JUDGMENT : MANISH CHOUDHURY, J. Invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the present writ petition is preferred to assail inter alia a direction made by the Intelligence Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau [NCB] & Investigating Officer [I.O] of the case, NCB Crime Case no. 06 of 2018, whereby, the I.O. had directed freezing of one Savings Bank Account no. 125210034195 maintained by the petitioner at Beltola Branch, Guwahati of the Dena Bank. The petitioner has also challenged the actions on the part of the respondent NCB authorities in seizing and blacklisting of four nos. of vehicles belonging to the petitioner, bearing registration nos. [i] AS-01/FC-6769 [Three wheeler goods carriage]; [ii] AS-01/BH-0255 [LMV]; [iii] AS-01/JC-4657 [Bus MPV]; and [iv] [AS-01/JC-2577 [Bus MPV]. 2. The events which have led to the issuance of the aforesaid direction to freeze the bank account of the petitioner and resulted in seizure and blacklisting of the afore-mentioned vehicles, belonging to the petitioner, can be narrated at first, in brief. 3. On receipt of an information from a reliable source at the Zonal Office, Guwahati of the NCB that a person named Ranjan Sarkar along with two other persons would be carrying a huge quantity of contraband, Ganja by concealing the same in the roof-top carrier above the cabin of a truck bearing registration no. TR-01/B-1777 on 08.05.2018, the information was reduced into writing by the concerned officer in the NCB. On being informed to the immediate superior, the Superintendent of NCB, Guwahati Zonal Unit, a team was formed to be led by the Superintendent of NCB, Guwahati Zonal Unit to intercept the truck. An Officer of the NCB was authorized to search, seize and arrest in case of any recovery made on the basis of the information and interception. The team of the NCB, Guwahati Zonal Unit then proceeded to Gorchuk Chariali at around 09.40 a.m. on 08.05.2018. 4. Finding the truck bearing Registration no. TR-01/B-1777 proceeding towards Jalukbari, the NCB team intercepted the truck at a place on the National Highway, around 500 metres from Gorchuk Chariali. The intercepted truck was searched in presence of independent witnesses by the personnel from the NCB team after giving their introduction. In the truck, three persons, namely, [i] Ranjan Sarkar; [ii] Madhu Dey; and [iii] Akash Majumdar; were found as occupants. The intercepted truck was searched in presence of independent witnesses by the personnel from the NCB team after giving their introduction. In the truck, three persons, namely, [i] Ranjan Sarkar; [ii] Madhu Dey; and [iii] Akash Majumdar; were found as occupants. On search of the roof-top carrier above the cabin of the truck, three gunny bags/sacks containing suspected Cannabis [Ganja] were recovered. A small quantity of the dried flowering tops were thereafter, taken out from each of the three sacks and tested separately with the help of the Drug Detection Kit carried by the NCB team and on being tested, they gave positive results for Cannabis [Ganja]. On weighment, the total weight of the three bags, after marking them as P1, P2 & P3, was found to be 45.050 Kg [P1 = 18.650 Kg + P2 = 17.250 Kg + P3 = 09.150 Kg]. Further search did not result in further recovery of any contraband. Apart from the three sacks containing Cannabis [Ganja], the documents pertaining to the truck bearing no. TR-01/B- 1777 and other articles found in the possession of the three occupants were seized by the NCB team by preparing a Search-cum-Seizure List and a Panchanama at the spot. The statements of the three occupants - accused persons were recorded under Section 67 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 [‘the NDPS Act’, for short]. 5. It was on the basis of the statements of the three accused persons, already apprehended, the NCB team looked out for the petitioner viz. Dhan Boro on the purported ground that the seized consignment of Cannabis [Ganja] were meant for delivery to the petitioner at his Dhaba at Beltola, Guwahati in the evening hours of 08.05.2018. Accordingly, the petitioner was apprehended and arrested on 08.05.2018 itself and a nos. of articles were seized from the possession of the petitioner by preparing a Search-cum-Seizure List and a Panchanama. 