"After
1984, no officer of the company or the provisional liquidator had an
authority to enter the properties of the company in liquidation...."
-Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, Patna High Court in his judgement dated October 14, 2022
Rohtas Industries Limited (In Liquidation) vs. Official Liquidator (2026) Company Petition No. 3 of 1984 is listed before Court No. 213 of Justice Alok Kumar Sinha on March 9, 2026 for orders at Serial No. 94.
Earlier, Justice Harish Kumar had passed a 3-page long order dated January
30, 2026. It reads: "The learned Official Liquidator has filed the
present O.L.R. No. 7 of 2026, bringing on record the valuation report of
six lots of free hold landed properties situated at different Mauza at
Dehri (Rohtas) of the company under liquidation, duly prepared by the
empanelled valuer. The description of the property and the value as per
the valuation report have been duly mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of the
present O.L.R. 2. In view of the aforesaid facts, this Court direct the
Official Liquidator to publish the sale notice in the daily newspaper,
one edition of English and another in a Hindi newspaper having wide
circulation in the State of Bihar fixing 20.02.2026 as a date for
opening the sealed tender before this Court. 3. The Official Liquidator
further prays to allow him to pay the professional fee of the valuer for
a sum of Rs. 87,855/-. 4. In view of the afore-noted prayer led by
learned Official Liquidator, permission is hereby accorded to ensure the
payment of professional fees of the valuer, however, after proper
verification. 5. The present O.L.R. No. 7 of 2026 stands disposed off."
With
regard to Item (II) :- O.L.R. No. 8/2026, the order reads:"6. The
learned Official Liquidator has filed the present O.L.R. No. 8 of 2026,
bringing on record the valuation report of nine lots of free hold landed
properties situated at different different Mauza at Rohtas of the
company under liquidation, duly prepared by the empanelled valuer. The
description of the property and the value as per the valuation report
have been duly mentioned in paragraph no. 4 of the present O.L.R.. 7. In
view of the aforesaid facts, this Court direct the Official Liquidator
to publish the sale notice in the daily newspaper, one edition of
English and another in a Hindi newspaper having wide circulation in the
State of Bihar fixing 20.02.2026 as a date for opening the sealed tender
before this Court. 8. The Official Liquidator further prays to allow
him to pay the professional fee for a sum of Rs. 1,74,000/- out of the
funds of the company liquidation. 9. In view of the afore-noted prayer,
led by learned Official Liquidator, permission is hereby accorded to
ensure the payment of professional fees of the valuer, however, after
proper verification. 10. The present O.L.R. No. 8 of 2026 stands
disposed off.
With
reference to Item (III) :- I.A. No. 368/2025 with O.L.R. Nos 110/2025
and 4/2026, the order reads:"11. The interlocutory application bearing
I.A. No. 368/2025 with O.L.R. Nos. 110/2025 and 4/2026 have come up for
consideration before this Court. 12. Having heard the parties, let the
matter be placed on 06.02.2026."
In Rohtas Industries Limited (In Liquidation) vs. Official Liquidator (2026), Justice Harish Kumar had passed a 2-page long order dated January 9, 2026, wherein, with reference to O.L.R. No. 1/2026 (Tender Matter), he recorded: "The Official Liquidator Report No. 01 of 2026 has come up for consideration.
2. It is apprised to this Court that in compliance with the order of
this Court sale notice in respect of the captioned landed properties in
five lots have been published on 17.12.2025 in the daily newspaper i.e. Hindustan Times (English) and Prabhat Khabar
(Hindi) circulated in the State of Bihar fixing the reserved prices and
corresponding EMD mentioned therein, however in response to the
aforesaid sale notice, not a single tender form has been sold. 3. Having
considered the report submitted by the Official Liquidator, he is
directed to sent a fresh proposal for sale of the land in question,
preferably within a period of four weeks. 4. The O.L.R. No. 1 of 2026
stands disposed."
