File No.

RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

CHECKLIST FOR PREPARATION OF GENERAL ARRANGEMENT

DRAWING (GAD) FOR RAILWAY BRIDGES (REVISION-1)

Sl. No. Item Reference Yes/

No

(A) GENERAL (To be written on right bottom corner) Chap. IX of IRWM

1. Name of the work - to be mentioned correctly i.e.

Name of Railway, Division/Construction
organisation, Project, Work with location, name of
consultant, etc.

2. Drawing number- to be mentioned correctly. Para 904

of IRWM

3. Scale- to be mentioned in the title block correctly, Para 903 &

size of drawing to be not less than A0, on tracing 905 of
paper (to be converted to tracing cloth after IRWM
execution).

4. Name & Signatures – The name and signature of Para 904

all officials involved in preparation of GAD to be of IRWM
written clearly and to be signed with date. For works
by construction organization name and signature of
Divisional Officers also to be ensured. Provision to
be made for signature of Headquarter officials.

5. Reference – Reference of Pink Book/others Item Para 904

No. with name of sanctioned work to be mentioned of IRWM
clearly.

6. Alterations – Alterations should be clearly

mentioned with the name and signature with date of
the officials concerned.

(B) NOTES (To be written on the right side of plan)

The following items to be covered in the Notes on the GAD Plan

1. Dimensions- To be written clearly (preferably in

mm and levels in meter). The font size should be

Page 1 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

reasonably big and easily readable.

2. Colour- The colour of existing work, proposed work, Para 907-

proposed dismantling and future work to be c) of IRWM
indicated.

3. Scaling and Direction- No scaling of dimensions

from the GAD should be permitted, all relevant
dimensions to be written, North direction to be
shown.

4. Shown to scale- Plan, Section and Elevation to be

as per scale and scale to be mentioned.

5. Direction to Field Engineers- Directions to Field

Engineers before execution should be mentioned
clearly i.e. verification of various levels including rail
level, formation level, HFL, maximum observed
scour level on upstream, foundation level, bore log
data, type of soil, bearing capacity etc. Clear
directions in case there is apprehension of damage
to nearby structures, etc.

6. Co-ordination – Clear direction to executive

department to consult/intimate other concerned
departments.

7. Traffic diversion- In case of traffic diversion during

execution, the same to be mentioned with details
like chainage of take-off points on both the ends,
etc.

8. Speed restriction- Clear mention of speed

restrictions to be followed before/during/after the
execution.

9. Reference Drawings- The drawings referred for

detailing to be mentioned clearly.

10. Miscellaneous details- Miscellaneous details like

skin reinforcement, no plastering/cement wash, dry
stone pitching, weep holes, backfill, inspection
platform, pedestal, trolley refuges, OHE mast, safety
measures, service cables, launching scheme,

Page 2 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

protective coating to reinforcement & concrete,

station names with their MSL, railway boundary,
modus-operandi etc. to be mentioned in the notes
itself.

11. Codes and Specifications- Reference of Railway

Codes/Manuals (Bridge Rules, IRBM, etc.), IS
Codes, IRC Codes with their order of preference
and specifications to be followed, should be clearly
mentioned.

12. Technical details- All technical data used for

preparation of GAD such as latitude/longitude, track
on single/double line, bridge on UP line or DN line,
grade, rail level, formation level on approaches,
HFL, LWL, bed level, free board & vertical clearance
provided vis-à-vis the codal requirements, linear
water-way, standard of loading, type of super-
structure, type of bearing, type of sub-structure, type
of foundation, design discharge, catchment area,
seismic zone, wind zone, hydro-meteorological sub-
zone for water-way calculation, exposure condition,
clear cover to reinforcement, provision of guard
rails, track on straight or on curve, any RAT/RAW
within 50km on upstream, cross slope, name of
river/stream etc. to be summarised in a tabular form.
All reduced levels to be mentioned w.r.t. MSL.

13. Details of existing bridge- Details of existing rail

bridge/road bridge to be written in a tabular form i.e.
existing bridge no., location, span, type of sub-
structure/foundation, distance from new bridge, rail
level, formation level & foundation level, water-way
and critical levels, any major incident happened to
these bridges in past, etc.

14. Details of trial pit/bore log- Nature of the soil as Para 906-
determined from trial pit & bore log details, the a(xii) of
details of location with chainage, reduced level at IRWM
top of trial pit/bore log, SBC value for each stratum
to be shown in tabular form and pictorial form.

