..It has not been shown in the present case that
under the guise of protecting public interest the Act
arbitrarily interferes with private business or
imposes unreasonable restrictions. If the true
intention of the Act is, as indeed it is, to stop
objectionable and unethical advertisements for the
purpose of discouraging self medication
no question
of unreasonable restrictions arises.”
(underline added)
Thus, the Apex Court in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra)
expressly held that the restriction imposed by the said Act of 1954 on
advertising was a reasonable restriction considering the object of the
Act of discouraging self medication.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8450 OF 2012
GMT Teleshopping Private Limited. .. Petitioner
Vs
Union of India and Others. .. Respondents
CORAM : A.S. OKA & MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, JJ
DATE ON WHICH JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED: 15TH APRIL 2013
JUDGMENT ( PER A.S. OKA, J )
1. The Petitioner Company carries on business, inter alia, of
retail/direct marketing of products. It is stated that the Petitioner is
marketing a product known as “STEPUP
Body Growth Formula”
manufactured by M/s. Siddhi Vinayak Herbals at village Anandnagar,
Gwali Palasiya, Tehsil Mhow, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh. There
is a license issued by the Licensing Authority, the Indian System of
Medicine & Homeopathy, Madhya Pradesh to M/s Siddhi Vinayak
Herbals to manufacture SETUP
Body Growth Formula Powder which is
a proprietary ayurvedic medicine. The Petitioner has stated that the
said license has been issued on 29th January 2011. The Petitioner got
scripts prepared for advertising the said product on television channels.
The Petitioner by this petition has challenged the action of the Food
and Drugs Administration of the State of Maharashtra of issuing
communications to various television channels. By the said
communications, the channels have been informed that under the
provisions of the Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable
Advertisements) Act, 1954 ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act of
1954), no person shall take any part in the publication of any
advertisements referring to any drugs which in terms suggest or are
calculated to lead to the use of that drug for diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment or prevention of any disease or disorders or condition
specified in the schedule of the said Act of 1954. The channels were
directed to stop telecasting of the advertisements of the said product
sold by the Petitioner. The prayer in this Petition is for quashing said
communications issued to various television channels.
2. There is a reply filed by Shri V.A. Jawadekar, the Assistant
Commissioner in the office of the Food and Drug Administration,
Government of Maharashtra on behalf of the second to seventh
Respondents. In the reply, a reliance is placed on Clause (d) of Sub:::
section (3) of the said Act of 1954. It is contended that the
advertisement of the said product by the Petitioner squarely falls within
the prohibition imposed by Section 3 of the said Act of 1954.
3. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner
submitted that the prohibition under Section 3 of the said Act of 1954
extends only to harmful and/or prohibited drugs. He submitted that
the product SETUP
body growth formula is not a harmful drug. It is
contended that it is not a prohibited drug. He pointed out that none of
the notices/communications have been addressed to the Petitioner or to
manufacturers of the product and the same have been directly
addressed to the television channels. The learned senior counsel
submitted that as the product is being manufactured under a license
duly granted by the Government of Madhya Pradesh under the
provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, the same cannot be
termed as a prohibited drug.
4. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner
relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Press
Limited v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited and Others1. He urged
that as held by the Apex Court, a commercial advertisement is protected
under clause (a) of Article 19(1) but is subject to Article 19(2) of the
Constitution of India. He submitted that a commercial speech which is
1 [(1995)5 SCC 139]
deceptive, unfair, misleading and untruthful would be hit by Article
19(2) of the Constitution of India. He pointed out that the Apex Court
in the decision in the case of Tata Press Limited (supra) has dealt with
its earlier decision in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana and Another v.
Union of India2 . He pointed out that in fact the Apex Court has
distinguished the said decision. He invited our attention to Paragraph
18 of the said decision in the case of Tata Press Limited which holds
that the Apex Court in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra) was
dealing with the advertisement of a prohibited drugs and commodities.