Notably,
High Court's previous order dated December 16, 2002 records that Alok
Agrawal, the Official Liquidator submitted that the company petition was
filed on May 23, 1984 but High Court's website shows the date of filing
and registration as February 1, 1984. Although the case was filed in
1984, the case proceedings history begins its record from Justice J.N.Singh's "carry forward" order dated July July 11, 2013. Not only that though the case was filed in 1984, the first order at Serial No, 353 by Justice V.N. Sinha available on Court's website is dated May 15, 2008.
It reads:"In I.A.No. 1964 of 2008 Official Liquidator has filed reply
to I.A.No.1964 of 2008 filed by the Kolkata Port Trust which is taken on
record and as prayed for on behalf of Kolkata Port Trust put up after
summer vacation so that in the meanwhile notice be served on the Inland
Road Service at the address indicated in Paragraph-15 of the
Interlocutory Application as they are said to be in possession of the
premises in question which belongs to Kolkata Port Trust and was leased
out to the Company-in-Liquidation in the year 1992 for which requisite
etc. both under ordinary process as also registered cover be filed
within one week. In I.A.No. 2631 of 2008 The Dry Woods could not be
removed by the purchaser on account of orders of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court. Let Official Liquidator file reply to the petition of the
purchaser of the Dry Woods for return of his deposit kept at Flag-746."
Earlier, Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma of the High Court had delivered a 37-page long judgement
dated October 14, 2022. to "dispose of the various I.A.’s as numbered
above preferred before this Court from time to time with similar prayer
mainly to allow selling to the applicants, the quarters owned by the
company and are presently occupied by the applicants."
Notably, disposal of the assets of a company liquidation is governed by the provisions of the Companies Act 1956.
Section 456 deals with "Custody of company’s properties" It reads:-(1)
Where a winding up order has been made or where a provisional liquidator
has been appointed, the liquidator [or the provisional liquidator, as
the case may be,] shall take into his custody or under his control, all
the property, effects and actionable claims to which the company is or
appears to be entitled.
[(1A) For the purpose of enabling the
liquidator or the provisional liquidator, as the case may be, to take
into his custody or under his control, any property, effects or
actionable claims to which the company is or appears to be entitled, the
liquidator or the provisional liquidator, as the case may be, may by
writing request the Chief Presidency Magistrate or the District
Magistrate within whose jurisdiction such property, effects or
actionable claims or any books of account or other documents of the
company may be found, to take possession thereof, and the Chief
Presidency Magistrate or the District Magistrate may thereupon after
such notice as he may think fit to give to any party, take possession of
such property, effects, actionable claims, books of account or other
documents and deliver possession thereof to the liquidator or the
provisional liquidator.
[(1B0 For the purpose of securing compliance
with the provisions of sub-section (1A), the Chief Presidency Magistrate
or the District Magistrate may take or cause to be taken such steps and
use or cause to be used such force as may in his opinion be necessary.]
(2)
All the property and effects of the company shall be deemed to be in
the custody of the court as from the date of the order for the winding
up of the company."
Section
457 reads: "(1) Powers of liquidator- (c) to sell the immovable and
movable property and actionable claims of the company by public auction
or private contract, with power to transfer such property to any person
or body corporate, or to sell the same in parcels."
Section
477 reads: "Power to summon persons suspected of having property of
company, etc.-(6) If, on his examination, any such officer or person
admits that he has in his possession any property belonging to the
company, the court may order him to deliver to the provisional
liquidator or, as the case may be, the liquidator, that property or any
part thereof, at such time, in such manner and on such terms as to the
court may seem just.
Section
531 reads: Fraudulent preference.-(1) Any transfer of property, movable
or immovable, delivery of goods, payment, execution or other act
relating to property made, taken or done by or against a company within
six months before the commencement of its winding up which, had it been
made, taken or done by or against an individual within three months
before the presentation of an insolvency petition on which he is
adjudged insolvent, would be deemed in his insolvency a fraudulent
preference, shall in the event of the company being wound up, be deemed a
fraudulent preference of its creditors and be invalid accordingly:
Provided that, in relation to things made, taken or done before the
commencement of this Act, this sub-section shall have effect with the
substitution, for the reference to six months, of a reference to three
months.
