Subala Sahoo vs Prasanna Acharya

D. Dash, J.—This matter is arising out a petition filed by the present petitioner (respondent in the election petition) under Order-6, Rule 16 , Rule-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, the "Code") read with section 86 of the Representation of People''s Act, 1951 (in short "The Act") with a prayer to dismiss the election petition at the threshold as there has been non-compliance of provisions of section 81(3) of the Act and as it does not state the material facts and particulars and (i) the pleadings in para 14(A) to 15(AN) are completely bereft of said required material facts; (ii) whatsoever have been pleaded are wholly unnecessary, frivolous, scandalous and vexatious liable to be struck off and it is stated that if those are allowed to stand the same would occasion abuse of process of the Court.

For the sake of convenience, to avoid confusion and bring in clarity, the petitioner in the above noted Misc. case is described as the "respondent" and the opposite party - election petitioner is described as the ''petitioner'' as they have been arraigned in the election petition.

The petitioner has filed the election petition challenging the election of the respondent to the Odisha Legislative Assembly from 2-Bijepur (General) assembly constituency. The election was held on 10.4.2014 and the result has been declared on 16.05.2014 wherein the respondent has been declared elected as the member of the Odisha Legislative Assembly representing the said constituency. The election of the respondent has been challenged mainly on the ground of corrupt practice and large scale illegality and irregularities said to have been committed during the conduct of the poll and counting of votes without being in-compliance with the provisions of the Act, Rules and Orders framed thereunder. The petitioner has alleged that poll process has been conducted with utter irregularity and there has been non-compliance of Rules 49(E), 49(S) and 56(C) of the Conduct of Election Rules 1961 (hereinafter called as "Rules"). The said irregularities and illegalities as stated in the election petition are said to be squarely coming within the ambit of Sec. 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Act for declaring the election of the respondent as the members of Odisha Legislative Assembly from the said constituency as void being held with such non-adherence to the provision of the Rules which has materially affected the result of the election.

Being duly served with the notice in the election petition the respondent having entered appearance has filed the written statement and then also the present miscellaneous petition giving rise to the Misc. case as above noted. The miscellaneous petition makes reference to the written statement filed by the respondent. The followings are the contention raised for the purpose of dismissal of the election petition at the threshold:

i) In view of the mandatory provisions of Sec. 81(3) of the Act, the election petitioner is under legal obligation/compulsion to serve a true copy of the election petition upon the respondent and its non-compliance is a defect of substantial nature. So as per the provision of Sec. 86 of the Act, the election petition is liable to be dismissed on account of non-compliance of the provision of Sec. 81(3) of the Act.

ii) Provision of Sec. 83(1)(a) of the Act prescribes that election petition shall contain a concise statement of material facts on which the election petitioner relies. Also as per sec. 83(1)(b) of the Act, the election petition shall set forth full particulars of any corrupt practice that the petitioner alleges, including as full a statement as possible all the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice and the date and place of the commission of such practice.

Provisio to sec. 83(1)(c) prescribes that where the election petitioner alleges any corrupt practice, the petition shall be accompanied by an affidavit in prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof.

Rule-94(A) of the Rules prescribes the form of the affidavit to be filed with the election petition which in term provides that the affidavit referred to in the proviso to sub-section-1 of sec. 83 of the Act shall be sworn before a Magistrate of First Class or a Notary or a Commissioner of Oaths and shall be in form-25 which is appended to the Rules.

All these mandatory provisions are the strict requirements to constitute a proper and legally maintainable election petition and non-compliance of the same renders the election petition incomplete and as such not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.

It is stated that the present election petition does not indicate the allegations of commission of corrupt practice, and thus the material facts and full material particulars to that effect are apparently absent in the pleading to make out a cause of action. Therefore the election petition is liable to be dismissed.

