Telangana High Court
Gujja Rajavardhan Reddy And 17 Others vs The State Of Telangana And 4 Others on 9 June, 2025
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NOS. 428, 1686, 6884 & 4309 OF 2023
COMMON ORDER:
W.P.Nos.428, 1686 & 6884 of 2023:
In all these writ petitions, the petitioners are employees
working in various Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies
(PACS) located the Districts of Mahaboobnagar, Ranga Reddy,
Nagarkurnool, Siddipet and Narayanpet. The petitioners are
working as Chief Executive Officers, Staff Assistance and
Clerks, etc. The Government of Telangana has issued
G.O.Ms.No.44, Agriculture and Co-operation (Coop-II)
Department, dated 17.12.2022 issuing guidelines in the name
of uniform Human Resource (HR) Policy for Primary Agricultural
Cooperative Societies (PACS) employees, whereunder the
Primary Agricultural Cooperative Societies (PACS) have been
categorized into A, B, C and D Categories basing on the
business level of the respective societies and further mentioned
permitted staff structure in respect of the PACS. The said G.O.,
further imposed restrictions over the powers of PACS in
appointment of staff and payment of salaries etc., and separate
committees called State Level Committee (SLC) and District
Level Committee (DLC) were formed for the said purpose. The
2above G.O., is thus challenged on the ground that it vitiates the
provisions of Section 115(D) of Telangana Cooperative Societies
Act, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions claiming
that G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.12.2022 is issued in violation of
powers vested under Section 131 of Cooperative Societies Act. In
addition to the averments made in the respective writ petitions,
the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has
advanced to the following written arguments:
(i) It is submitted that as per Section 115-D of
Telangana Co-operative Societies Act, the Primary Agriculture Co-
operative Society are having autonomous status, subject to any
guidelines issued by the NABARD/RBI. It is submitted that after
enactment of above provision 115-C and 115-D, by way of
amendment, vide Act No.16/2007, as all the Primary Agriculture
Co-operative Society were under financial bankruptcy, the
Government of India announced a package for revival of Co-
operative Credit structure, aiming to bring the Co-operatives to an
acceptable level of health through financial re-structuring.
(ii) It is submitted that as part of revival package, MOU
executed by the state for autonomy in financial and
administrative matters especially staffing, recruitment of staff in
the society. Further as per MOU entered between Government of
3
India and NABARD, the Registrar of Co-operative Societies may
issue guidelines for the benefit of Primary Agriculture Co-
operative Society, but there need not be any directions from the
State Government and actual staffing and compensation may be
decided by the respective cooperatives, on the basis of capacity to
pay. While that being the binding terms of understanding. i.e.
MOU, the State Government issued impugned G.O.Ms.No.44
Agriculture and Cooperation Department, dated 17-12-2022,
usurping the powers and autonomous status of Primary
Agriculture Co-operative Society, as powers to recruitment of staff
in Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society and other service
conditions are now completely put in hands of State Level
Committees and District Level Committees.
(iii) It is further submitted that Section 115(D) completely
gives autonomous status to Primary Agriculture Co-operative
Society, however subject to guidelines issued by RBI/NABARD.
However, in the instant case there are no such guidelines issued
by RBI/NABARD, but the impugned G.O. has been issued,
referring to a letter of correspondence addressed by the NABARD
vide Ref No.NB.HO.IDD.Coop/1420/V/10(A)/ 2018-19, dated 27-
02-2019. Further in para (2) of impugned G.O., it has been stated
that the NABARD, through Letter dated 27-02-2019, under
4
ref.No.(2) in the G.O., “has communicated operational guidelines
on HR policy for Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society,
recommended by the National Federation of State Co-operative
Banks Committee. It is submitted that the Government is referring
to a mere correspondence letter, as if it is a communication of
operational guidelines.
(iv) It is submitted that the NAFSCO is an
Association/Federation of State Co-operative Banks, and the
same has nothing to do with the powers and functions conferred
upon Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society. Therefore the
recommendations made by such private forum cannot be
construed as guidelines issued under Section 115-D of Telangana
Co-operative Societies Act. Therefore the impugned G.O. itself is
without jurisdiction and contrary to law, therefore liable to be set
aside.