(2) For the purposes of sub-section (1), the presentation of a
petition for winding up in the case of a winding up by or subject to
the supervision of the court, and the passing of a resolution for
winding up in the case of a voluntary winding up, shall be deemed to
correspond to the act of insolvency in the case of an individual
Section
531A reads: "Avoidance of voluntary transfer.-Any transfer of property
movable or immovable, or any delivery of goods, made by a company, not
being a transfer or delivery made in the ordinary course of its business
or in favour of a purchaser or encumbrancer in good faith and for
valuable consideration, if made within a period of one year before the
presentation of a petition for winding up by or subject to the
supervision of the court or the passing of a resolution for voluntary
winding up of the company, shall be void against the liquidator.]
As per rule, the company court rules 1959 also provide under Rule 273 as under:
“ SALES BY THE OFFICIAL LIQUIDATORS
R.273.
Procedure of sale – Every sale shall be held by the Official
Liquidator, or, if the Judge shall so direct, by an agent or an
auctioneer approved by the Court, and subject to such terms and
conditions, if any, as may be approved by the Court. All sales shall be
made by public auction or by inviting sealed tenders or in such manners
as the Judge may direct.”
Justice
Sharma concluded: "16. Keeping in view aforesaid provisions, this Court
is of firm view that the only method and manner in which the properties
of the company can be disposed of are by way of auction.
Prior
to this judgement, Justice R.S. Garg of the High Court had passed an
order dated December 16, 2004, wherein it recorded that Indequip Leasing
& Finance Ltd. sought review and stay of operation of prior orders
dated August 27, 1999, May 12, 2000 and August 25, 2000, and a
declaration that the applicant company was the lawful tenant of the
property known as "Sahu Jain Court". The company petition against the
company was filed on May 23, 1984 and the lease in favour of Indequip
was created on July 28, 1984. The company was been put under liquidation
and an Official Liquidator was been appointed. Indequip Leasing &
Finance Ltd claimed tenant status and argued it could not be evicted by
the Official Liquidator; the Court had directed the tenant to make an
offer to purchase the property. Time was given on multiple occasions
including November 8, 2004 for the tenant to make an offer, but the
tenant did not do so.
The
Court examined: 1. Whether a lease created in favour of a tenant after
the filing of a company petition (here, lease dated 28.7.1984 when
petition was filed 23.5.1984) is valid against the Official Liquidator
and the Company Court. 2. Whether a person in possession of property of a
company can resist eviction by the Official Liquidator or require
eviction proceedings to be pursued in ordinary courts (e.g., rent
control courts). 3.Whether the Court should review or stay its earlier
orders (dated 27.8.1999, 12.5.2000 and 25.8.2000) declare the applicant
not entitled to continued possession and 4. Whether the legal position
of the Official Liquidator is analogous to that of a receiver under
Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and what consequences
follows from that analogy.
Alok
Agrawal, the Official Liquidator submitted that because the company
petition was filed on 23.5.1984, any action taken by the management
after institution of the petition would not be saved. The two Supreme
Court judgments relied upon by the tenant were said to be
distinguishable on facts and inapplicable to the present case. It was
argued that tenancy should not be allowed to continue because the
purpose of company winding up/dissolution is to convert assets into cash
for distribution, and continued tenancy would reduce marketability and
sale value of the property. The Official Liquidator contended that the
tenant's application was not maintainable and that the reliefs claimed
cannot be granted.
The Court relied on Section 456 of the
Companies Act to state that where a winding up order has been made or a
provisional liquidator appointed, the liquidator shall take into his
custody or control all the property, effects and actionable claims to
which the company is or appears to be entitled. The Court observed that
the property in possession of the tenant is undisputedly the company's
property.
The Court considered Section 457(1)(c) which authorizes
the liquidator, with the sanction of the Court, to sell immovable and
movable property of the company by auction or private contract and to do
other necessary acts for winding up
The Court referred to
Section 477(6), which permits the Court to order any person who admits
possession of company property to deliver it to the (provisional)
liquidator on such terms as the Court deems just. The Court treated
statements on oath filed by officers/employees as equivalent to
examination and concluded that the Company Court may require persons in
possession to vacate and deliver possession to the Official Liquidator.