The petitioner having filed the objection to the miscellaneous petition has refuted the contention raised therein. It is averred that the pleadings in the election petition are quite inconformity with the statutory requirements and nothing can be seen therefrom that those tend to mislead the respondent in any manner. It is further stated in the objection that the material facts on which the petitioner has placed reliance as well as full particulars of corrupt practice as alleged by the petitioner have been duly pleaded in the election petition and by going through the same having duly understood said assertions, the written statement has already been filed by the respondent. As regards affidavit accompanying the election petition, it is stated to be in inconfirmity with the statutory requirement. It is further asserted that the defect in the copy of the affidavit served upon the respondent i.e. the absence of the endorsement/certificate of the Notary/Oath Commissioner/Magistrate 1st Class before whom the affidavit was sworn or affirmed is not of any fatal consequence for the election petition and its adjudication on merit.

During course of hearing, Mr. B. Mishra, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents contended that the affidavit filed by the petitioners being not in accordance with the Form 25 of the Rules, it amounts to non-compliance of the proviso 83(1) of the Act as also the non-compliance to the provisions of sub-section 3 of section 81 of the Act are apparent inasmuch as the true copy of the petition along with the affidavit have not been supplied to the respondent. He has also placed the copy of the petition along with the copy of the affidavit served on the respondent to show that the endorsement of the Oath Commissioner is absent in the copy of the affidavit. It is worthwhile to mention at this stage that although in the petition filed, the affidavit has been duly sworn before the Commissioner of Oath, yet in the copy of the affidavit served purportedly in compliance with the proviso to Section 83 of the Act, said endorsement of the Oath Commissioner however is absent. Nonetheless the copies of those affidavits served on the respondents have been attested by the petitioner to be the true copy. It has not been placed before this Court that the copies so served on the respondent has any material difference from the original or that it contains any such misleading statement therein.

Learned senior counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in case of Dr. (Smt.) Shipra, etc. etc. Vs. Shanti Lal Khoiwal, etc. etc., and that of the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of Purushottam Vs. Returning Officer, Amravati and Others, and other decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court land other High Courts.

Now coming to the ground of attack, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that on conjoint reading of section 83(1)(a)(c) of the Act read with the proviso to section 83(1) of the Act and the Rule 94-A of the Rules, read with the contents of Form prescribed under Form No. 25 makes the legislative intention clear that all material facts relied on by the election petitioner for the purpose of challenge of a returned candidate must be pleaded in concise form and when the allegation refer to corrupt practice, the pleading therein must be detailed material particulars stated on oath by the election petitioner by way of separate affidavit in the form specifically prescribed for the purpose. It is clear that such provision stand to discourage filing of cases on vague or baseless allegations challenging the election of peoples'' representatives which has its huge implication in all front, so he urges that the allegation of corrupt practice levelled by the petitioners do not contain the material facts and particulars, and thus there being vague and vexatious pleadings on that score, the election petition is liable to be rejected with the aid of order 7, rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure for non-disclosure of cause of action. It is also submitted that the petition accompanied by the affidavit prescribed in the proviso to section 83(1)(c) of the Act having not been filed with the election petition and the true copy of the election petition having also not been served on the respondent, the election petition is incomplete in the eye of law.

Mr. P. Acharya, learned senior counsel repudiated the contention as advanced. He submitted that the election of the petitioner has been challenged merely on the ground that illegalities and irregularities had been committed during the process of election right from the conduct of polling till declaration of the result without adherence to the mandatory provision of Constitution, the Act and the Rules which attracts the application of provision of section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Act as well as allegations of corrupt practice for declaration of result of the returned candidate void. He further submitted that the specific instance of such irregularities and illegalities have been concisely stated in the election petition by separate paragraphs. So, according to him, when nothing is mentioned in the petition that there was non-service of election petition or non-compliance of sections 81(3) and section 83(1)(c) of the Act, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the respondent is of no significance. It is next submitted that the true copy of the election petition has been served on the respondents as per requirement of the provision of 81(3) of the Act and in the meantime with referenced to the same, the respondents, has already filed the detailed written statement. According to him, the petition along with the affidavit filed are as per the requirement under provision of section 83(1)(c) of the Act and free from any such defect, and even if it is assumed that the same have any such defect, the same only cannot lead to the dismissal of the election petition under section 86 of the Act when section 86 does not refer to section 83 of the Act as has been authoritatively held by the Hon''ble Apex Court. Therefore, he contends that this petition giving rise to the misc. case is misconceived in both law and fact and as such is liable to be dismissed.