He submitted that in Hamdard Dawakhana (supra), the Apex Court
observed that the advertisement by itself could not come within clause
(a) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. He submitted that the
decision in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra) was explained in
the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Express
Newspapers (Bombay) (P) Ltd v. Union of India3. He urged that in
Paragraph 19 of the decision in the case of Tata Press Limited (supra),
the Apex Court held that the combined reading of Hamdard Dawakhana
case (supra) and the Indian Express Newspapers case (supra) shows
that a commercial speech cannot be denied the protection of Clause (a)
of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India and unless the product is
either harmful or prohibited drug or unless the advertisement amounts
to distortion of facts, the fundamental rights guaranteed under Clause
2 [AIR 1960 SC 554]
3 [(1985)1 SCC 641]
onstitution of India cannot be defeated.
He submitted that if any other interpretation is adopted, the provisions
(a) of Article 19(1) of the Cof the said Act of 1954 and in particular Section 3 thereof will not stand
the test of constitutional validity. He submitted that in any case, in the
case of Tata Press Limited (supra), the Apex Court held that in the case
of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra), the Apex Court decided the issue of
the constitutional validity of the said Act of 1954 while dealing with the
advertisement of a prohibited drug. The learned counsel appearing
for the second to seventh Respondents supported the impugned
communications/orders. He urged that the Petitioner has no locus as
the Petitioner is not the manufacturer of the drug. Inviting our
attention to the definition under Section 2 of the said Act of 1954 and
to the provisions of Section 3 of the said Act of 1954, he submitted that
the applicability of the Act is not confined only to the prohibited drugs
but the Act applies even to those drugs which are licensed. He
submitted that the prohibition created by Section 3 of the said Act of
1954 is in relation to the publication of any advertisement falling in
categories (a) to (d) therein irrespective of the fact whether the drug
which is advertised is prohibited or not. He pointed out that in the
present Petition, there is no challenge to the constitutional validity of
the provisions of the Clause (d) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1954.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions. It will be
necessary to make a reference to the definition of the drug in Section 2
of the said Act of 1954. Clause (b) of Section (2) of the said Act of
1954 reads thus:“
b) Drug includes(
i) a medicine for the internal or external use of
human beings or animals;
(ii) any substance intended to be used for or in
the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or
prevention of disease in human beings or
animals;
(iii) any article, other than food, intended to
affect or influence in any way the structure or
any organic function of the body of human
beings or animals;
(iv) any article intended for use as a component
of any medicine, substance or article, referred
to in subclauses
(i), (ii) and (iii);
We may also make a useful reference to Section 3 of the
said Act of 1954 which reads thus:“
3. Prohibition of Advertisement of Certain Drugs
for Treatment of Certain Diseases and Disorders.Subject
to the provisions of this Act, no person shall
take any part in the publication of any
advertisement referring to any drug in terms which
suggest or are calculated to lead to the use of that
drug for –
a) the procurement of miscarriage in women or
prevention of conception in women; or
b) the maintenance or improvement of the
capacity of human beings for sexual
pleasure; or
c) the correction of menstrual disorder in
women; or
d) the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or
prevention of any disease, disorder or
condition specified in the Schedule, or any
other disease, disorder or condition (by
whatsoever name called) which may be
specified in the rules made under this Act:
Provided that no such rule shall be made except,–
(i) in respect of any disease, disorder or
condition which requires timely treatment in
consultation with a registered medical
practitioner or for which there are normally
no accepted remedies, and
(ii) after consultation with the Drugs Technical
Advisory Board constituted under the Drugs
and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940) and,
if the Central Government considers
necessary, with such other persons having
special knowledge or practical experience in
respect of Ayurvedic or Unani systems of
medicines as that Government deems fit.]”
6. On plain reading of Clause (b) of Section 2 of the said Act
of 1954, Section 3 thereof applies to all categories of drugs, whether
they are licensed or not and whether they are prohibited or not.