Page 3 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

(C) INSTRUCTIONS TO BE FOLLOWED IN PREPARATION OF GAD

1. Whether proposed work is as per sanction or is Pink

there any deviation from sanction. In case of Book/Other
deviation, the details thereof. Sanction

2. Whether GAD satisfies latest approved SOD. a. IRSOD-

Infringements of standard dimensions, if any should 2004
be shown b. Para
906-
a(xvi) of
IRWM

3. Relevant & up to date IRS and IRC Codes, etc. with Various
their order of preference to be decided. Codes,
Manuals,
Specificati
ons, etc.

4. L-Section:-

(i) Whether L-Section of Gauge Conversion Board’s

Projects and Doubling Projects has been approved letter No.
by open line? 98/W-
1/General/
(ii) In case of New Line Projects being executed O /30
by construction organisation, whether L-Section has dated
been approved by construction organisation? 10.06.2008
In case of New Line Projects being executed by
PSUs, whether L-Section has been approved by
open line?

5. In case of construction of new bridge during Board’s

doubling, whether Railway has considered the letter No.
condition of existing single line bridge also for 2021/ED(P
replacement in the near future? rojM)/Misc/
Committee
dated
12.11.2021

6. Whether provision of IRBM has been considered for Para 308

site selection of bridge? of IRBM

Page 4 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

7. Whether hydrological investigation has been carried a. Clause

out? A report to be submitted. If not, the reasons 4.1 of
there of. IRS
Sub-
structure
Code
b. Chapter
3 of
IRBM

8. Whether design discharge has been Clause 4.2

calculated/provided as per the Sub-structure Code? to 4.4 of
IRS Sub-
structure
Code

9. Whether discharge due to RAT/RAW in upstream IRC: 5-

has also been taken into account? 2015
(Clause
106.3.5)

10. Waterway:-

(i) Whether proposed waterway has been Clause 4.5

provided as per the Sub-structure Code? of IRS
Sub-
structure
Code

(ii) In case of gauge conversion and doubling Clause

works, where there is no history of past incidents of 4.5.7 of
over-flow/washout/excessive scour, etc. during last IRS Sub-
50 years, whether waterway of existing bridge has structure
been retained after taking measures for safety as Code
considered necessary?

(iii) Whether waterway has been re-assessed Clause

based on the freshly estimated design discharge, 4.5.7 of
where such history is there? IRS Sub-
structure
Code

(iv) Whether clearance from Inland Waterways Para 302-

Page 5 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

Authority of India/concerned Authority for f) of IRBM

navigational requirement for proposed bridge is
taken, wherever required?

11. Whether vertical clearance and free board have Clause 4.8
been provided as per the Sub-structure Code? If and 4.9 of
not, a note should be added that condonation IRS Sub-
should be taken from the competent authority before structure
starting the work. Code

12. Whether maximum scour depth below HFL at pier Clause 4.6
and abutment has been considered as per the Sub- of IRS
structure Code? Sub-
structure
Code

13. Foundation:-

(i) Whether safe bearing capacity has been Clause

calculated by suitable method? 6.3.1 of
IRS Sub-
structure
Code

(ii) Whether open foundation has been adopted? Board’s

If not, whether approval of CBE/SAG officer has letter No.
been obtained? 2014/CE-
III/BR/Brid
ge Policy
dated
15.11.2016

(iii) Key details such as HFL, LWL, Bed Level,

Scoured Bed Level, Founding Level, Grip Lengths,
Diameter of Pile/Well, Well/Pile cap Level, etc.
should be shown in the GAD.

(iv) Whether distance between existing and RDSO

proposed bridge has been adequately provided? letter No.
CBS/DWF
dated
15.07.2019

(v) Whether location of proposed piers and Board’s

Page 6 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

abutments are in the line with those of existing letter No.

bridge? If not, the reasons there of. 2017/29/C
E-
III/BR/ Br.
588/ECoR
dated
03.08.2017

(vi) In case of doubling, whether new bridge is It is

provided in downstream side? preferable
to provide
a new
bridge in
downstrea
m of an
existing
bridge

14. Selection of span:-

(i) Whether most economical option has been Board’s

considered? Proper and adequate justification for letters No.
selection of span to be mentioned. 2014/CE-
III/BR/Brid
(ii) Whether overall length is more than existing ge Policy
bridge/water course? If so, the reasons there of. dated
04.02.2015
(iii) Whether overall length is less than existing
&
bridge/water course? If so, the reasons there of.
21.04.2015
(iv) In case of doubling, the span arrangement
should preferably be the same.

