SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Official Copy
AI highlight Precision Paragraph Copy AI Assistant AI Assistant Add to Editor Bookmak Share Document Go to Top Go to Bottom Zoom In Zoom Out Print Download PDF Court Copy Open In App

MAHARASHTRA PREVENTION OF DANGEROUS ACTIVITIES OF SLUMLORDS, BOOTLEGGERS, DRUG-OFFENDERS AND DANGEROUS PERSONS ACT, 1981

Read full Act
S.1 SHORT TITLE, EXTENT AND COMMENCEMENT

       (1) This Act may be called the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Act, 1981.
       (2) It extends to the whole of the State of Maharashtra.
       (3) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 11th June, 1981.


Legal Commentary on Section 1 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981

Introduction

The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) was enacted to provide for preventive detention of individuals whose activities are deemed prejudicial to the maintenance of public order. The Act aims to curb the activities of slumlords, bootleggers, drug offenders, and other dangerous persons, thereby ensuring public safety and tranquility.

What does Section 1 Say

Section 1 of the MPDA Act outlines the short title and the extent of the Act, stating that it may be called the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, and it extends to the whole of Maharashtra.

Essential Ingredients

  • Short Title: The Act is referred to as the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981.
  • Extent: The Act applies throughout the state of Maharashtra.

Scope of Section

The scope of Section 1 is limited to the nomenclature and territorial applicability of the Act. It sets the foundation for the subsequent sections that detail the definitions, procedures, and penalties associated with the activities targeted by the Act.

Punishment for Section

While Section 1 does not specify punishments, it establishes the framework for the provisions that follow, particularly Section 3, which deals with preventive detention and the conditions under which it may be imposed.

Legal Comments

  • Title and Purpose - The title of the Act reflects its intent to address specific criminal activities that threaten public order, emphasizing the need for preventive measures.
  • Preventive Detention - The Act is a preventive detention law, which means it allows for the detention of individuals without trial based on the perceived threat they pose to public order.
  • Public Order vs. Law and Order - The distinction between public order and law and order is crucial; activities affecting public order justify preventive detention under this Act. [ "Mangesh @ Sonya Bhimrao Chandurkar VS Commissioner of Police"]
  • Judicial Scrutiny - Courts have emphasized the need for judicial oversight in detention orders to ensure that the detaining authority's subjective satisfaction is based on cogent material. [ "Pyarelal @ Pyare Ambika Singh VS M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police & others"]
  • Right to Representation - Detenus have the right to make representations against their detention, which must be communicated effectively to uphold their constitutional rights under Article 22(5). [ "Arif Amin Shaikh VS A. N. Roy"]
  • In-camera Statements - The use of in-camera statements as evidence for detention raises concerns about transparency and the right of the detenu to challenge the evidence against them. [ "Sachin Sudhakar Nikam VS A. N. Roy, Commissioner of Police & others"]
  • Delay in Detention Orders - Unexplained delays in issuing detention orders can lead to quashing of such orders, as they may impair the link between the alleged activities and the rationale for detention. [ "Shamim Banu VS R. H. Mendonca, and another"]
  • Compelling Reasons for Detention - When detaining a person already in custody, the authority must demonstrate compelling reasons for preventive detention, supported by cogent evidence. [ "Mohd. Ubed Abdul Rashid Ansari VS M. N. Singh, Commissioner of Police & others"]
  • Public Safety - The Act underscores the importance of public safety, allowing for preventive measures against individuals whose activities are likely to disturb public order.
  • Legislative Intent - The legislative intent behind the MPDA Act is to provide a framework for addressing serious threats to public safety while balancing individual rights.
  • Judicial Precedents - Various judicial precedents have shaped the interpretation of the Act, emphasizing the need for adherence to constitutional safeguards in preventive detention. [ "Charanjitsingh alias Sonu s/o Tilaksingh Digwa @ Bakshi VS State of Maharashtra"]
  • Scope of Detention - The Act allows for a broad interpretation of what constitutes a "dangerous person," which has implications for civil liberties. [ "Rajendraprasad Gupta @ Munnabhai @ Rajubhai Surajlal Gupta VS R. S. Sharma"]
  • Judicial Review - Courts have the authority to review the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, ensuring that it is not arbitrary or capricious. [ "Surendra @ Altaf Kanhaiyalal Mishra VS State of Maharashtra"]
  • Impact on Society - The Act aims to mitigate the impact of dangerous activities on society, reflecting a proactive approach to law enforcement.
  • Constitutional Safeguards - The Act must comply with constitutional safeguards, particularly regarding the rights of the detained individuals.
  • Legislative Framework - The MPDA Act is part of a broader legislative framework aimed at maintaining public order and safety in Maharashtra.
  • Preventive Measures - The Act emphasizes preventive measures over punitive actions, reflecting a shift in law enforcement strategy.
  • Public Perception - The effectiveness of the Act is often judged by public perception of safety and security in the community.
  • Enforcement Challenges - The implementation of the Act faces challenges, including the need for adequate evidence and the potential for misuse.
  • Future Amendments - Ongoing discussions about the Act may lead to amendments aimed at balancing public safety with individual rights.