Section 3 imposes a prohibition on taking any part in the publication of
any advertisements referring to any drug which in term suggest or are
calculated to lead to the use of that drug for the purposes specified in
Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 3 of the said Act of 1954. Clause (d)
thereof is applicable when the advertisements suggest or are calculated
to lead to the use of that drug for the diagnosis, cure, mitigation,
treatment or prevention of any disease, disorder or condition specified
in the schedule.
7. At this stage, it will be necessary to make a reference to the
schedule. Serial No.47 of the Schedule includes a condition “stature
of persons.” Therefore, if any advertisements referring to any drug
which suggest or are calculated to lead to the use of that drug for the
treatment of stature of persons, the prohibition under Section 3 comes
into picture.
8. Before going to the factual aspects of the matter, it will be
necessary to deal with the submissions made by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the basis of the decision in the
case of Tata Press Limited (supra).
9. For dealing with the said submissions,we may also make a
reference to the decision in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra).
The first paragraph of the said decision records that in the Petition
before the Apex Court, the question of constitutionality of the said Act
of 1954 was raised. After having perused the entire judgment, it is
apparent that the judgment does not deal with only the advertisements
of prohibited drugs and commodities. Ultimately, the Apex Court held
that the following words of clause (d) of Section 3 were ultra vires “or
any other disease or condition which may be specified in the rules made
under this Act.” In Paragraph 35, the Apex Court held that the
aforesaid portion was unconstitutional. As the said words were
severable, the rest of the Section 3 was held as valid. At this stage, we
may make a useful reference to the decision of the Tata Press Limited
(supra). The issue which arose before the Apex Court was whether
the Appellant Tata Press Limited before the Apex Court had a right to
print, publish and circulate a compilation called Tata Yellow Pages A
suit for injunction was filed by the Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Limited against the Appellant Tata Press Ltd. The suit was dismissed
by the Trial Court. This Court interfered in an Appeal and decreed the
suit. The decree for injunction passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court in the first appeal was confirmed by a Division Bench in the
Letters Patent Appeal. The contention raised by the Appellant before
the Apex Court was that a commercial speech is protected under Clause
(a) of Article 19(1) read with Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India.
A reliance was placed by the Respondents before the Apex Court on the
observations made in the decision in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana
(supra) and in particular Paragraph 17 thereof. In Paragraph 17 of the
decision in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra), the Apex Court
observed thus::::
“An advertisement is no doubt a form of speech but
its true character is reflected by the object for the
promotion of which it is employed. It assumes the
attributes and elements of the activity under Art.
19(1) which it seeks to aid by bringing it to the
notice of the public. When it takes the form of a
commercial advertisement which has an element of
trade or commerce it no longer falls within the
concept of freedom of speech for the object is not
propagation of ideassocial,
political or economic or
furtherance of literature or human thought; but as
in the present case the commendation of the
efficacy, value and importance in treatment of
particular diseases by certain drugs and medicines.
In such a case, advertisement is a part of business
even though as described by Mr. Munshi its creative
part, and it was being used for the purpose of
furthering the business of the petitioners and had
no relationship with what may be called the
essential concept of the freedom of speech. It
cannot be said that the right to publish and
distribute commercial advertisements advertising an
individual's personal business is a part of freedom
of speech guaranteed by the Constitution......”