15. Super-structure:-

(i) Whether Board’s guidelines followed for Board’s

selecting the type of super-structure? If not, whether letter No.
Board’s approval has been taken? 2005/CE-
I/BR-II/8
dated
28.05.2009

(ii) Whether RDSO standard drawing is followed? Board’s

If so, whether all the dimensions are as per RDSO letter No.

Page 7 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

standard drawing? If not, approval from PCE/CAO 2013/C-

obtained with proper justification should be III/BR/RDS
obtained. O/Misc.
dated
11.08.2014

16. Size of pier/abutment cap

(i) Whether size of pier/abutment cap has been a. Clause

provided based on the provisions of the Sub- 7.1.1 &
structure Code, Seismic Code & IRBM including 7.2.1 of
inspection arrangements? IRS
Sub-
(ii) While deciding the size of pier/abutment cap, structure
whether the following key aspects have been Code
considered:

 Space for inspection and maintenance of

b. Clause
bearings including the space for jacks to lift the
14 of
superstructure for repair/ replacement of bearings,
IRS
etc.
Seismic
 Placement of seismic-restrainer Code
 Placement of the bearings, leaving an offset
of 150 mm beyond them,
c. Para
 Space for the ballast wall. 604(1)
 Space for the equipment for pre-stressing of IRBM
operations where necessary, over and above space
for end block in cast in-situ cases.

 The drainage arrangement for the water on

the cap.

 To accommodate inspection ladders

 Placement of OHE mast

 Dimensions of girder as given in

superstructure drawing.

 Minimum seating width should be provided as

per IRS Seismic Code.

17. Whether bearings have been provided as per a. BS-102

Page 8 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

requirement and details shown correctly? (Rev.1)

b. BS-131

18. Whether bridge is located in seismic zone III, IV & Clause 5.3
V? If yes, ductile detailing is mandatory for of IRS
piers/portals as per the IRS Seismic Code. Seismic
Code First
Revision -
2020

19. Whether RCC Boxes are provided? a. Board’s

Letter
If yes, whether the instructions given in Railway
No.2015
Board letter dated 19.01.2022 have been followed?
/CE-
III/BR/
Substruc
ture
Code
dated
19.01.20
22
b. Para
402 of
IRBM

20. RUB/Subways:-

(i) Whether the instruction given in Railway Board Board’s

letter dated 18.02.2021 have been followed for Letter
water logging and drainage problem in No.2017/C
RUB/Subways? E-
IV/RUB/88
dated
18.02.2021

(ii) Whether Height Gauges has been provided? a. Para

1107
(14)-b(i)
of IRBM

b. Railway
Board
Page 9 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

Letter
No.2017
/CE-
IV/LX/Mi
sc/244(L
C) dated
15.10.20
20

21. Safety provisions:-

(i) Whether trolley refuges have been provided a. Para

as per guidelines? 646 &
834 of
IRPWM-
2020
b. IRSOD-
2004

(ii) Provision of Guard Rails on Bridges Para 228

of IRPWM-
2020

(iii) Provision of Side Pathways on Girder Bridge a. RDSO

letter
No.
CBS/DP
G1
dated
24.04.20
19
b. Para
229 of
IRPWM-
2020

22. Whether backfill material behind abutments, wing Clause 7.5

walls, RCC boxes, etc. have been shown? of IRS
Sub-
structure
Code

23. Whether weep holes have been provided Clause 7.6

Page 10 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

adequately? of IRS
Sub-
structure
Code

24. Whether flooring details with curtain wall/drop a. IRC SP:

wall/apron have been shown with cross- section? 13-2004
b. Para
818 of
IRBM

25. Whether wing walls with cross-section, with dotted

lines in elevation have been shown?

26. Whether proper facilities for inspection like a. Para 6

inspection ladder, steps, inspection platform have of BS-
been provided? If not, the reasons there of. 102
(Rev.1)
b. Para 6.3
of BS-
113
c. RDSO
Drawing
No CBS-
0016

27. Whether reference of separate drawings like

protection work, pitching etc. has been mentioned at
appropriate place?

28. Whether direction of flow has been confirmed from

site and shown correctly in the plan?

29. Whether river-training and protection works are Chapter 8

required? If so, these have been provided as per IR of IRBM
Bridge Manual.