(v) It is submitted that the respondents in their counter
affidavit have been asserting that before issuance of impugned
G.O., the representatives of employees were provided with
opportunity of hearing, which is incorrect, as no employees
working in the society were issued with notices, before issuance
of the impugned G.O. However, some of the employees, styling
themselves as union representatives, who are supporters and
5
close associates of ruling party at the time of issuance of the
G.O., seemed to have ascribed the terms of impugned G.O., which
is not binding on the Petitioners as well as other employees
working in Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society.
(vi) It is submitted that the respondents are trying to
justify their action, only on the ground that, the President of
District Co-operative Central Bank (DCCB) is the Chairman of
District Level Committee, who happens to be one of the President
of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies (PACS),
similarly the Chairman of Telangana State Co-operative Bank
(TSCOB), happens to be President of Particular Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Credit Societies (PACS) involved in
discussion. It is submitted that, this would not by itself would
amount to providing opportunity to the Primary Agricultural Co-
Ooperative Credit Societies (Primary Agriculture Co-Operative
Society), throughout the State.
(vii) It is submitted that the impugned G.O., contents
therein show no involvement of General Body of the respective
Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society. Further the ostensible
representations of all the societies through the Chairman of DCCB
and Chairman of TSCOB, is nothing but otiose, at no point of
time, the said Chairman of TSCOB, Chairman of all DCCB’S, have
6
ever informed about the impugned HR Policy to the General Body
members of the Primary Agriculture Co-Operative Society,
throughout the State.
(viii) It is submitted that the whole point to be considered
is whether all Managing Committees throughout the State, were
informed about the proposed guidelines or whether the real pay
masters (i.e.) members of the General Body of all Primary
Agriculture Co-Operative Society, are brought to the notice of
impugned HR Policy, is the issue to be considered. However in
the instant case, no Societies were allowed to communicate their
views on impugned Policy. On the other hand, clear oppressive
method has been chosen by the Respondents, to get concurrence;
for their proposed guidelines, by incorporating in para15 of
impugned G.O. that as follows:
“It shall be mandatory for all the Primary Agriculture Co-
operative Society to abide by the MOU and also the decisions of
the DLEC and SLEC. Non-Compliance of these orders shall be
treated as negligence in performance of duties in terms of Section
34(1) (b) (i) of the Telangana Co-operative Act, 1964, by the
Employees and managements of Primary Agriculture Co-operative
Society”.
(ix) It is submitted that the above would show that under
serious threat of supersession of the Managing Committees of
7
Primary Agriculture Co-operative Society have been insisted to
sign on the MOU’s and even the language imposed in MOU’s
would clearly shows arbitrariness. A recent Communication
addressed by the District Co-operative officer to the Societies
dated: 27-02-2023, is being filed, to show how the societies are
being threatened representing character of a British charter,
which cannot be allowed in Democracy. Therefore, the Learned
Senior Counsel prayed this Court to allow the Writ Petitions and
set aside the G.O.Ms.No.44, Agriculture and Cooperation
Department, dated 17-12-2022.
2. In W.P.No.4309 of 2023, this writ petition has been
filed by the Presidents of various societies in the Jogulamba
Gadwal, Ranga Reddy, Nagarkurnool, Mahabubnagar,
Wanaparthy, Narayanpet Districts, challenging the
G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.12.2022 as illegal, arbitrary and
against the very spirit of the cooperative movement. In addition
to the legal arguments advanced in the above paragraphs, it is
further submitted that the ultimate authority of the society is
the general body of the society in terms of Section 30 of the
Cooperative Societies Act and Section 31 gives power to the
general body to constitute the management committee in
8
accordance with its byelaws and Section 116(c) of the Act gives
the powers to societies to fix the staffing pattern, qualification,
pay scale, and other allowances for the employees with the prior
approval of Registrar of Cooperative Societies subject to the
conditions that the expenditure towards pay and allowance of
the employees shall not exceed 2% of the working capital or
30% of the gross profit in terms of actual in a year whichever is
less. It is further submitted that Government of India has
declared a cooperative credit revival package to bring the
cooperative societies to an acceptable level of health through
financial restructuring along with legal and institutional reforms
and the letter of NABARD dated 28.01.2009 addressed to the
Commissioner for Cooperation, Registrar of Cooperative
Societies specifically refers to Clause 9.2(IV) of the MOU
executed by the Government of India, State Governments and
NABARD which reads that “providing autonomy to CCS in all
financial and internal administrative matters especially in the
personnel policy, staffing, recruitment, posting and compensation
to staff”.