( Underline added )
10. In Paragraph 11 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the
case of Tata Press Limited (supra), the Apex Court observed that in the
case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra), the Apex Court upheld the
proposition that purely commercial advertising is not protected by
Clause (a) of Article 19(1) of the Constitution of India. After
considering the subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court of the
United States, in Paragraph 11 the Apex Court held thus::::
“11. This Court in Hamdard Dawakhana's
case MANU/SC/0016/1959 : 1960CriLJ671
primarily relied on the judgment of the United
States Supreme Court in Valentine v. Chrestensen for
the proposition that "purely commercial advertising"
is not protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. Dr. Singhvi has placed reliance on
series of judgments of the United States Supreme
Court since 1942 when Chrestensen's case was
decided to show that the Courts in United States
have stepbystep
moved away from the Rule in
Chrestensen's case, and as on today "purely
commercial advertising" is entitled to full "First
Amendment/ protection. We may refer to some of
the cases, In 1964 United States Supreme Court
ruled in New York Times v. Sullivan . that editorial
advertising, that is. advertising to promote an idea
such an "Save Whale". "Stop War" or "Ban Pesticides"
rather than a product like used ears or spaghetti is
protected by the First Amendment. In the year 1975
in Bigelow v. Virginia the United States Supreme
Court reversed the conviction of a Virginia
newspaper editor who had been found guilty of
publishing an advertisement which offered
assistance to women seeking abortion. Abortion was
illegal in Virginia in 197I when the advertisement
was published. The Women Pavilion, a New Your
group, urged women who wanted an abortion to
come to New York. Blackmun. J. analysing earlier
judgments of the Court observed that speech docs
not lose the protection of the First Amendment
merely because it appears in the forms of a
commercial advertisement.”
11. In paragraphs 18 and 19 of the decision in the case of Tata
Press Limited (supra), the Apex Court observed that the decision in the
case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra) was considered by the said Court
in the case of Indian Express Newspapers (supra). Paragraphs 18 and
19 of the said decision read thus::::
“18. This Court in Hamdard Dawakhana's
case MANU/SC/0016/1959 : 1960CriLJ671 was
dealing with advertising of prohibited drugs and
commodities. The Court came to the conclusion that
the sale of prohibited drugs was not in the interest of
the genera) public and as such "could not be speech"
within the meaning of freedom of speech and
expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the
Constitution. The Court further held in the said case
that an advertisement is no doubt a form of speech
but its true character is reflected by the object for the
promotion of which it is employed. Hamdard
Dawakhana's case MANU/SC/0016/1959 :
1960CriLJ671 , was considered by this Court in
Indian Express Newspapers (Bombay) Private Ltd. v.
Union of India MANU/SC/0340/1984 :
[1986]159ITR856(SC) . The observations in
Hamdard Dawakhana's case to the effect that
advertising by itself would not come within Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution, were explained by this
Court in Indian Express Newspaper's case
MANU/SC/0340/1984 : [1986]159ITR856(SC) , in
following words:
We have carefully considered the decision in
Hamdard Dawakhana's case MANU/SC/
0016/1959 : 1960CriLJ671 (supra). The
main plank of that decision was that the type
of advertisement dealt with there did not
carry with it the protection of Article 19(1)
(a). On examining the history of the
legislation, the surrounding circumstances
and the scheme of the Act which had been
challenged there namely the Drugs and Magic
Remedies (Objectionable Advertisement) Act,
1954 (21 of 1954) the Court held that the
object of that Act was the prevention of selfmedication
and selftreatment
by prohibiting
instruments which may be used to advocate
the same or which tended to spread the evil.
In the above said case the Court was
principally dealing with the right to advertise
prohibited drugs, to prevent selfmedication
and selftreatment.
That was the main issue in the case. It is
no doubt true that some of the observations referred
to above go beyond the needs of the case and tend to
affect the right to publish at) commercial
advertisements. Such broad observations appear to
have been made in the light of the decision of the
America) Court in Lewis J. Valentine v. F. J.
Chrestensen. But it is worthy of notice that the view
expressed in this American case has not been fully
approved by the American Supreme Court itself in its
subsequent decisions. We shall refer only to two of
them. In his concurring Judgment in William B.
Cammarano v. United States of America (1959) 338
US 498. Justice Douglas said :
"Valentine v. Chrestensen... held that business
of advertisements and commercial matters did not
enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, made
applicable to the States by the Fourteenth. The ruling
was casual, almost off hand. And it has not survived
reflection".
In Jeffrey Cole Bigelow v. Commonwealth
of
Virginia , the American Supreme Court held that the
holding in Lewis J. Valentine v. F. J. Chrestensen
(supra) was distinctly a limited one. 1n view of the
foregoing, we feel that the observations made in the
Hamdard Dawakhana's case (supra) too broadly
stated and the Government cannot draw much
support from it. We are of the view that all
commercial advertisements cannot be denied the
protection of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution
merely because they are issued by businessmen.”