30. Whether following information is shown on the

drawing:-

(i) The names of the nearest junctions or Para 906-

terminals stations, that on the left hand being the a(ii) of
one from which the kilometrage starts. IRWM

Page 11 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

(ii) The boundaries of land according to the land Para 906-

plans. a(v) of
IRWM

(iii) Any known bench mark with the datum from Para 906-
which its value has been reckoned. a(vi) of
IRWM

(iv) The degree, radius, beginning and end of Para 906-

transitions, total angle of deflection and the tangent a(vii) of
points of all curves on the bridges and its IRWM
approaches.

(v) All gradients, points of change of gradient on Para 906-

the bridges and its approaches a(viii) of
IRWM

(vi) In the case of foundations, the nature of the Para 906-

soil as determined from trial pit, and bore log details. a(xii) of
IRWM

31. The drawings for a bridge should include the site Para 906-
plan, plan and longitudinal section of the river or c) of IRWM
nala above and below the proposed site in the case
of large bridges being rebuilt on account of
insufficient waterway or being built at a new site and
a sufficient number of cross sections showing
highest flood level, ground plan of foundations,
sections through the bridge in such directions as are
necessary to show the intended form and
dimensions of the various parts, front and side
elevation of abutments and piers, and drawings of
such details as have not been standardised.
The standard of loading for which the bridge is
designed should be recorded in the plan and
reference to the type drawing of the particular girder
should also be recorded.

32. Whether GAD has been prepared with half plan at

top and half plan at bottom with longitudinal section,
sectional elevation and key plan?

33. Whether the dimensions of plan, elevation, cross

Page 12 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

section, longitudinal section have been cross

checked for inconsistency/ errors. The dimensions
should match?

34. In case of Important Bridge, whether preparation & a. Board’s

approval of Design Basis Report is required in terms Letter
of extant policy of Railway Board? No.
2013/C
E-III/BR
/RDSO/
Misc.
dated
04.06.2
014
b. Board’s
Letters
No.
2014/C
E-III/
BR/Brid
ge
policy
dated
11.11.2
019 &
10.03.2
017

35. Whether inspection and maintenance of bridge can

be ensured as per the extant instructions,
methodology and techniques or preparation of a
bridge-specific inspection and maintenance manual
is considered necessary in view of use of special
type of span/use of new technology/peculiar
features of bridge?

Note: Latest version of Codes & Manuals, Special Publications and RDSO BS Reports
should be referred to. The present versions of the referred resources are tabulated for ready
reference.

Page 13 of 14
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

Sl. No. Name of the Code/Guideline/Drawing Year / Correction

Version Slips
issued till
date
1. IRS Bridge Sub- Second 10
structures and Foundation Code Revision
2013
2. Seismic Code for Earthquake Resistant Design of First -
Railway Bridges Revision-
2020
3. Indian Railway Bridge Manual 1998 38
4. Indian Railways Permanent Way Manual June - 2020 4
5. Indian Railways Works Manual 2000 10
6. Indian Railways Schedule of Dimensions 2004 30
1676mm Gauge (BG)
7. RDSO Report No. BS-102: Guidelines for June - 2015 -
Installation, Inspection & Maintenance of Bridge (Revision 1)
Bearings
8. RDSO Report No. BS-113: Guidelines for November - -
Providing Arrangements for Bridge Inspection 2014
9. RDSO Report No. BS-131: Guidelines for November - -
Selection of Bridge Bearings for Railway Bridges 2021
& ROBs.
10. IRC:5: Standard Specifications and Code of 2015 (Eighth -
Practice for Road Bridges Section -1 General Revision)
Features of Design
11. IRC:SP:13: Guidelines for the Design of Small 2004 (First -
Bridges and Culverts Revision)
12. RDSO Drawing No. CBS-0016: Inspection March - -
Platform and Pedestal for Bearing (General 2001
Arrangement)

Page 14 of 14
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILTVAYS
(RATLWAY BOARDI

No. 2O2 I /ED(ProjMf /Misc/Committee New,Delhi dated: 7.2.tL.202l

Principal Chief Engineer,
& Chief Administrative )fficer (Con.f, I

All Zonal Railways.

Sub: Construction of new Bridge during Doubling.

Large numbers of doubling projects are being executed on Railways. It

has been noticed that normally single tine bridge is constructed for pro'posed
new double line adjacent to existing major bridge which results in reverse
curve and extra earth work due to wider track center.