3. According to the learned senior counsel, NABARD
may issue only guidelines for establishment expenditure vis-a-
9
visa business and viabilities, suggestions of staff size,
qualifications, etc., but the actual staffing and composition has
to be decided by the respective cooperatives on the basis of their
capacity to pay.
4. Learned Senior Counsel also refers to the Section
115(D)(2) to submit that there is autonomy to the cooperative
credit societies in all financial and internal administrative
matters subject to the guidelines of RBI (NABARD) in certain
areas and some of the cooperative societies have adopted the
scales of pay and other allowances etc., given in G.O.Ms.No.151,
dated 22.06.2009 and some of the cooperative societies which
have capacity to pay more than what have been suggested in
G.O.Ms.No.151, dated 22.06.2009, have been making payment
of salaries at much higher rate as well.
5. It is submitted that G.OMs.No.44, dated 17.12.2022
refers to operational guidelines on HR policy for PACS
recommended by the National Federation of State Cooperative
Banks (NAFSCOB) and the said guidelines were communicated
by NABARD to the State by a letter dated 27.02.2019, requiring
the PACS in the States to pass a resolution in their management
committee authorizing the President and Secretary, PACS to
10
sign the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) annexed thereto
and through the said notification directions were given to the
RCS for implementation of the uniform human resource policy
to the PACS employees.
6. According to the learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners, the G.O.Ms.No.44 scuttles, abrogates and
takes away the autonomy of the PACS which was zealously
protected by the MOU entered by the State during 2008, which
has neither been terminated nor lapsed and therefore, the
G.O.Ms.No.44 is in violation of the earlier MOU. It is submitted
that any interference with the autonomy of the PACS, runs
contrary to the cooperative movement and the purpose for
which cooperative institutions came into bring under Section 30
of the Act, and that the ultimate authority of a society vests in
the general body of the society subject to the byelaws and the
provisions of the Act and the consequences of mal
administration, inefficient administration are taken care of by
various provisions of the Act of 1964 such as Sections 32, 34,
50, 51, 52 and other sections in Chapter 7 of the Act. It is
submitted that the State Government is not vested with any
power to issue notification in the present form under Section
11
131(1) of the Act, whereunder the State Government can issue
only such orders or directions which are in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and in the interest of cooperative
movement in the State, but does not have unlimited power to
issue directions to the registrar compelling him to interfere in
the day to day affairs of the societies. Thus, challenging the
power of the Government to issue G.O.Ms.No.44, dated
17.12.2022, the present writ petition has been filed.
7. Subsequent to the filing of these writ petitions, the
petitioners have filed a memo enclosing therewith the copy of
the letter issued by the NABARD i.e., respondent No.3 in
W.P.No.6884 of 2023, dated 04.07.2011, clarifying that the
advise about the human resource policy formulated by NABARD
is only suggestive and indicative in nature and it is up to the
concerned bank to take a decision in this regard with necessary
modifications to suit bank’s requirements. Further vide Memo
dated 24.06.2024, the petitioners have enclosed therewith a
copy of the circular dated 13.04.2023, whereunder there was a
direction to stop finance to PACS by DCCB, if the PACS has not
entered into MOU and has not adopted the G.O.Ms.No.44, dated
17.12.2022. The copy of the letter dated 06.01.2023 was issued
12
to the Presidents of PACS to adopt the uniform human resource
policy and the letter dated 14.06.2023 for implementation of the
uniform human resource for PACS and instructions for stopping
of the refinance to PACS, who have not adopted the
G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.12.2022 and further a copy of the letter
dated 27.02.2023 for implementation of directions issued under
G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.12.2022 has been issued. Both the
memos have been considered and the documents have taken on
record.