As mandated under section 83 of the Act, the election petition shall contain a concise statement of the material facts on which the petitioner relies and when the corrupt practice has been alleged, the full particulars of such practice along with as full a statement as possible of the names of the parties alleged to have committed such corrupt practice as well as each the date and place of commission of each such corrupt practice shall be set forth in the election petition. The petitioner where alleges any corrupt practice, as per the provision of section 83 of the Act, the petition must also be accompanied by an affidavit in the prescribed form in support of the allegation of such corrupt practice and the particulars thereof. Order 6, Rule 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure empowers the court to order for striking out or amendment of any matter in any pleading which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous and vexatious, or which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay in fair trial of the suit, or which is otherwise an abuse of the process of court. Provision of Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code says that the plaint shall be rejected where it does not disclose a cause of action.

Reliance has been placed by the learned senior counsel for the respondent on the decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Azhar Hussain Vs. Rajiv Gandhi, , and C.P. John Vs. Babu M. Palissery, in support of his contention regarding rejection of the election petition on the ground of non-compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 83 of the Act by the petitioner.

Per contra, Mr. P. Acharya, learned senior counsel for the respondent having placed reliance on a Constitution Bench decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of T.M. Jacob Vs. C. Poulose and Others, , besides other decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court land other High Courts contends that the such grounds of attack to the maintainability of the election petition are untenable and is only to delay the matter.

According to him, in the light of the principles enunciated by the Constitution Bench in the case of T.M. Jacob (supra) which has been followed in the subsequent cases, the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to non-supply of the true copy or non-compliance of the proviso to section 83 of the Act cannot also be countenanced that the same affect the maintainability of the election petition and it is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

In the case of Azhar Hussain (supra), it was held in paragraph-11 that appropriate orders in exercise of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure can be passed if the mandatory requirements enjoined by Section 83 of the Act to incorporate the material facts in the election petition are not complied with. It was further held that whether in an election petition a particular fact is material or not and as such required to be pleaded is dependent on the nature of the charge levelled and the circumstances of the case. The factual scenario in the said case was that the election petitioner alleged that gazetted officer appeared on Government controlled news media and made speech praising elected candidate, but it was not mentioned as to who procured or obtained the services of the gazetted officer, in what manner he obtained the services and what were the facts which went to show that it was with the consent of the elected candidate. Similarly, the petition also did not disclose the exact words used in the speech or the time and date of making such speech. Allegations were brought by the election petitioner that objectionable slogans had been painted, but the petition did not mention the name of the workers allegedly employed by the elected candidate or his agents who printed slogans. Display of objectionable poster in the constituency was alleged, but neither a copy of the poster was produced, nor name of the workers of the returned candidate who put up the postures was revealed by the election petitioner. Although it was alleged that books containing objectionable statements were distributed by the returned candidate, but there was no averment in the election petition to show that the book was published or distributed with consent or knowledge of the returned candidate. Distribution of pamphlet casting aspersions on personal character of a candidate was alleged, but the petition lacked particulars as to who had printed/published or circulated the pamphlet or if consent of the returned candidate was taken for such distribution. In view of the aforesaid omissions and deficiency, their Lordships of the Hon''ble Apex Court upheld the order of the High Court dismissing the election petition at the threshold in view of Order-7, Rule-11 of C.P.C. as being bereft of material facts and particulars and not disclosing any cause of action.