6. During the course of further investigation, financial investigation was also initiated as per the provisions of Chapter VA of the NDPS Act against the petitioner. The bank account, mentioned hereinabove, maintained by the petitioner at Dena Bank was freezed during the course of such financial investigation. It was further found during the course of investigation that the petitioner owned five nos. of vehicles including two Force Traveller buses. The bank account, mentioned hereinabove, maintained by the petitioner at Dena Bank was freezed during the course of such financial investigation. It was further found during the course of investigation that the petitioner owned five nos. of vehicles including two Force Traveller buses. The I.O. of the case on the premise that the vehicles were purchased by the petitioner from the income earned from illegal inter-state dealing, selling and possessing of contraband, Cannabis [Ganja], the vehicles, mentioned hereinabove, were also seized. On instruction communicated to the concerned District Transport Office, that is, the District Transport Officer, Kamrup [M], Guwahati, the vehicles were blacklisted by the District Transport Office, Kamrup [M], Guwahati as the registering authority. As per the statement uploaded in the portal, M-Parivahan, the vehicles were blacklisted pursuant to an Order received from the NCB vide a Communication bearing no. F.NO-13/03/GANJA/GHY/208/3783-3786 dated 03.08.2019. 7. The recovery of 45.050 Kg of Cannabis [Ganja] on 08.05.2018 led to registration of a crime case, NCB Crime Case no. 06 of 2018. After completion of investigation of the case, NCB Crime Case no. 06 of 2018, the I.O. of the case submitted a Complaint on 03.11.2018 before the learned Special Court, Kamrup [M] at Guwahati under Section 36A[1][d] of the NDPS Act finding a prima facie case for commission of the offence under Section 8[C] of the NDPS Act, punishable under Section 20[b][ii][C], Section 29 and Section 35 of the NDPS Act, against 4 [four] nos. of accused persons, namely, [i] Ranjan Sarkar; [ii] Madhu Dey @ Akash Dey; [iii] Akash Majumdar; [iv] Dhan Boro @ Dhon Boro [the petitioner]; [v] Rupan Dey @ Amar; and [vi] Amrendra Sarkar @ Amar Sarkar. The first four accused persons were arrested during the course of investigation but the remaining two were found absconding at the time of submission of the Complaint under Section 36A[1][d] of the NDPS Act and it was accordingly reported by the I.O. 8. On submission of the Complaint under Section 36A[1][d] of the NDPS Act, the learned Special Court registered the case as NDPS Case no. 92 of 2018 and proceeded with the trial after framing the charges and explaining them thereafter, to the accused facing the trial on 27.08.2019. On submission of the Complaint under Section 36A[1][d] of the NDPS Act, the learned Special Court registered the case as NDPS Case no. 92 of 2018 and proceeded with the trial after framing the charges and explaining them thereafter, to the accused facing the trial on 27.08.2019. After appreciation of the evidence led by the parties during the trial and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Special Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 3 [FTC], Kamrup [M], Guwahati delivered a Judgment and Order on 07.09.2022 in NDPS Case no. 92 of 2018. By the Judgment and Order on 07.09.2022, the learned Special Court finding the three accused persons :- [i] Ranjan Sarkar; [ii] Madhu Dey; and [iii] Akash Mazumder; guilty for the offence under Section 20[b][ii][C] of the NDPS Act, convicted them accordingly and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years each and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- each, with default stipulation. The learned Special Court had, however, acquitted the petitioner from the charge under Section 20[b][ii][C] of the NDPS Act finding that the contraband was not recovered or seized from the possession of the petitioner. The learned Special Court had observed that the petitioner was implicated on the basis of the statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act and other than the said statements, there were no other evidence to fasten the accused with the charge. The learned Special Court had further observed that the articles / goods which were seized from the petitioner should be returned to him after following due process of law. 9. In order to challenge that part of the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2022 whereby the petitioner was acquitted from the charge under Section 20[b][ii][C] of the NDPS Act by way of appeal, the NCB preferred an application for leave to appeal under Section 378 [3], Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before this Court and the same was registered and numbered as Criminal Leave Petition no. 19/2023. When the said application for leave came up for consideration on 17.12.2024, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the contents of the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2022, has refused grant the leave to appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, Criminal Leave Petition no. 19/2023 by an Order dated 17.12.2024. 10. When the said application for leave came up for consideration on 17.12.2024, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the contents of the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2022, has refused grant the leave to appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal, Criminal Leave Petition no. 19/2023 by an Order dated 17.12.2024. 