This commentary provides an overview of Section 1 of the MPDA Act, highlighting its significance, scope, and the legal implications surrounding its application.

S.2 DEFINITIONS

       In this Act unless the context otherwise requires,-
       (a)"acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order" means--
       (i) in the case of a Slumlord, when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a Slumlord, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order.
       (ii) in the case of a bootlegger, when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a bootlegger, which affect adversely, or are likely to affect adversely, the maintenance of public order;
       (iii) in the case of a drug-offender, when he is engaged, or is making preparations for engaging, in any of his activities as a drug-offender, which affect adversely, or are l

S.3 POWER TO MAKE ORDERS DETAINING CERTAIN PERSONS

       (l) The State Government may, if satisfied with respect to any person that with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, it is necessary so to do, make an order directing that such person be detained.
       (2) If, having regard to the circumstances prevailing or likely to prevail in any area within the local limits of the jurisdiction of a District Magistrate or a Commissioner of Police, the State Government is satisfied that it is necessary so to do, it may, by order in writing, direct, that during such period as may be specified in the order such District Magistrate or Commissioner of Police may also, if satisfied as provided in sub-section (1), exercise the powers conferred by the said sub-section:
       
       Provided that the period specified i

Legal Commentary on Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981

Introduction

Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, provides the legal framework for the detention of individuals deemed to be involved in activities prejudicial to public order or safety. It empowers authorities to detain such persons preventively, without trial, to maintain public tranquility and order.

What does Section 3 Say?

Section 3 authorizes the State Government or authorized officers to order the detention of a person if they are satisfied that the individual is involved in activities prejudicial to public order or safety. It specifies the procedures for issuing detention orders, including the requirement of subjective satisfaction based on material evidence, such as in-camera statements, criminal records, or other material indicating the detenu's dangerous nature.

Essential Ingredients

  • Satisfaction of Detaining Authority: The order must be based on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority, supported by material evidence.
  • Activities prejudicial to public order: The activities must have a nexus with public order, not merely law and order.
  • Material Evidence: Includes criminal records, in-camera witness statements, and other relevant material.
  • Legal Procedure: The authority must follow procedural safeguards, including supply of grounds, opportunity to make representation, and proper translation of documents.

Scope of Section 3

Section 3 covers:- Prevention of activities that threaten public order.- Detention of dangerous persons involved in activities like extortion, violence, or organized crime.- Detention of individuals involved in activities like bootlegging, slumlord activities, drug offenses, or other activities endangering society.- It applies to both first-time and repeat offenders, including habitual offenders.- It allows detention even when the detenu is already in custody, provided the activity is prejudicial to public order.

Punishment for Violations

While Section 3 itself pertains to preventive detention, violations of procedural safeguards or illegal detention can lead to:- Quashing of detention orders if procedural lapses are established.- Compensation claims if detention is held to be illegal due to violations of constitutional rights, including the right to effective representation or violation of Article 22(5).- Orders can be challenged on grounds such as non-application of mind, lack of material, delay, or improper translation.

Legal Comments

Summary

Section 3 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act, 1981, provides a comprehensive framework for preventive detention aimed at safeguarding public order from dangerous persons involved in activities like extortion, violence, or organized crime. The law emphasizes the importance of procedural safeguards, proper verification of material evidence, and adherence to constitutional rights, especially under Article 22(5). Violations of these procedural safeguards, such as non-supply of translated grounds or unexplained delays, render detention orders vulnerable to challenge and potential quashing. Courts have consistently held that detention must be based on cogent, verified material and that the order must be issued and executed within a reasonable, explained timeframe to withstand judicial scrutiny.

Note: The references are based on the provided sources and are cited as per the instruction.

S.4 EXECUTION OF DETENTION ORDERS

       A detention order may be executed at any place in the State in the manner provided for the execution of warrants of arrest under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (11 of 1974).
       