In the case of C.P. John (supra), the election petitioner levelled allegations of bribery falling under Section 123(1)(A) of the Act and issuance of pamphlets attracting Section 123(4) of the Act. But, the election petition revealed no details as to on which date and by whom the bribe amount was promised to be paid and the averments regarding the allegation were not duly supported by affidavit. Similarly, regarding the allegation of distribution of pamphlets, material facts and particulars were not pleaded so as to ascribe "corrupt practice" to the returned candidate. In the facts and circumstances peculiar to the said case, their Lordships of the Hon''ble Apex Court concurred with the order of the High Court dismissing the election petition at the threshold under Section 83(1)(c) and 86 of the Act read with Rule-11 of Order-7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The major thrust of the allegation in the election petition is that large scale illegalities and irregularities were committed during the conduct of the poll and counting of the votes. The petitioner has alleged that the poll process has been conducted in total disregard and non-compliance of the Rules. It is stated that the irregularities and illegalities squarely come within the ambit of Section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the R.P. Act, 1951 for declaration of result of the returned candidate void since the non-compliance has got material affect on the result of the election of the returned candidate. The petitioner has stated that in the election petition about the illegalities and irregularities committed during the polling and counting of votes, which according to the case are two important stages of a sacrosanct, free and fair pool process. Instances of irregularities in respect of 101 numbers of booths thus have been furnished in the election petition. In all 62, 653 number of votes were polled in respect of those booths. So, it is stated that the material irregularities and illegalities pleaded in the petition, when stand proved would materially affect the result of the returned candidate. The case of the petitioner is thus distinguishable in the facts and circumstances from the respective cited cases of Azhar Hussain and C.P. John, referred to above (supra).

In the case of Virender Nath Gautam Vs. Satpal Singh and Others, , the Hon''ble Apex Court in paragraph-28 held that Section 100 enumerates grounds for declaring election to be void which inter alia includes improper reception, refusal or rejection of any vote or reception of any vote which is void or there is non-compliance with the provisions of the Constitution or with the Act or rules or orders made under the Act. Their Lordships in the said case in paragraphs-50 and 54 held as follows:-

"50. There is distinction between facta probanda (the facts required to be proved i.e. material facts) and facta probanda (the facts by means of which they are proved i.e. particulars or evidence). It is settled law that pleadings must contain only facta probanda and not facta probanda. The material facts on which the party relies for his claim are called facta probanda and they must be stated in the pleadings. But the facts or facts by means of which facta probanda (material facts) are proved and which are in the nature of facta probanda (particulars or evidence) need not be set out in the pleadings. They are not facts in issue, but only relevant facts required to be proved at the trial in order to establish the fact in issue.

The High Court dismissed the petition inter alia on the ground that paras 8(i) (to (iv) lacked in material particulars. Apart from the fact that the law does not require material particulars even in respect of allegations of corrupt practice but only full particulars and if they are lacking, the petition can be permitted to be amended or amplified under section 86 of the Act, in the instant case, clause (b) of Section 83(1) had no application and the petition has been dismissed by the High Court by applying wrong test. On that ground also, the order passed by the High Court is unsustainable (vide Harkirat Singh v. Amrinder Singh)."

A three Judge Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of D. Ramachandran Vs. R.V. Janakiraman and Others, in paragraphs-8, 9 and 10, held as follows:-

"8. We do not consider it necessary to refer in detail to any part of the reasoning in the judgment; instead, we proceed to consider the arguments advanced before us on the basis of the pleadings contained in the election petition. It is well settled that in all cases of preliminary objection, the test is to see whether any of the reliefs prayed for could be granted to the appellant if the averments made in the petition are proved to be true. For the purpose of considering a preliminary objection, the averments in the petition should be assumed to be true and the court has to find out whether those averments disclose a cause of action or a triable issue as such. The court cannot probe into the facts on the basis of the controversy raised in the counter.

Under Order 6 Rule 16 , the court is enabled to strike out a pleading (a) which may be unnecessary, scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; or (b) which may tend to prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the suit; or (c) which is otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. We have already pointed out that it is not the case of the first respondent that the pleading in the election petition is vitiated by all or any one of the aforesaid defects mentioned in the Rule. Hence striking out part of the pleading in this case was not at all justified.

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx. It is elementary that under Order-7 Rule 11(a) CPC, the court cannot dissect the pleading into several parts and consider whether each one of them discloses a cause of action. Under the Rule, there cannot be a partial rejection of the plaint or petition. See Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill. We are satisfied that the election petition in this case could not have been rejected in limine without a trial."