10. The instant writ petition with the afore-mentioned challenges, are to be considered in the above conspectus of facts. 11. I have heard Mr. P. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned Special Counsel, NCB for the respondent nos. 2 & 3; Mr. M. Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent no. 4; and Ms. M.D. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department for the respondent no. 5. 12. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after acquittal of the petitioner from the charge of Section 20[b][ii][C], NDPS Act by the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2022 delivered in NDPS Case no. 92 of 2018, the leave sought for to appeal by the respondent NCB in Criminal Leave Petition no. 19/2023 was declined. After rejection of the criminal leave petition, the respondent NCB has not preferred any appeal to challenge the said decision and as a result, the order of acquittal passed in favour of the petitioner has, therefore, attained finality. Referring to the provisions contained in Chapter VA of the NDPS Act, he has submitted that the petitioner could, at best, be termed as a person, who fell in the category of persons defined under Section 68A[2] [cc] thereof and since the petitioner has been acquitted in the trial, the provisions of Section 68Z [2] of the NDPS Act is applicable in the case in hand. It is further submitted by him that it is evident from the Order dated 11.02.2019, the respondent NCB authorities had only initiated proceedings under Section 68F of the NDPS Act. After the Order dated 11.02.2019 which was an Order of Confirmation under Section 68F [2] of the NDPS Act no proceeding for forfeiture of the properties, so seized, were initiated. In such view of the matter, the Order of freezing of the bank account in question as well as the Orders of blacklisting of the vehicles is no longer sustainable in law. 13. Ms. In such view of the matter, the Order of freezing of the bank account in question as well as the Orders of blacklisting of the vehicles is no longer sustainable in law. 13. Ms. Bora, learned Standing Counsel, Transport Department has referred to the statements and averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent no. 5 and has submitted that the vehicles were blacklisted as per the instructions of the NCB, received vide a Communication bearing no. F.NO. CA/KOL/NDPS/AS-B-3/2018-19/2644 dated 11.02.2019. 14. Mr. Keyal, learned Special Counsel, NCB has submitted that though the vehicles were seized and blacklisted by virtue of the Order dated 11.02.2019, the possession of the vehicles remained with the petitioner only since then and the respondent NCB authorities have not taken over the possession of those vehicles till date. He has contended that all the properties which were seized and freezed by the Order dated 11.02.2019, were acquired for by the petitioner within six years from the date of his arrest on 08.05.2018. He has, however, fairly submitted that there is no material to indicate that the NCB had subsequently initiated any proceeding for forfeiture under Section 68H of the NDPS Act. Further, he has no instruction regarding filing of any appeal against the Order dated 17.12.2024. 15. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the materials brought on record. No counter has been filed on behalf of the respondent NCB authorities. 16. It is noticed that the petitioner was acquitted from the charge under Section 20[b][ii][C] of the NDPS Act after conclusion of the trial in NDPS Case no. 92 of 2018. The trial of NDPS Case no. 92 of 2018 was brought to conclusion by the learned Special Court with the delivery of the Judgment and Order dated 07.09.2022. Thereafter, an application for leave to appeal was preferred by the respondent NCB before this Court and the prayer for leave to appeal was declined by an Order dated 17.12.2024 passed in Criminal Leave Petition no. 19/2023. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred thereafter, by the respondent NCB against the Order dated 17.12.2024, meaning thereby, the acquittal of the petitioner from the charge under Section 20[b][ii][C] of the NDPS Act has attained finality. 17. 19/2023. Admittedly, no appeal has been preferred thereafter, by the respondent NCB against the Order dated 17.12.2024, meaning thereby, the acquittal of the petitioner from the charge under Section 20[b][ii][C] of the NDPS Act has attained finality. 