The
Court examined Section 531A which provides that transfers of property
by a company made within one year before presentation of a winding up
petition (except in the ordinary course of business or to purchasers in
good faith for value) are void against the liquidator. Because the
company petition was filed on 23.5.1984 and the lease was created on
28.7.1984 (after filing), the Court held that the lease transfer is void
against the liquidator.
The Court also relied on Section 531
(fraudulent preference doctrine) to explain that transfers within six
months before winding up may be deemed fraudulent preference and invalid
in winding up. The Court analogized company actions to insolvency and
concluded that the lease granted after institution of the petition could
not be saved.
The Court distinguished the cited precedents from Smt. Nirmala R. Bafna vs. Khandesh Spinning & Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. ((1992) 2 SCC 322 : AIR 1993 SC 1380) and Anthony C. Leo v. Nandlal Bal Krishnan [(1996) 11 SCC 376]
the issue was sub-lease by a tenant-company to a third party (requiring
rent-control court examination), whereas here the company is the owner;
and in Anthony C. Leo the analogy between Official Liquidator.
The
Court emphasized the policy objective of winding up proceedings: to
convert company assets into cash for distribution; continued occupation
by tenants adversely affects marketability and sale value. The tenant
was been given opportunities and failed to make an offer to purchase the
property at market value, and because the lease was created after the
petition and is void against the liquidator, the Court found no ground
to review or recall the earlier orders.
The Court rejected the
tenant's prayers for review or declaration of lawful tenancy. The Court
ordered Indequip Leasing & Finance Ltd. to hand over vacant and
peaceful possession of the property to the Official Liquidator or his
representative on or before 15 January 15, 2005.
The Official
Liquidator had submitted that the Company Petition was filed in the High
Court on May 23, 1984 and as such any action taken by the management
subsequent to the institution of the company petition would not be
saved. It was also submitted that the two judgments on which strong
reliance was placed are distinguishable on facts and would not apply to
the present case. It was submitted that the tenancy cannot be continued
because the endeavour of a Company Judge/Company Court in the company
proceedings is either to revive the company or to dissolve the company.
In case of dessolution of the company, all assets, moveable or immovable
are to be converted into cash and the cash was to be distributed in
accordance with law. According to him it was also a notoriously known
fact that if the property occupied by the tenant was sold in the market
it does not fetch its real market value because a person who proposes to
spend a good fortune would not purchase a litigation the property being
in possession of the tenant.
Justice Garg observed: "20. The
two judgments cited by the learned counsel for the tenant are
distinguishable on facts and in fact do not apply to the facts of the
present case.....24. It is hereby directed that on or before 15th
January, 2005 the tenant Indequip Leasing and Finance Ltd. shall hand
over vacant and peaceful possession of the property possessed by him to
the Official Liquidator or his representative. In case of any default on
his part, the Official Liquidator or his representative may make a
complaint to the District Magistrate/Local administration, Dehradun for
putting them in possession of the property. 25. It is further directed
that the District Magistrate/Local Administration/Local Police, Dehradun
after receiving a copy of this order along with an application of the
Official Liquidator shall be obliged to observe this order in its true
spirit."
The Court also heard Flag-642 has been filed by one
Jalaluddin Chaudhary of Kairana, District Muzaffar Nagar (UP) who stated
that he wanted to purchase the property known as “Sahu Jain Court” for a
sum of Rs. 7 lacs only. Justice Garg had concluded: "In the opinion of
this Court this offer cannot be accepted. It is to be recorded that the
total area of the property is more than one acre and there is a big
building situate on it along with outhouses. I rejected the application
at Flag-642 with direction that in future as and when the property in
question is proposed to be sold the offerer may make his offer in
accordance with law."