In the case of Mahendra Pal Vs. Ram Dass Malanger and Others, , a three Judges Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in paragraph-32 observed as follows:-

"Our perusal of various paragraphs of the election petition and particularly of the averments contained in paras 10 to 13, 16 and 20, go to show that sufficient material facts, to provide a cause of action, for trial of the election petition have been provided in the election petition. In various sub-paras of para 11 of the election petition, particulars of irregularities have also been spelt out. The non-mention of serial numbers of the improperly counted ballot papers, keeping in view the averments made in para 16 of the petition, could not be a ground to non-suit the election petitioner at the threshold, without trial more particularly because of the discrepancy between Ex. P-2 and Ex. P-3. Pleadings have to be read as a whole to ascertain their true import. It is the substance and not merely the form, which is required to be looked into for construing the pleadings. The intention of the party needs to be gathered from the tenor and terms of his pleadings taken as a whole. These well-settled principles appear to have been lost sight of by the learned Designated Judge. Construed reasonably, the averments in the election petition, in our opinion, do make out a case for the petition proceeding to trial. Whether or not a case is eventually made out to justify re-count/inspection would depend upon the evidence led by the parties in support of their pleadings at the trial."

On the question of striking out of pleadings, a three Judges Bench of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Sathi Vijay Kumar Vs. Tota Singh and Others, in paragraph-33 held as follows:-

"33. At the same time, however, it cannot be overlooked that normally a court cannot direct parties as to how they should prepare their pleadings. If the parties have not offended the rules of pleadings by making averments or raising arguable issues, the court would not order striking out pleadings. The power to strike out pleadings is extraordinary in nature and must be exercised by the court sparingly and with extreme care, caution and circumspection (vide Roop Lal Sathi v. Nachhattar Singh Gill, K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi, United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar)."

In the case of Ponnala Lakshmaiah Vs. Kommuri Pratap Reddy and Others, , the Hon''ble Apex Court in paragraph-9 viewed as follows:-

"9. We may also gainfully refer to the decision of this Court in H.D. Revanna v. G. Puttaswamy Gowda where this Court held that an election petition can be dismissed for non-compliance with Sections 81 , 82 and 117 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 but it may also be dismissed if the matter falls within the scope of Order 6 Rule 16 or Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. A defect in the verification of the election petition or the affidavit accompanying the election petition was held to be curable, hence, not sufficient to justify dismissal of the election petition under Order 7 Rule 11 or Order 6 Rule 16 CPC. The following passage in this regard is instructive: (SCC p. 223, para 14)

"14��. the relevant provisions in the Act are very specific. Section 86 provides for dismissal of an election petition in limine for non-compliance with Sections 81 , 82 and 117 . Section 81 relates to the presentation of an election petition. It is not the case of the appellant before us that the requirements of Section 81 were not complied with�.. Sections 82 and 117 are not relevant in this case. Significantly, Section 86 does not refer to Section 83 and non-compliance with Section 83 does not lead to dismissal under Section 86 . This Court has laid down that non-compliance with Section 83 may lead to dismissal of the petition if the matter falls within the scope of Order 6 Rule 16 or Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. Defect in verification of the election petition or the affidavit accompanying the election petition has been held to be curable and not fatal.""

The question of rejection of election petition under Order-7, Rule-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure with a reference to Section 83 of the Act again came up before the Hon''ble Apex Court very recently in the case of Ashraf Kokkur Vs. K.V. Abdul Khader, . In paragraph-22 of the said decision, their Lordships have held that the inquiry under Order 7 Rule 11(a) of the Code of Civil Procedure is only as to whether the facts as pleaded disclose a cause of action and not complete cause of action. The said paragraph-22 is quoted hereunder:-

"22. After all, the inquiry under Order 7 Rule 11(a) CPC is only as to whether the facts as pleaded disclose a cause of action and not complete cause of action. The limited inquiry is only to see whether the petition should be thrown out at the threshold. In an election petition, the requirement under Section 83 of the RP Act is to provide a precise and concise statement of material facts. The expression "material facts" plainly means facts pertaining to the subject-matter and which are relied on by the election petitioner. If the party does not prove those facts, he fails at the trial."