17. On perusal of the Order dated 11.02.2019, it is noticed that the said Order is a Order of Confirmation passed by the Competent Authority under sub- section [2] of Section 68 of the NDPS Act. From the Order dated 11.02.2019, it is further noticed that after recovery of the consignment of Cannabis [Ganja], weighing 45.050 Kg, from inside the truck bearing registration no. TR-01/B- 1777, the petitioner was treated as a person covered under Section 68A [2][cc] of the NDPS Act. After registration of the NCB Crime Case no. 06 of 2018, the I.O. of the case also conducted financial investigation as to whether the petitioner as a person under Section 68A[2][cc] of the NDPS Act had acquired properties illegally. It was in the course of such financial investigation, the I.O. of the case had brought the following properties within the scope of his investigation :- Schedule of Properties Bank Account : Name of the account holder Name of Bank & Branch Name Savings Bank Account Number Balance Amount [in Rs.] Shri Dhan Boro @ Dhon Boro, S/o Late Horen Boro Dena Bank, 1st Floor, Beltola – Bashishtha Road, Basishthapur, Guwahati, Assam – 781028 125210034195 [Saving Account] 3,50,507 Vehicles : Sl. No. Owner of the vehicles Details of the identified vehicles [Note seized] Approx. value [in Rs.] 1. Shri Dhan Boro @ Dhon Boro Grand I10 Sportz, Registration No. AS-01-BH-0255 5,00,000 2. Shri Dhan Boro @ Dhon Boro Traveler T2 Tourist Bus Registration No. AS-01-JC-4657 17,00,000 3. Shri Dhan Boro @ Dhon Boro Traveler T2 Tourist Bus Registration No. AS-01-JC-2577 17,00,000 4. Shri Dhan Boro @ Dhon Boro Honda Aviator Motor cycle Registration No. AS-01-BQ-5218 50,000 5. Shri Dhan Boro @ Dhon Boro Mahindra Alfa Pick Up Van Registration No. AS-01-FC-6769 1,00,000 18. It was mentioned in the Order dated 11.02.2019 that to provide an opportunity of being heard, a notice dated 21.01.2019 was sent to the petitioner as the affected person under Section 68A [2][cc] of the NDPS Act. The Order dated 11.02.2019 which was passed by the Competent Authority had further recorded that none appeared on behalf of the effected person nor any submission / reply was filed. The Order dated 11.02.2019 which was passed by the Competent Authority had further recorded that none appeared on behalf of the effected person nor any submission / reply was filed. The said fact has, however, been disputed by Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner by submitting that no such notice was ever received by the petitioner. Be that as it may. The Competent Authority in its Order dated 11.02.2019 had recorded the following findings and passed the following Order :- FINDINGS I have carefully considered the facts and examined the records. A preliminary enquiry has been conducted by the officer freezing/seizing the properties, who has carried out financial investigation and on the basis of the same, observed in the freezing order that he has reason to believe that the properties in question have been acquired from money derived from the illicit trafficking of drugs. The case is further strengthened by the fact that the AP choose not to appear on the date of hearing to defend his case in spite of being given specific opportunity to do so. ORDER I, XXXX, in view of the above findings, in exercise of the power conferred on me by virtue of Section 68F [2] of the NDPS Act, 1985, hereby confirm the aforesaid freezing order No. 13/03/Fin/Ganja/NCB/Ghy/2018-3785-86 dated 18.01.2019 passed by the Intelligent Officer, Narcotics Control Bureau, Guwahati Zonal Unit, Guwahati and further direct that such properties as per Annexure to this order shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with in any manner except with the prior permission of the undersigned. 19. By sub-section [1] of Section 68A, the provisions of Chapter VA have been made applicable only to the persons specified in sub-section [2] thereof. It was in the course of investigation of NCB Crime Case no. 06 of 2018, the petitioner came to be arrested on 08.05.2018. On perusal of the clauses from [a] to [f] of sub-section [2] of Section 68A, it would appear that the petitioner would fall within the category of persons defined in Clause [cc] of Section 68A [2]. As per Section 68A[2][cc], the provisions of Chapter VA become applicable inter-alia in respect of every person who has been arrested or against whom a warrant or authorisation of arrest has been issued for the commission of an offence punishable under this Act with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more. 20. As per Section 68A[2][cc], the provisions of Chapter VA become applicable inter-alia in respect of every person who has been arrested or against whom a warrant or authorisation of arrest has been issued for the commission of an offence punishable under this Act with imprisonment for a term of ten years or more. 20. The Order dated 11.02.2019 was an Order passed under sub-section [2] of Section 68F of the NDPS Act. 21. Section 68F has provided for seizure or freezing of illegally acquired property. ‘Illegally acquired