8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents
No.1 and 2 has relied upon the averments in the counter
affidavit wherein it is stated that the Government has issued
G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.12.2022 on uniform human resource
policy to the PACS employees in the Telangana State and was
communicated to the DCOs in the State for taking further
necessary action in the matter. It is stated that the said G.O.,
has been issued by the respondent No.1 on the basis of
recommendations of the NABARD strictly in conformity with
Section 115-D(2) of TCS Act, 1964 and that the said
recommendations were issued on the basis of the report of the
seven member committee of National Federation of State
13
Cooperative Banks (NAFSCOB), appointed by high level
committee headed by the Chief Secretary to monitor the health
of the Cooperative Credit Societies in the country. In response to
the specific grievances of the petitioners in the writ petitions, it
is admitted that special byelaws/service byelaws framed by the
respondent No.2 would govern the service conditions of the
petitioners in W.P.Nos.428, 1686 and 6884 of 2023 and that the
impugned G.O., clearly specifies that the respondent No.2 shall
separately issue the uniform service regulation for adaptation by
the PACS.
9. As regards the contentions that the PACS’s
autonomy under Section 115(D) has been interfered with, it is
stated that said autonomy is subject to the guidelines of
NABARD issued from time to time and that G.O.Ms.No.44,
dated 17.12.2022 is issued on the recommendations of the
NABARD and is only in compliance of Section 115(D)(2) of the
Act. In respect of Section 115(D)(3)(b), it is stated that there
shall be no Government nominees being included in the
managing committee of PACS and therefore, there is no violation
of the said provision. As regards the transfer policy sought to be
introduced in the uniform human resource policy, it is stated
14
that it is meant to circulate the human resources both in
horizontal and in vertical plane in the 3-tier cooperative credit
structure and the said policy is based on the cardinal principle
of “Right person in the Right job at the Right place” and it is
meant to strengthen the human resource base of the 3-tier
cooperative structure. It is submitted that the PACS are well
represented in the District Level and State Level Committees
which are constituted under the impugned G.O.Ms.No.44, dated
17.12.2022. It is stated that the President of the DCCB is the
Chairman of the District Level Committee, who is originally
President of a PACS and similarly the State Level Committee is
headed by the Chairman of the Telangana State Cooperative
Apex Bank, who also happens to be from the Presidents of PACS
and therefore, there is involvement of the PACS in the
constitution of the State and District Level Committees. It is
stated that G.O.Ms.No.44 has been issued under Section 131 of
the Cooperative Societies Act and hence is valid.
10. As regards the petitioners contentions that the pay
scales proposed under the uniform human resource policy are
to their disadvantage, it is submitted that such an argument is
only their apprehension and there is no ground to believe that
15
the petitioners will be put to loss and that no powers of PACS
are taken away as all orders affecting the appointment, transfer,
promotion, sanction of increment of the employees of PACS are
to be issued by the President/Managing Committee of the PACS
only. It is stated that higher education qualification is
prescribed for different cadres of the PACS keeping in view the
new business activity being taken up by the PACS and also
keeping in view the computerized environment in which the
PACS are functioning now and that there is no change in the
designation of the petitioners herein.
11. In reply to the counter filed by the respondents No.1
and 2, the petitioners have filed a reply affidavit stating that the
letter of NABARD dated 27.02.2019 is only a recommendation
by the National Federation of State Cooperative Banks
Committee, which is neither a registered body nor a recognized
legal entity and also that it is only an internal communication
between NABARD and respondent No.2 and therefore, it has no
legal recognition and cannot be termed as guidelines issued
within the meaning of Section 115-D(2) of Telangana State
Cooperative Societies Act. It is further submitted that Section
115(D) specifically contemplates issuance of guidelines either by
16
the RBI or NABARD and it never speaks about the
recommendations and therefore, as there are no guidelines
issued by the RBI or NABARD, the contents of the letter dated
27.02.2019 cannot be considered as guidelines and that it is
only a recommendation of the committee. In response to the
counter affidavit that the State and District Level Committees
consist of member of PACS, it is stated that their inclusion itself
would not amount to providing opportunity to the PACS whose
staff is being transferred. According to the learned senior
counsel that the said G.O., is issued in utter violation of the
provisions of the Act and in violation of principals of natural
justice and hence has to be set aside.
12. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.3 in W.P.No.428 of 2023 i.e., The Telangana State
Cooperative Bank, has reiterated the stand taken by the
respondents No.1 and 2 and in addition to the above
arguments, stated that up to 21.02.2023 in compliance with
G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.12.2022, 769 PACS out of total 826
PACS affiliated to 9 DCCBs in the State have so far resolved to
implement for the said uniform human resource policy for PACS
employees. It is admitted that the common cadre of employees
17
in PACS, was abolished by insertion of Section 116(AA) and
thereafter, an amendment vide Act No.16 of 2007 was made to
the effect that the society shall have autonomy under Section
115(D) of the Telangana Cooperative Societies Act, subject to the
guidelines of RBI/NABARD in the matters of personnel policy,
staffing, recruitment, posting, and compensation to the staff
and thereafter the process of affecting transfers has become
part of the human resource policy recommended by NABARD for
implementation by the State Governments and that the PACS
have to abide by the uniform human resource policy
recommended by NABARD. Along with counter affidavit is
annexed the copy of the letter dated 27.02.2019 issued by
NABARD on the basis of which, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.44,
dated 17.12.2022 has been issued.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
No.4 in W.P.No.428 of 2023 i.e., DCCB, Mahabubnagar, also
relied on the averments in the counter affidavit filed by
respondent No.4, reiterating the stand taken by the respondents
No.1 to 3. Similar counter affidavits have been filed in other writ
petitions as well.
18
14. In W.P.No.4309 of 2023, a counter affidavit has
been filed by the respondents No.1 and 2 raising similar
contentions.
15. There was no interim order passed by this Court
suspending the operation of G.O.Ms.No.44, dated 17.12.2022.
This Court had required the response of NABARD (which is the
respondent No.3 in W.P.No.6884 of 2023) on this issue and in
the counter affidavit filed by NABARD, it is stated that the
NABARD has no control directly or indirectly on PACS and that
the Government of Telangana (Cooperative Department) is the
sole authority for issuing directives/instructions to PACS and
further stated that NABARD has only communicated the
committee report of human resources policy for PACS
recommended by the committee set up by the National
Federation of State Cooperative Banks (NAFSCOB) and that
NABARD had requested the Registrar of Cooperative Societies of
all the States to consider the recommendations of the policy
with suitable modifications as per their requirements for
adoption in PACS in their respective States. It is further stated
that NABARD is not an Apex Bank and has no regulatory or
supervisory control directly or indirectly on the affairs of the
19
PACS and that the NABARD had requested the Registrar of
Cooperative Societies of all States to consider the
recommendations of the policy with suitable modifications as
per their requirements for adaptation by PACS in respective
States and it is further stated that NABARD is only a pro-forma
party and that no relief is sought against NABARD in these writ
petitions.
16. Having regard to the rival contentions and the
material on record, this Court finds that the basic and first and
foremost ground of challenge to G.O.Ms.No.44, dated
17.12.2022 is that it is in violation of Section 115(D) of the
Telangana Cooperative Societies Act and further that it is in
violation of principals of natural justice as mandated under
Section 131 of the Cooperative Societies Act. The stand of the
Government has now all along been that it is on the directions
of the NABARD under Section 115(D) of the Act, 1964 and that
G.O.Ms.No.44 has been issued under Section 131 of Telangana
Cooperative Societies Act and it has to be mandatorily followed.
17. This Court finds that (i) Section 115(C)(a) defines a
“Co-operative Credit Society” to mean the State Co-operative
Bank, the District Co-operative Central Bank (DCCB) and that
20
the Primary Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society (PACS),
which includes Farmers Service Co-operative Society (FSCS),
Co-operative Rural Bank (CRB), Large Sized Co-operative
Society (LSCS) or any other Co-operative Credit Society
primarily dealing with agricultural credit at primary level
included under the Revival Package and other similar relief
measures offered by the Government of India from time to time.