In Rohtas Industries Ltd. (In Liquidation) vs. Official Liquidator Comp Pet/3/1984 Comp Petition,
the total number of counsels for the Rohtas Industries Ltd (In
Liquidation) includes 214 counsels, their names are listed below:
1. Arun Kumar
2. Suraj Samdarshi
3. Ramanuj Tiwary
4. Manoj Kumar Jha
5. Ajay Kumar Singh
6. S. De
7. Janardan Singh
8. Anil Kumar Sinha
9. Deepak Kumar
10. Vipin Kumar
11. Ravi Shankar Prasad
12. Rajesh Kumar Singh
13. Prabhat Kumar Singh
14. Abhay Kumar Singh
15. Navin Sinha
16. Anjani Kumar Sharan
17. Shivendra Kumar Roy
18. Ajit Kumar
19. P.K.Shahi
20. Surendra Kishore Thakur
21. Sunil Kumar Singh
22. Satyendra Kumar
23. Bhatnagar
24. Rita Kumari
25. Rudra Deo
26. Kr.Sinha
27. Anirudh Kumar Singh
28. Suraj Samdarshi
29. Rajesh Kr.Singh
30. Sanjay Kumar
31. Singh.-1
32. Mr.Ajay
33. Madhu Prasun
34. Vikash Kumar
35. Ashok Kumar Singh
36. Sheela Sharma
37. Manoj Madhav
38. Parmatma Singh
39. Bachan Jee Ojha
40. Ajay Kumar Mathur
41. Dudhnath Singh
42. Radha Mohan Pandey
43. Piyush Mathur
44. Arun Kumar No. 1
45. Raghwendra
46. Sharan Pandey
47. Binod Bihari Singh
48. Manoj Kumar
49. Prem Sheela Panddey
50. S.M.Ashraf
51. Laxami Nr.Das
52. Gautam Kejriwal
53. Ramakant Yadav
54. Barmeshwar Tiwary
55. Ranjit Sahay
56. Alok Kumar
57. Ramod Kumar Dubey
58. Om Prakash Srivastav
59. Ajay Kumar Mathur
60. Varun Kumar
61. Shantanu Kumar
62. Binay Bihari Sharan
63. Arjun Kumar
64. Narendra Kumar
65. Prakash
66. Chandra Agrawal
67. Anil Kumar
68. R.K.Sharma
69. Ashok Kr.Dubey
70. Umar Chandra Shekhar
71. Sanjay Singh
72. Arun Kumar
73. Veena Rani Prasad
74. Rajiv Ranjan Singh
75. Jitendra Kumar Roy
76. Amar Prakash
77. Akash Chaturvedi
78. Chandra Has Mishra
79. Dhanendra Chaubey
80. Ram Akwal Singh
81. Ambuj Nayan Choubey
82. Abhay Kumar Singh-1
83. C.M.Saxena
84. Jai Prakash Singh
85. Parashuram Singh
86. Arti Singh
87. Sushil Chandra Keshari
88. Binay Kumar
89. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary
90. Gopal Prasad
91. Gupta
92. S.S.Sundaram
93. Satish Chandra Jha-3
94. Rakesh Bihari Singh
95. Anshuman Singh
96. S.D.Sanjay
97. Santosh Kumar Verma
98. Shekhar
99. Harshvardhan
100. Akhilesh Kumar
101. Arvind Kumar
102. Nand Lal Kumar Singh
103. Sumant Kumar Singh
104. Siya Ram Shahi
105. Awadhesh Kumar
106. Mishra
107. Rakesh
108. Narayansingh
109. Sheela Sharma
110. Jitendra Kumar Roy
111. Shivendra Kumar Roy
112. Itendra Kumar Roy
113. Shivendra Kumar Roy
114. Rita Kumari
115. Sheela Sharma
116. Sheela Sharma
117. Jitendra Kumar Roy
118. Shivendra Kumar Roy
119. Prabhat Kumar Singh
120. Anirudh Kumar Singh
121. Shivendra Kumar Roy
122. Jitendra Prasad Singh
123. Dhirendra Singh
124. Surendra Singh
125. Bibhakar Tiwary
126. Vivek Kumar Singh
127. Anirudh Kumar Singh
128. Prabhat Kumar Singh