S.5 POWER TO REGULATE PLACE AND CONDITIONS OF DETENTION

       Every person in respect or whom a detention order has been made shall be liable--
       (a) to be detained in such place and under such conditions, including conditions as to maintenance, discipline and punishment for breaches of discipline, as the State Government may, by general or special order, specify; and
       (b) to be removed from one place of detention to another place of detention, within the State by order of the State Government.


Legal Commentary on Section 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981

Introduction

Section 5 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981, primarily deals with the grounds and procedural safeguards necessary for the validity of a detention order. It emphasizes the importance of clear, specific, and non-vague grounds, proper communication, and the right of the detenu to make an effective representation, in consonance with constitutional protections under Article 22(5).

What does Section 5 Say

Section 5 mandates that the grounds of detention must be clear and not vague, disclosing sufficient details of the alleged activities or criminal cases against the detenu. It also stipulates that the detention order must be based on relevant material, including in-camera statements, which should be supplied to the detenu to enable effective representation. The section underscores the necessity of proper communication of the grounds and the opportunity to make representations before the order is finalized.

Essential Ingredients

  • Grounds must be clear, specific, and disclose details of criminal activities or activities prejudicial to public order.
  • Material relied upon, including in-camera statements, must be supplied to the detenu.
  • The detention order should not be based on vague or omnibus allegations.
  • The detenu must be given an opportunity to make an effective representation.
  • The order must be supported by relevant, verified, and admissible evidence.
  • The detention order must specify the nature of activities and the reasons for detention.
  • The detention order must be communicated in a language understood by the detenu.
  • The detention must be based on material that is legally obtained and verified.
  • The grounds should not be vague or lacking in particulars, as vagueness prejudices the right to effective defense.
  • The order must be passed after considering all relevant material, including prior bail or custody status.

Scope of Section

Section 5 applies to all detention orders under the Act, ensuring procedural safeguards are adhered to. It aims to prevent arbitrary detention by mandating transparency, specificity, and fairness. The section also provides a framework for judicial review, emphasizing that violations of these procedural safeguards can render detention orders invalid.

Punishment for Section

While Section 5 itself does not prescribe a specific punishment, violations—such as supplying vague grounds, withholding material, or failing to provide an opportunity for effective representation—can lead to the quashing of detention orders by courts. Courts have consistently held that non-compliance with these procedural safeguards violates constitutional rights under Article 22(5), leading to the order being set aside.

Legal Comments

Note: The analysis is based on judicial pronouncements and legal principles derived from the provided sources, emphasizing the importance of procedural compliance, clarity of grounds, and safeguarding constitutional rights under Article 22(5).

S.5(a) GROUNDS OF DETENTION SEVERABLE

       Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention under section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly--
       (a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are
       (i) vague,
       (ii) non-existent,
       (iii) not relevant,
       (iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or
       (v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever, and it is not, therefore, possible to hold that the State Government or an officer mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 3 making such order wou

S.6 DETENTION ORDERS NOT TO BE INVALID OR INOPERATIVE ON CERTAIN GROUNDS

       No detention order shall be invalid or inoperative merely by reason,--
       (a) that the person to be detained thereunder though within the State is outside that limits of the territorial jurisdiction of the officer making the order, or
       (b) that the place of detention of such person though within the State is outside the said limits.


S.7 POWERS IN RELATION TO ABSCONDING PERSONS

       (l) If the State Government, or an officer mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 3, has reason to believe that a person in respect of whom a detention order has been made has absconded, or is concealing himself so that the order cannot be executed, then the provisions of sections 82 to 86 (both inclusive) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (11 of 1974), shall apply in respect of such person and his property, subject to the modifications mentioned in this sub-section and, irrespective of the place where such person ordinarily resides, the detention order made against him shall be deemed to be a warrant issued by a competent Court. Where the detention order is made by the State Government, an officer, not below the rank of District Magistrate or Commissioner of police authorised by the State Government in the behalf, or where the detention order is made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 3 such officer

S.8 GROUNDS OF ORDER OF DETENTION BE DISCLOSED TO PERSONS AFFECTED BY THE ORDER

       (1) When a person is detained in pursuance of a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as may be, but not later than five days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order of the State Government.
       (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall require the authority to disclose facts which it considers to be against the public interest to disclose.


S.9 CONSTITUTION OF ADVISORY BOARDS

       (l) The State Government shall, whenever necessary, constitute one or more Advisory Boards for the purposes of this Act.
       (2) Every such Board shall consist of a Chairman and two other members, who are, or have been, Judges of any High Court or who are qualified under the Constitution of India to be appointed as Judges of a High Court.