Many a times, it is noticed that the existing bridge is also very old and
due
for replacement in near future. In such case-s, the railway should provide
temporary diversion (frt for 75 Kmph) for the existing bridge. Tirereafter,a
existing single line bridge should be dismantled and nJ* aor-Ule line
bridge
should be constructed on existing alignment for latest loading standard. It
give the
will
following benefits:

i' Cost of new double line bridge is lesq than two single line bridges, thus
there will be substantial cost saving, in cases where existing Uiiage is
old
and require maj or rehabilitation/ rebuilding.
ii' Reverse curye on the approach of bridge *IU b" completely avoided,
thus
increasing the speed potential of line.
iii. Existing single line will also be re-constructed for 25 ton axle load.

The matter has been considered and it has been decided that wherever
doubling is planned, railway shall consider the condition of existing single
line
bridge also for replacement in the near future. It has also been decided
existing major (not important) bridges which have outlived their life
that few
may
selected for re-construction with doubling projects to implement be
methodologr under advice to Board. this

(O.N. Sharmhf
Director (B&S)
Copy to: Chief Commissioner of Railway Safet5r, New Delhi for kind
information.

o\O
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS
(RAILWAY BOARD)

No.2015/CE-III/BR/Structure Code New Delhi Dt: 19.01.2022

Principle Chief Engineer,

Chief Administrative Officers (Construction),
All Zonal Railways.

Sub: Construction of RCC Boxes for Railway Bridges

Ref: Board's letter No. 2015/CE-III/BR/Substructure Code dated
03.11.2021

Vide above reference, instructions were issued for construction of RCC boxes
for railway bridges on the zonal railways. Recently, some issues have been raised by
the project executing agencies in this regard. Accordingly, in supersession of existing
instructions, following has been decided:

(i) RCC boxes shall not be constructed for major bridges on new lines/gauge
conversion/ doubling works. In exceptional cases on feasibility
consideration (like insufficient vertical clearance, restricted land
availability, to avoid damage to existing wing wall etc), RCC box may be
constructed for major bridges with adequate cushion (on replaceability
consideration to accommodate suitable temporary girder) duly considering
the strata underneath the bridge with approval of CAO(C)/CBE on case to
case basis.

(ii) RCC boxes may be constructed for minor bridges on new lines/ gauge
conversion/ doubling works up to a span of 3 m with provision of adequate
cushion (on replaceability consideration to accommodate suitable
temporary girder) duly considering the strata underneath the bridge with
approval of CE(C). In case it is not found feasible to provide desired cushion
and/ or RCC box of span more than 3 m is to be provided, approval of
CAO(C)/CBE shall be taken.

(iii) Use of multiple RCC boxes shall not be permitted. However, standard
RDSO design/ specially designed multi-cell RCC boxes may be permitted
on feasibility consideration with approval of CAO(C) / CBE.

(iv) Segmental RCC boxes for construction of railway bridges (carrying

waterway) shall not be generally permitted. However, in exceptional cases
on feasibility consideration, segmental RCC boxes may be permitted for
railway bridges with approval of CBE. Adequate precautions shall be taken
to ensure that there is no seepage through joints.

(v) For construction of RUB/LHS, RCC boxes may be provided. Use of

segmental RCC boxes may also be permitted with approval of the CBE.
 File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

(vi) For building/ rebuilding of bridges on existing lines, efforts should be made
to provide girder/ slab bridges as far as possible and RCC boxes shall be
provided only as last resort with approval of CBE.

(vii) In all cases where RCC boxes have been constructed or planned to be
constructed, properly designed protection works such as drop wall, curtain
wall, flooring etc duly considering the scour criteria and approved by CBE
or CE/ C shall be provided. The provisions shall also be incorporated in the
GAD and approved by competent authority.

(viii) Only standard ROSO design RCC boxes shall be constructed at all
locations. In exceptional cases where it is not feasible to adopt ROSO
designs, specially designed RCC boxes may be constructed with the
approval of PCE or CAO/ C. It shall be ensured that provisions of para
13.4.1 of "Concrete Bridge Code - Reprint 2014" are duly complied while
designing the non-ROSO standards RCC boxes.

This issues with the approval of Board (Member /Infra).

~1-
(0. N.'shJ~~,
Director CE (B&S)

Copy for information and necessary action:

1. Chief Commissioner of Railway Safety
2. CMD/RVNL, IRCON, KRCL, MRVC, RITES
3. DG/RDSO & IRICEN
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO

Scanned by CamScanner
File No.RDSO-BnS0ESTR(BnF)/3/2021-O/o ED/STRUCTURES/RDSO