property’ is defined in Section 68B[g] of the NDPS Act. On a reading of the provisions of Section 68F, it is evident that the proceeding under Section 68F can be undertaken after identifying illegally acquired property under the provisions of Section 68E. 22. For ready reference, the provisions of Section 68E and Section 68F of the NDPS Act are quoted herein below :- 68E. Identifying illegally acquired property . — [1] Every officer empowered under section 53 and every officer-in-charge of a police station shall, or receipt of information is satisfied that any person to whom this Chapter applies holds any illegally acquired property, he may, after recording reasons for doing so, proceed to take all steps necessary for tracing and identifying such property. [2] The steps referred to in sub-section [1] may include any inquiry, investigation or survey in respect of any person, place, property, assets, documents, books of account in any bank or public financial institution or any other relevant matters. [3] Any inquiry, investigation or survey referred to in sub-section [2] shall be carried out by an officer mentioned in sub-section [1] in accordance with such directions or guidelines as the competent authority may make or issue in this behalf. 68F. [3] Any inquiry, investigation or survey referred to in sub-section [2] shall be carried out by an officer mentioned in sub-section [1] in accordance with such directions or guidelines as the competent authority may make or issue in this behalf. 68F. Seizure or freezing of illegally acquired property .— [1] Where any officer conducting an inquiry or investigation under section 68E has reason to believe that any property in relation to which such inquiry or investigation is being conducted is an illegally acquired property and such property is likely to be concealed, transferred or dealt with in any manner which will result in frustrating any proceeding relating to forfeiture of such property under this Chapter, he may make an order for seizing such property and where it is not practicable to seize such property, he may make an order that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with the prior permission of the officer making such order, or of the competent authority and a copy of such order shall be served on the person concerned. Provided that the competent authority shall be duly informed of any order made under this subsection and a copy of such an order shall be sent to the competent authority within forty-eight hours of its being made. [2] Any order made under sub-section [1] shall have no effect unless the said order is confirmed by an order of the competent authority within a period of thirty days of its being made. Explanation. — For the purposes of this section, ‘transfer of property’ means any disposition, conveyance, assignment, settlement, delivery, payment or other alienation of property and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes— [a] the creation of a trust in property; [b] the grant or creation of any lease, mortgage, charge, easement, licence, power, partnership or interest in property; [c] the exercise of a power of appointment of property vested in any person, not the owner of the property, to determine its disposition in favour of any person other than the donee of the power; and [d] any transaction entered into by any person with intent thereby to diminish directly or indirectly the value of his own property and to increase the value of the property of any other person. 23. 23. From a combined reading of Section 68E and Section 68F, it is discernible that the empowered officer or the Officer-in-Charge, as the case may be, has, at first, to reach a satisfaction himself that the person holds any illegally acquired property and after recording reasons for doing so, such an officer can proceed to take all steps necessary for tracing and identifying such property. Thereafter, if he has reason to believe that any property in relation to which any investigation is being conducted is an illegally acquired property and such property is likely to be concealed or transferred or dealt with in any manner which would result in frustrating any proceeding relating to forfeiture of property in Chapter VA, he may make an order for seizing such property and where it is not practicable, he may make an order that such property shall not be transferred or otherwise dealt with, except with the prior permission of the officer making such order, or of the competent authority. An order made by the empowered officer under sub-section [1] of Section 68F shall have no effect unless the said order is confirmed by an order of the Competent Authority, appointed under Section 68D, under sub-section [2] of Section 68F within a period of thirty days from its being made. 24. Subsequent to an order of confirmation