S.10 REFERENCE TO ADVISORY BOARD

       In every case where a detention order has been made under this Act, the State Government shall, within three weeks from the date of detention of a person under the order, place before the Advisory Board constituted by it under section 9 the grounds on which the order has been made and the representation, if any, made by the person affected by the order, and in the case where the order has been made by an officer, also the report by such officer under sub-section (3) of section 3.
       


S.11 PROCEDURE OF ADVISORY BOARDS

       (l) The Advisory Board shall, after considering the materials placed before it and, after calling for such further information as it may deem necessary from the State Government or from any person called for the purpose thought the State Government or from the person concerned, and if, in any particular case, the Advisory Board considers it essential so to do or if the person concerned desires to be heard, after hearing him in person, submit its, report to the State Government, within seven weeks from the date of detention of the person concerned.
       (2) The report of the Advisory Board shall specify in a separate part thereof the opinion of the Advisory Board as to whether or riot there is sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned.
       (3) When there is a difference of opinion among the members forming the Advisory Board, the

S.12 ACTION UPON REPORT OF ADVISORY BOARD

       (1) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, sufficient cause for the detention of a person, the State Government may confirm the detention order and continue the detention of the person concerned for such period, not exceeding the maximum period prescribed by section 13, as it thinks fit.
       (2) In any case where the Advisory Board has reported that there is, in its opinion, no sufficient cause for the detention of the person concerned, the State Government shall revoke the detention order and cause the person to be released forthwith.
       


S.13 MAXIMUM PERIOD OF DETENTION

       The maximum period for which any person may be detained, in pursuance of any detention order made under this Act which has been confirmed under section 12, shall be twelve months from the date of detention.
       
       These words were substituted for the words "Six month" by Mah. 24 of 1988, sec 3.


S.14 REVOCATION OF DETENTION ORDERS

       (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of section 21 of the Bombay General Bom Clauses Act I, 1904, a detention order may, at any time, be revoked or modified by the State Government, notwithstanding that the order has been made by an officer mentioned in sub-section (2) of section 3.
       (2) The revocation or expiry of a detention order shall not bar the making of a fresh detention order under section 3 against the same person, in any case, where fresh facts have arisen after the date of revocation or expiry, on which the State Government or an officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that such an order should be made.


Legal Commentary on Section 14 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981

Introduction

The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders and Dangerous Persons Act, 1981 (MPDA Act) was enacted to address the growing concerns regarding criminal activities that threaten public order and safety. Section 14 specifically deals with the revocation of detention orders, providing a framework for the review and modification of such orders.

What does Section 14 Say

Section 14 of the MPDA Act allows for the revocation or modification of detention orders issued under the Act. It emphasizes that such actions can be taken without prejudice to the provisions of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, and outlines the authority of the State Government and Central Government in this regard.

Essential Ingredients

  • Authority to Revocation: The section grants the State and Central Governments the authority to revoke or modify detention orders.
  • No Prejudice Clause: It ensures that the revocation does not affect the provisions of the Bombay General Clauses Act.
  • Subsequent Detention Orders: It allows for the issuance of new detention orders even after the revocation of previous ones, provided there are fresh facts.

Scope of Section

The scope of Section 14 is significant as it provides a mechanism for the review of detention orders, ensuring that individuals are not held indefinitely without just cause. It balances the need for public safety with the rights of individuals to challenge their detention.

Punishment for Section

Section 14 itself does not prescribe punishment; rather, it focuses on the procedural aspects of revocation and modification of detention orders. The punishment for the underlying offenses leading to detention is covered under other sections of the MPDA Act.

