀ ÿ​Times New Roman5​€Symbol3&​ÿ:àCxÀ ÿ​ArialK​,​‡​ŸBookman Old Style7&​ÿ​¡[ @​Ÿ​Verdana5&​ÿ>á[`À)ÿ​Tahoma"​q​ˆ​ðÐ​h​¶c6§,z6'Ås6​2e​Ÿ"​I​Ÿ"​I±​ð​p​p​x ́‚‚>4​(​(​@ð​HX(ðÿ​?ä​ÿÿÿ​ÿÿÿ​ÿÿÿ​ÿÿÿ​ÿÿÿ​ÿÿÿ​ÿÿÿ​- †2ÿÿ​USER​USERþÿ​à...ŸòùOh​«'​+'3Ù0h​ ̃​¤​°​À​Ì​Ü ì​ø ​$​0​ <​H​P​X​`​ä​USER​Normal​USER​50​Microsoft Office Word@ž ​@o​b... ¦Ð​@8Ûƒñ¤Ð​@LÝR​§Ð​Ÿ"​þÿ​ÕÍÕœ.​"-​+,ù®0ô​h​p​ˆ​ ̃​ ​ ̈​°​ ̧​À È​Õ​ä​Wipro Limited​I​(​æ​Title​ ​ ​ !"

#$%&'(þÿÿÿ*+,-./01234567þÿÿÿ9:; <=>?þÿÿÿABCDEFGþÿÿÿýÿÿÿJþÿÿÿþÿÿÿþÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ Entry​ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ​ ÀF@​Ej​§Ð​L€1Table​ÿÿÿÿ​ÿÿÿÿ)​WordDocument​ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ;P​SummaryInformation(​ÿÿÿÿ8​DocumentSummaryInformation8​ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ@​Comp ÿÿÿÿ​ ​ÀF​Microsoft Office Word Document MSWordDoc​Word.Document.