(ii) that Section 115(D) prescribes special provisions
applicable to Cooperative Credit Societies and Sub-Section (2)
thereof provides that the Co-operative Credit Society shall have
autonomy in all financial and internal administrative matters,
subject to the guidelines of Reserve Bank of India/National
Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development in the areas of:-
(i) ***
(ii) ***
(iii) ***
(iv) Personnel policy, staffing, recruitment, posting, and
compensation to staff;
(v) Internal control systems, appointment of auditors and
compensation for the audit.
(iii) that Sub-Section (3)(b) provides that there shall be only
Government nominee on the managing committee of the State
21Co-operative Bank/District Co-operative Central Bank as long
as the equity of Government continues and there shall be no
Government nominee in the managing committee of a Primary
Agricultural Co-operative Credit Society.
(iv) Section 116(A)(A) was omitted vide G.O.Ms.No.53, dated
20.05.2016 abolishing the centralized services for certain
categories of employees.
(v) Section 116(C) provides for staffing pattern of societies
and that the society shall have power to fix the staffing pattern,
qualifications, pay scales and other allowances for its employees
with the prior approval of the Registrar of Cooperative Societies
subject to the condition that expenditure towards pay and
allowances of the employees shall not exceed two percent of the
working capital or thirty percent of the gross profit, in terms of
actuals in a year whichever is less.
(vi) Section 131 gives power to the Government to give
directions generally or in any particular matter in accordance
with the provisions of this Act and in the interest of co-operative
movement in the State.
18. In view of the above provisions of the Act, it is clear
that the Cooperative Societies in the State of Andhra Pradesh
22
and as adopted by the State of Telangana has autonomy in
respect of its staffing pattern subject to the guidelines of the
RBI/NABARD. The stand of the respondents has been that it is
on the directions of NABARD that uniform human resource
policy has been issued under the impugned G.O.Ms.No.44.
However, in the counter filed by the NABARD in W.P.No.6884 of
2023 it is stated that they are not guidelines, but are only
recommendations of the seven member committee of the
NAFSCOB, which has been forwarded for adoption subject to
the suitable modifications by the PACS as per their
requirements for adoption in their respective States. Therefore,
it is clear that these are not the directions of NABARD under
Section 115D of the Act, and therefore, they are not mandatorily
to be followed. The power of the Government to issue directions
under Section 131 of the Cooperative Societies Act is not
challenged in these writ petitions. However, such a direction
cannot be arbitrary, but has to be in accordance with the
provisions of the Act and further, it also requires that the
person likely to be affected by such order, has to be given an
opportunity of making his representation. In this case, vide
impugned G.O.Ms.No.44, there is change in the staffing pattern
and there is a likelihood of the service conditions of the
23
employees being affected as the payment of salaries is
dependent on their financial health. Therefore, before issuance
of the G.O., even if the directions of G.O.Ms.No.44 are presumed
to have been issued under Section 131 of the Telangana
Cooperative Societies Act, the affected parties have not been
given sufficient opportunity of making their submissions. In
view thereof, the impugned G.O.Ms.No.44 is liable to be set
aside.
19. However, in the counter filed by the respondent
No.3 in W.P.No.428 of 2023, it is stated that out of total 826
PACS, 769 PACS have already adopted the said G.O., and that
the balance of the PACS have to take a decision, this Court
deems it fit and proper to direct the respondents to call for the
objections of the parties who have not yet joined or who still
have grievances with regard to their service conditions and
thereafter take a decision on the same. It is made clear that the
change in the cadre or the transfer of the employees shall not
have the affect of altering or modifying their service conditions
to the detriment of their earlier service conditions. The
employees so transferred shall have the very same service
conditions, if the modified service conditions are not favourable
24
to them and if the modified service conditions are found to be
favourable, then such modified service conditions shall be
applied to them.
20. With these directions, all the writ petitions are
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.
21. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these
writ petitions, shall stand closed.
____________________________
JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
Date: 09.06.2025
bak
25
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE T.MADHAVI DEVI
W.P.NOS. 428, 1686, 6884 & 4309 OF 2023
Dated: 09.06.2025
bak
[ad_1]
Source link