of the Competent Authority under sub-section [2] of Section 65F, the authority can proceed for an action of forfeiting the allegedly illegally acquired property and for the purpose of forfeiture of such property, he has to proceed as per the provisions of Section 68H of the NDPS Act by issuance of a notice. The proceeding for forfeiture is to be initiated under Section 68H by the Competent Authority by issuance of a show cause notice. A proper application of mind on the part of the Competent Authority is sine qua non before a show cause notice. Section 68H has provided for fulfillment of two requirements by the Compentent Authority, firstly, has to form an opinion in regard to his reason to believe on the basis of the materials available before him; and secondly, he must record the reasons for such belief in writing. Thereafter, the order of forfeiture can be passed in terms of Section 68I of the NPDS Act. Thereafter, the order of forfeiture can be passed in terms of Section 68I of the NPDS Act. Nothing has been brought on record to the effect that after the confirmation Order passed under sub-section [2] of Section 65F of the NDPS Act by the Competent Authority any proceeding has been initiated for forfeiture of any of the properties seized from the petitioner, mentioned in the Schedule of Properties, quoted hereinabove, much less an order of forfeiture. 25. Mr. Kataki, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted to the effect that in such obtaining fact situation, the provisions of Section 68Z, more particularly, sub-section [2] thereof would be applicable. 26. Section 68Z of the NDPS Act has provided as under :- 68Z. Release of property in certain cases .— [1] Where the detention order of a detenu is set aside or withdrawn, properties seized or frozen under this Chapter shall stand released. [2] Where any person referred to in clause [a] or clause [b] or clause [cc] of sub-section [2] of section 68A has been acquitted or discharged from the charges under this Act or any other corresponding law of any other country and the acquittal was not appealed against or when appealed against, the appeal was disposed of as a consequence of which such property could not be forfeited or warrant of arrest or authorisation of arrest issued against such person has been withdrawn, then, property seized or frozen under this Chapter shall stand released.] 27. As per sub-section [2] of Section 68Z, where any person referred to any Clause [cc] of sub-section [2] of Section 68A has been acquitted or discharged from the charges under the NDPS Act and the acquittal was not appealed against or when appealed against, the appeal was disposed of as a consequence of which such property could not be forfeited, then, property seized or frozen under Chapter-VA shall stand released. 28. As mentioned above, the petitioner can, at best, be brought under the category of persons, defined in Section 68A [2][cc] of the NDPS Act. With the dismissal of the application to leave by Order dated 17.12.2024 and with no appeal being preferred against the said Order, as on date, the factum of acquittal of the petitioner from the charge under Section 20[b][ii][C] of the NDPS Act is holding the field. With the dismissal of the application to leave by Order dated 17.12.2024 and with no appeal being preferred against the said Order, as on date, the factum of acquittal of the petitioner from the charge under Section 20[b][ii][C] of the NDPS Act is holding the field. As a result, the provisions contained in sub-section [2] of Section 68Z is found applicable on all force in the case in hand, with no forfeiture proceeding initiated in the interregnum resulting in any order of forfeiture. Consequently, any property seized under the provisions of Section 68F of the NDPS Act are required to be released. 29. In view of the above discussion and for the reasons recorded, the Savings Bank Account no. 125210034195 maintained by the petitioner in Beltola Branch, Guwahati of the Dena Bank [presently, Bank of Baroda], which was freezed w.e.f. 03.08.2018 on the instruction of the respondent NCB, shall be required to be defreezed with immediate effect. Similarly, the blacklisting of the vehicles mentioned in the Schedule of Properties, quoted in the Order dated 11.02.2019, and any other restrictions imposed thereby shall have to be removed with immediate effect by the respondent District Transport Officer, Kamrup [M] [the respondent no. 5]. It is ordered accordingly. 30. Since it is submitted that the possession of the afore-mentioned vehicles have remained with the petitioner since the Order of blacklisting, there is no necessity to pass any further order, save and except confirming the possession of those vehicles. 31. The writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall, however, be no order as to cost.