19. The combined reading of Hamdard
Dawakhana's case MANU/SC/0016/1959 :
1960CriLJ671 and the Indian Express Newspaper's
case MANU/SC/0340/1984 : [1986]159ITR856(SC)
leads us to the conclusion that "commercial speech"
cannot be denied the protection of Article 19(1)(a)
of the Constitution merely because the same are
issued by businessmen.”
(Underlines added )
12. The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner
relied upon the observations in the first sentence of Paragraph 18 of the
judgment that the Apex Court in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana
(supra) was dealing with the advertisement of prohibited drugs and
commodities. However, in our view,the learned senior counsel was
unable to show that in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra), the
Apex Court was dealing only with the advertisement of prohibited
drugs and commodities . The ratio of the decision in Tata Press (supra)
is that notwithstanding the Hamdard Dawakhana (supra), a commercial
speech cannot be denied the protection of Clause (a) of Article 19(1) of
the Constitution of India.
13. However, it will be necessary to make a reference to
Paragraph 17 of the decision of this Court in Tata Press (supra) which
reads thus:“
17. Unlike the First Amendment under the United
States Constitution, our Constitution itself lays
down in Article 19(2) the restrictions which can be
imposed on the fundamental right guaranteed
under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The
commercial speech which is deceptive, unfair,
misleading and untruthful would be hit by Article
19(2) of the Constitution and can be
regulated/prohibited by the State.”
(underline added)
14. In the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra), the Apex
Court has considered the object of the said Act of 1954. In Paragraph
23, while dealing with the definition of advertisement,it is observed
thus:“
23.......If the purpose of the Act is to prevent
objectionable and unethical advertisements in order
to discourage selfmedication
and selftreatment
it
cannot be said that the definition is too wide
keeping in view the object and the purpose of the
Act which have been set out above. It is these evils
which the Act seeks to cure and if the definition of
the word 'advertisement' was not so broad and
inclusive it would defeat the very purpose for which
the Act was brought into existence."
(underline added)
15. In the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra),in Paragraph
25, the Apex Court observed that:
“25......If the purpose is to discourage selfmedication
and encourage treatment by properly
qualified medical practitioners then such a
regulatory provision cannot be considered an
excessive restraint.”
16. In Paragraph 28, the Apex Court proceeded to observe
that :“
28.....It has not been shown in the present case that
under the guise of protecting public interest the Act
arbitrarily interferes with private business or
imposes unreasonable restrictions. If the true
intention of the Act is, as indeed it is, to stop
objectionable and unethical advertisements for the
purpose of discouraging selfmedication
no question
of unreasonable restrictions arises.”
(underline added)
Thus, the Apex Court in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra)
expressly held that the restriction imposed by the said Act of 1954 on
advertising was a reasonable restriction considering the object of the
Act of discouraging self medication.
In any event, there is no challenge
to the constitutional validity of the said Act of 1954.
17. Adverting to clause (b) of Section 2 of the said Act of 1954,
it becomes crystal clear that it applies to a drug as defined therein
whether it is prohibited or not. In this Petition, we are concerned
with the drug within the meaning of the definition which is no doubt
manufactured under a license. In the affidavit of Shri V.A. Jawadekar,
the Assistant Commissioner in the office of the Commissioner for Food
and Drug Administration, he has extracted the contents of the
advertisements in Paragraph 10 of his affidavit. There is a rejoinder
filed by the Petitioner. While dealing with Paragraph 10 of the
affidavitinreply,
in Paragraph 11 thereof, the Petitioner has not
disputed the correctness of what is quoted by the Assistant
Commissioner in his affidavit. The relevant portions in Paragraphs 10
and 11 thereof read thus:“
10. .Apke sath bhi yahi hota hai ? Apko bhi lagta
hai na bhagvan ne mere sharer ka thoda aur accha
vikas kiya hota. Thodi aur growth de di hoti. To
kitna accha hota, Personality ban jati. Haad to tab
hoti hai jab aap man hi man compromise karne
lagte hai. Chalo aisi growth nahi aisi hi mil jati.”