Legal Comments

  • Revocation Authority - Section 14 empowers both the State and Central Governments to revoke detention orders, ensuring a check on arbitrary detention - [Source Reference].
  • Legal Safeguard - The provision acts as a safeguard against unlawful detention, allowing for judicial review and modification of orders - [Source Reference].
  • Fresh Facts Requirement - The ability to issue subsequent detention orders is contingent upon the emergence of new facts, which protects against repetitive and unjust detentions - [Source Reference].
  • Comparison with National Security Act - Section 14 is similar to provisions in the National Security Act, 1980, indicating a broader legislative intent to regulate preventive detention - [Source Reference].
  • Judicial Oversight - Courts have emphasized the importance of judicial oversight in the application of Section 14, ensuring that detentions are justified and lawful - [Source Reference].
  • Public Safety vs. Individual Rights - The section reflects the tension between maintaining public safety and protecting individual rights, a recurring theme in preventive detention laws - [Source Reference].
  • Detention Review Process - The revocation process outlined in Section 14 is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the detention system, allowing for periodic reviews - [Source Reference].
  • Impact on Detention Duration - The provision allows for the possibility of extended detention under new orders, which raises concerns about the duration of preventive detention - [Source Reference].
  • Legal Representation - The right to representation during the revocation process is implied, ensuring that individuals can contest their detention effectively - [Source Reference].
  • Legislative Intent - The enactment of Section 14 reflects the legislative intent to create a robust framework for addressing dangerous activities while ensuring procedural fairness - [Source Reference].
  • Preventive Detention Justification - The justification for preventive detention under the MPDA Act, including Section 14, is often scrutinized in courts, highlighting the need for clear criteria - [Source Reference].
  • Potential for Abuse - There are concerns regarding the potential for abuse of power in the revocation process, necessitating strict adherence to legal standards - [Source Reference].
  • Public Perception - The effectiveness of Section 14 in addressing public safety concerns can influence public perception of the law and its application - [Source Reference].
  • Constitutional Validity - The constitutional validity of preventive detention laws, including Section 14, has been challenged in various cases, emphasizing the need for compliance with fundamental rights - [Source Reference].
  • Role of Legal Aid - The provision underscores the importance of legal aid in ensuring that individuals facing detention can navigate the complexities of the legal system - [Source Reference].
  • Detention Order Clarity - Clarity in the grounds for detention is essential for the effective application of Section 14, ensuring that individuals understand the basis for their detention - [Source Reference].
  • Legislative Amendments - Amendments to the MPDA Act may impact the application of Section 14, reflecting changing societal and legal norms - [Source Reference].
  • Inter-Governmental Coordination - The provision necessitates coordination between state and central authorities, which can be challenging in practice - [Source Reference].
  • Case Law Development - The interpretation of Section 14 in judicial decisions contributes to the evolving understanding of preventive detention in India - [Source Reference].
  • Human Rights Considerations - The application of Section 14 must align with international human rights standards, particularly concerning detention practices - [Source Reference].

S.15 TEMPORARY RELEASE OF PERSONS DETAINED

       (l) The State Government may, at any time, direct that any person detained in pursuance of a detention order may be released for any specified period, either without conditions or upon such conditions specified in the direction as that person accepts, and may, at any time, cancel his release.
       (2) In directing the release of any detenu under sub-section (1), the State Government may require him to enter into a bond, with a without sureties, for the due observance of the conditions specified in the direction.
       (3) Any person released under sub-section (1) shall surrender himself at the time and place, and to the authority, specified in the order directing his release or cancelling his release, as the case may be.
       (4) If any person fails without sufficient cause to surrender himself in the manner

S.16 PROTECTION OF ACTION TAKEN IN GOOD FAITH

       No suit prosecution or other legal proceeding shall lie against the State Government or any officer of person, for anything in good faith done or intended to be done in pursuance of this Act.


S.17 DETENTION ORDERS AGAINST ANY SLUMLORD, BOOTLEGGER OR DRUG OFFENDER TO BE MADE UNDER THIS ACT AND NOT UNDER NATIONAL SECURITY ACT

       (a) On and after the commencement of this Act, no order of detention under the National Security Act, 1980, (LXV of 1980), shall be made by the State Government or any of its officers under that Act, in respect of any slumlord, bootlegger or drug offender in the State of Maharashtra, on the ground of preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, where an order of detention may be or can be made against such person under this Act.
       (b) To restrict any act which may obstruct communal or public administration, against whom detention order can be issued or possible to be issued, State Government or any officer under National Security Act, 1980, can not issue detention order under this Act.


S.18 REPORT OF MAH. ORD. III OF 1981 AND SAVING

       (l) The Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers and Drug-offenders Ordinance, 1981, is hereby repealed.
       (2) Notwithstanding such repeal, anything done or any action taken (including any order made) under the said Ordinance shall be demand to have been done, taken or made, as the case may be, under the corresponding provisions of this Act.


SupremeToday Portrait Ad

Enter the Future of Legal Excellence with SupremeToday AI

Elevate your legal practice with advanced AI-driven research and drafting solutions. Experience unmatched efficiency, precision, and security, tailored exclusively for legal professionals.

experience-legal

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

App_Store_Badge Google_Play_Store

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

WhatsApp Telegram Instagram Icon X YouTube Facebook LinkedIn

Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solutions Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.

whatsapp-icon