129. Amrendra
130. Narayan Rai
131. Sanjay Kumar
132. Akshay Lal Pandit
133. Rajesh Kumar
134. Priya Gupta
135. Mohit Agarwal
136. Sanjay Singh
137. Vinod Kumar
138. Mukul Sinha
139. Rajesh Kumar
140. Binod Bihari Singh
141. Amrendra
142. Narayan Rai
143. Amrendra
144. Narayan Rai
145. Aishwarya Riti
146. Sanjay Singh
147. Praveen Kumar
148. Madhu Prasun
149. Mintoo Kumari
150. Amrendra Narayan Rai
151. Jai Prakash Singh
152. Arti Kumari
153. Sheela Rani
154. Rakesh
155. Narayan Singh
156. Rakesh
157. Narayansingh
158. Sweta
159. Rajesh Kumar Singh
160. Binod Bihari Singh
161. Kumar Saurav
162. Vaibhava Veer Shanker
163. Nawnit Kumar
164. Tiwary
165. Rajesh Kumar
166. Brajesh Tiwary
167. Vaibhava Veer Shanker
168. Alok Kumar Jha
169. Atal Bihari Pandey
170. Brisketu Sharan Pandey
171. Abhishek Kumar
172. Madan Kumar
173. Akshat Agrawal
174. Mohit Agarwal
175. Rahul Kumar Jai Prakash Singh
176. Brisketu Sharan Pandey
177. Madan Kumar
178. Abhishek Kumar
179. Brisketu Sharan Pandey
180. Abhishek Kumar
181. Madan Kumar
182. Brisketu Sharan Pandey
183. Abhishek Kumar
184. Madan Kumar
185. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal
186. Birendra Kumar Singh
187. Prakash Chandra Agrawal
188. Brisketu Sharan Pandey
189. Abhishek Kumar
190. Madan Kumar
191. Rakesh
192. Narayansingh
193. Alok Kumar Jha
194. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal
195. Sunil Kumar Pathak
196. Deepali Singh
197. Alka Singh
198. Arun Kumar No. 1
199. Sumeet Kumar Singh
200. Alka Singh
201. Mukund Kumar
202. Mukund Kumar
203. Mukund Kumar
204. Aditya Raman
205. Avinash Shekhar
206. Simran Kumari
207. Rajeev Kumar
208. Varun Krishna Singh
209. Kanaya Kumar
210. Ajay Kumar
211. Ashok Kumar
212. Kanaya Kumar
213. Rajesh Kumar Singh
214. Arun Kumar Verma
In Rohtas Industries Ltd. (In Liquidation) vs. Official Liquidator Comp Pet/3/1984 Comp Petition, the total number of counsels for the respondent includes 179 counsels, namely:
1. Sheela Sharma
2. AAG6
3. J.N.P. Sinha
4. M. K. Jha
5. Rani Kumari @ Rani Singh
6. Binod Kr.Singh
7. P.C. Jaiswal
8. Ram Niwas Prasad
9. A.P.Jittu (Sc.2)
10. Dhirendra Singh
11. Sourendra Pandey
12. Anant Kr.Bhaskar
13. Manish Jha
14. Kaushalendra Kumar
15. Singh
16. Sheo Narayan Singh
17. Jitendra Prasad Singh
18. Ajit Kumar
19. Subhro Sanyal
20. Kaushal Kumar
21. Awadhesh Kumar Sinha
22. R.A.Singh
23. Narendra Kumar
24. Prabhakar Nath Rai
25. Ajeet Kumar
26. Avinash Kumar
27. Ashutosh Ranjan
28. Pandey
29. Shiv Narayan Singh
30. K.P.Yadav
31. Nirmal Kumar Tripathi
32. Lakshmi Kant Tiwary
33. Chandra Has Mishra
34. S.D. Sanjay
35. Akash Chaturvedi
36. Alok Kumar Agrawal
37. Shivendra Kumar Roy
38. Shivendra Kumar Roy
39. Binod Bihari Sinha
40. Kapil Deo Pandey
41. Randhir Singh