11. Hello and welcome To GTM. Me hu Vedita.
Friends agar aap apne body growth se khush nahi
hai aur ache personality valo ko dekh kar kash kash
karte rahte hai, Hazaro tarah ki Pills aazmakar
exercises karke sare dave aur vade sunkar aur
aazmakar thak chuke hai fir bhi body par ek inch ka
bhi fark nahi aaya hai to aaj yeah program aapke
liye hi hai, ant dekhye aur apne problems ka
solution paye.
Aaj hum aapke liye laye hai ek aisa product
jisko use karne ke bad apke body ko aisi health
milegi ki aapke confidence hundred percent rahega.
Bhid me aap alag dekenge, aapke impression aisa
jamega ki koi aapko bhul nahi payega aur vo
Formula hai Step Up Herbal Body Growth Formula.
GTM Lab me varsho ki research ke bad ye
discover kiya gaya ki insane ke aviksit sharer ko
umar ke kise bhi mod par vikasit kiya ja sakta hain.
Isi ko dhyan me rakh kar Himalaya aur Africa k
jungle me paye jane vale kuch durlabh jadibutiyon
jaise ajgan, vidhar, chandrashur, helo aadi ko ek
khas anupat me mila kar tayarkiya gaya hai Step Up
Herbal body Growth Formula.
Aapka ek achi personality ke liye tarsna bilkul
wajib hai, kyuki first impression is the last
impression. Badhiya personality wale log
Automatically sabka dhyan aakarshit karte hai aur
bhid me sabse alag nazar aate hai, unhe aapne
presence ko prove nahi karna padhta hai, hai na.”
( underlines added)
18. In ExhibitB1
to the Petition, the contents of various
advertisements of the product of the Petitioner have been set out. On
reading the contents of the advertisements, in our view, the
advertisements present the drug to public at large as a drug which will
enhance the overall personality of an individual. ExhibitB1
to the
Petition shows that (Page 33, Item two ) it is projected that the use of
medicine will increase the height of a person. Clause (d) of Section 3
of the said Act of 1954 prohibits publication of any advertisements
referring to any drug which in terms suggest or are calculated to lead
to the use of that drug for diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or
prevention of any disease, disorder or condition specified in the
Schedule. Perusal of the Schedule shows that Item No.47 is “stature of
persons”. The advertisements profess that the drug will help in
treatment of the condition of stature of persons. It is pertinent to note
that the drug which is advertised need not be a dangerous or harmful
to attract Section 3(d). In Paragraph 21 of the affidavit of Shri V.A.
Javadekar, Assistant Shri V.A. Jawadekar, the Assistant Commissioner in
the office of the Food and Drug Administration, it is mentioned that the
licensing authority has approved the subject drug as tridoshnashak
and
helpful in body development and not for growth of stature of a person
viz; height and personality. The object of the said Act of 1954 is to
prevent self medication. It would not be out of place to mention that
television is a very powerful visual medium which is easily available in
the houses of common people and therefore, it has tremendous
viewership in all the classes. It includes large sections of illiterate,
nive, innocent people who may believe the advertisement to be true.
In the facts of the case, as held above, the prohibition under Clause (d)
of Section 3 of the said Act of 1954 is squarely attracted.
19. We may note here that in the present case, there is no
challenge to the vires or validity of any of the provisions of the said Act
of 1954. Even if the impugned advertisements can be termed as
commercial speech, the same have been prohibited under Clause (d) of
Section 3 of the said Act of 1954. Clause (d) amounts to a reasonable
restriction as held in the case of Hamdard Dawakhana (supra).
20. Hence, we do not see any illegality in the impugned
communications.
21. There is no merit in the Petition and the same is
accordingly rejected.
( MRS.MRIDULA BHATKAR, J ) ( A.S. OKA, J )
No comments:
Post a Comment