In the subsequent paragraphs of the aforesaid decision, reference has also been made to a number of earlier decisions of the Hon''ble Apex Court. In paragraph-24, a reference has been made to V.S. Achuthanandan Vs. P.J. Francis and Another, , as follows:-

"24. In V.S. Achuthanandan v. P.J. Francis, a three-Judge Bench of this Court has taken the view that only because full particulars are not given, an election petitioner is not to be thrown out at the threshold. To quote para 15: (SCC p. 747).

"15...... An election petition was not liable to be dismissed in limine merely because full particulars of corrupt practice alleged were not set out. It is, therefore, evident that material facts are such primary facts which must be proved at the trial by a party to establish existence of a cause of action. Whether in an election petition a particular fact is a material fact or not, and as such, required to be pleaded is a question which depends on the nature of the charge levelled, the ground relied upon, and in the light of the special circumstances of the case."

Again at para 16 of V.S. Achuthanandan case, it was held that: (SCC p. 748)

"16...... So long as the claim discloses some cause of action or raises some questions fit to be decided by a Judge, the mere fact that the case is weak and not likely to succeed is no ground for striking it out. The implications of the liability of the pleadings to be struck out on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action are generally more known than clearly understood�. the failure of the pleadings to disclose a reasonable cause of action is distinct from the absence of full particulars."

(emphasis supplied)"

In paragraph-29 of the aforesaid decision, a word ''caution'' has been sounded by the Hon''ble Apex Court as follows:-

"29. Finally, as cautioned by this Court in Raj Narain v. Indira Nehru Gandhi, it was held that: (SCC p. 858, para 19)

"19. Rules of pleadings are intended as aids for a fair trial and for reaching a just decision. An action at law should not be equated to a game of chess. Provisions of law are not mere formulate to be observed as rituals. Beneath the words of a provision of law, generally speaking, there lies a juristic principle. It is the duty of the court to ascertain that principle and implement it."

(emphasis supplied)"

Ultimately, while allowing the appeals of the election petitioners preferred against the orders of the High Court, the Hon''ble Apex Court in paragraph-30 have held as follows:-

"30. Guided by the settled principles of law referred to above, we are of the view that the election petition having disclosed a cause of action, it should not have been thrown out at the threshold. The impugned order and judgment are hence set aside. The appeals are allowed. The election petition is remitted to the High Court for trial in accordance with law. There is no order as to costs."

At this stage, I would like to state that the proviso to section 83(1) of the Act comes into play on the field when corrupt practice is pleaded as the sole ground for rejection of an election of the returned candidate. However, it reveals from the pleadings laid by the election petitioner that the challenge to the election has also been levelled on the ground of large scale irregularities and illegalities in the matter of conduct of the poll, counting of votes and non-compliance with the provision of Constitution, the Act and Rules so as to attract section 100(1)(d)(iii) and (iv) of the Act along with corrupt practice and the election petition filed along with the affidavit is not in non-compliance with the proviso to section 83(1) of the Act. On the above pleading, it is seen that the petitioner has shown triable of cases on those grounds in challenging the election of the returned candidate. The written statement has already been filed countering the ground of attack made to the said election petition and the issues have also been settled.

In view of authoritative pronouncements referred to above and having regard to the averments made by the petitioner in the election petition, I do not find any reason to invoke Order-6 Rule-16 or Order-7 Rule-11 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the case of the petitioner inasmuch as no part of the pleadings in the election petition is found liable to be struck out, and the facts pleaded therein make out a triable case. Needless to say, the respondent has already filed his statement of defence vis-�-vis the grounds of challenge embodied in the election petition.

For the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the submissions advanced by the learned senior counsel for the respondents are thus not found to be acceptable.

In the result, the misc. case stands dismissed and in the facts and circumstance no order is passed as to costs.