42. Vijeshwar Prasad
43. Suresh Kumar
44. Dhirendra Singh
45. Kumar Manish (Sc-21)
46. Mr.Ajay
47. Ashutosh Ranjan
48. Pandey
49. Dhananjay Kumar Singh
50. Vikash Kumar
51. Shyam Krishna Sahay
52. Mohit Kumar
53. Rakesh Narayan Singh
54. Arti Singh
55. P.R. Mishra
56. G.P.Ray (Aag.3)
57. Himanshu Goswami
58. Smt. Asha Verma
59. M. N. Parbat
60. Santosh Kumar Verma
61. Gaurav Govind
62. Sri Prakash Singh
63. Sanjay Kumar Upadhyay
64. A. K. Tripathi
65. C. M. Saxena
66. S.B.P.Sinha
67. Barmeshwar Tiwary
68. Navniti Pd. Singh
69. G.P. Jaiswal
70. Birendra Kr. Sinha
71. Amrendra Kr. Sinha
72. Abhay Kumar Roy
73. Shailendra Kumar
74. Roy Shivaji Nath
75. V.K. Singh
76. Ram Krishna Prasad
77. Aliullah
78. Ravi Shankar Prasad
79. P.S. Singh
80. Rajesh Kr.Singh
81. Kinkar Kumar
82. Rajendra Kumar Giri
83. R.S.Pradhan
84. M. K. Dubey
85. Binay Kumar
86. S. P. Tripathi
87. Udit Narayan Singh
88. Sushanta Kr.Das
89. Amit Srivastav
90. Mr.Ajay
91. A. K. Lal
92. Anjani Kumar Mishra
93. Bipin Dutta Pathak
94. Shivaji Singh
95. Manoj Madhav
96. Anant Vijay Singh
97. Sandip Singh
98. Rajesh Kumar Singh
99. Sanjay Pd.(Ac To Aag6)
100. Kaushlendra Kumar
101. Sinha
102. Avinash Kumar
103. Rashid Izhar
104. Shantanu Kumar
105. Ashok Priyadarshi
106. Partha Sarthy (Ga4)
107. Ramashankar Pd
108. Sumitra
109. Umesh Pd. Singh
110. Jitendra Kumar Roy
111. Vishweshwar Nath
112. Mishra
113. Sheela Sharma
114. Arvind Kumar
115. Partha Sarthy (Ga4)
116. K.N.P. Singh
117. Rajendra Kumar
118. Shivendra Kumar Roy
119. Surj Bansh Roy
120. `Ipudaman Pd. Singh
121. N.V.Tiwary
122. Harendra Prasad Singh-
123. 1
124. Ratan Pd. Sinha
125. Jagdish Prasad
126. Subbro Sanyal
127. Binod Bihari Sinha
128. Akash Chaturvedi
129. A.K.Agrawal
130. S.C. Dubey
131. Y.V. Giri,Mr.D.N.Pandey
132. Gautam Bose (Aag8)
133. Amit Srivastava
134. S.D Sanjay
135. Anjani Kumar (Aag10)
136. Ram Chandra Singh
137. Manish Jha
138. Jitendra Kumar Roy
139. Shivendra Kumar Roy
140. Uday Bhan Singh
141. Ajeet Kumar (Ga9)
142. Braj Kishore Pd.
143. Ajit Ranjan Kumar
144. Ajit Ranjan Kumar
145. Anurag Saurav
146. Abhinav Alok
147. Priyajeet Pandey
148. Lakmesh Marvind
149. Alka Panday
150. Shambhu Sharan Singh
151. Kumar Praveen
152. Rajesh Kumar Singh
153. Anuj Kumar
154. Rajiv Kumar Singh
155. Yash Singh
156. Praveen Kumar
157. Suraj Samdarshi
158. Avinash Shekhar
159. Diwanshi Rohatgi
160. Rabindra Kumar
161. Priyadarshi
162. Apurv Harsh
163. Manu Tripurari
164. Sujit Kumar
165. Gyanendra Kumar Singh
166. Navneet Prabhakar
167. Sanjay Kumar Sinha
168. Pankaj Kumar Sinha
169. Shadwal Harsh
170. Gautam Kumar Kejriwal
171. Arun Kumar
172. Raj Vardhan Singh
173. Alok Kumar
174. Kumar Ravish
175. Gautam Kumar Yadav
176. Tafazzul Ahmad
177. Prashant Kumar
178. Nishant Kumar
179. Sanjiv Kumar
