A. Abdul Sathar v. Kerala Chamber of Commerce and Industry & State of Kerala and others

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** ## **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR`** ## **`&`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.`** ``` TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ## **`RP NO. 1054 OF 2023`** ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 222/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ## **`REVIEW PETITIONER/ADDL.13TH RESPONDENT:`** ``` A. ABDUL SATHAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O. ALIKUNJU, MATHERAYYATHU, PUNNAKKULAM, KULASHEKHARAPURAM P.O.,KARUNAGAPPLLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690544. BY ADVS. P.K.IBRAHIM K.P.AMBIKA SREEJI K.B. ZEENATH P.K. JABEENA K.M. ANAZ BIN IBRAHIM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 TO 12 & 14:`** ``` 1KERALA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN DR.BIJU RAMESH, CHAMBER CORNER, SHANMUGHAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682031 ``` ``` 2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 ``` ``` 3THE STATE POLICE CHIEF, POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014. ``` ``` 4COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA (MARXIST) REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, A.K.G. CENTRE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695034 ``` ``` 5INDIAN NATIONAL CONGRESS REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, KERALA PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE OFFICE, SASTHAMANGALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - ``` RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 2 ``` 695010 ``` - `6 COMMUNIST PARTY OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.N.SMARAKAM, MODEL SCHOOL JUNCTION, THYCAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014` - `7 BHARATHIYA JANATHA PARTY REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT, MARARJI BHAVAN, KUNNUKUZHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695037` - `8 INDIAN UNION MUSLIM LEAGUE REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PRESIDENT, C.H. MUHAMMED KOYA HOUSE, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673001` - `9 KERALA CONGRESS (MANI) REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, STATE COMMITTEE OFFICE, NEAR FIRE STATION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001` - `10 ADV. DEAN KURIAKOSE PRESIDENT, YOUTH CONGRESS, KERALA STATE UNIT, AGED 41, S/O. KURIAKOSE, ENANIKKAL VERDI, KULAPPURAM, PAINGOTTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN - 686671` - `11 M.C. KAMARUDEEN UDF CHAIRMAN, KASARAGODE DIST. & PRESIDENT, IUML KASARAGOD DIST., S/O. O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, MOILAKKARILATH HOUSE, NEAR GRAMIN BANK, EDACHAKKAI P.O., VIA PADANNA, KASARGOD, PIN - 671310` - `12 GOVINDAN NAIR UDF CONVENER, KASARAGODE DIST.& DCC SECRETARY,THANNITHODU, PERIYA POST, KASARAGOD, PIN - 671316` - `13 POPULAR FRONT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY STATE GENERAL SECRETARY, PIN - 673032` - `14 KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695023` ``` BY ADVS. K.SUDHINKUMAR T.ASAFALI M.MUHAMMED SHAFI SUJITH MATHEW JOSE, SC, PALA MUNICIPALITY ``` 3 RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 ``` SUMATHY DANDAPANI (SR.) P.A.MOHAMMED SHAH TONY GEORGE KANNANTHANAM SRI.N. MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY ``` ``` THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2023, ALONG WITH RP.880/2023, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 4 # **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** # **`THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR`** ``` & ``` ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. ``` ``` TUESDAY, THE 5[TH] DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1945 ``` ``` RP NO. 880 OF 2023 ``` ``` AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT WP(C) 244/2019 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA ``` ``` REVIEW PETITIONER/ADDL. 10TH RESPONDENT: ``` ``` A. ABDUL SATHAR AGED 50 YEARS S/O. ALIKUNJU, MATHERAYYATHU, PUNNAKKULAM, KULASHEKHARAPURAM P.O.,KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN – 690544. BY ADVS. P.K.IBRAHIM K.P.AMBIKA SREEJI K.B. ZEENATH P.K. JABEENA K.M. ANAZ BIN IBRAHIM ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 9:`** ``` 1MALAYALAVEDI REG. NO.182/09, REPRESENTED BY THE PRESIDENT, GEORGE VATTAKKULAM, S/O JOSEPH, AGED 56 YEARS, VATTAKULAM HOUSE, R.V. PURAM THRISSUR-680 631, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT CHALISSERY BUILDING, RICE BAZAAR ROAD, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001 2STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, CHIEF MINISTER'S OFFICE, 3RD FLOOR, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 001. 3STATE OF KERALA ``` RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 5 ``` REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, KERALA GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, STATUE ROAD, NEAR CENTRAL STADIUM, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD JUNCTION, PALAYAM, TRIVANDRUM, KERALA-695 001. ``` - `4 STATE SECRETARY CPI (M) AKG CENTER, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA695034.` - `5 PRESIDENT KERALA PRADESH CONGRESS COMMITTEE, INDIRA BHAVAN, VELLAYAAMBALAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695010.` - `6 STATE PRESIDENT BJP CHAMPION BHASKARAN ROAD, BARTON HILL COLONY, KUNNUKUZHY THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA-695033.` ``` 7ADV. DEAN KURIAKOSE PRESIDENT, YOUTH CONGRESS, KERALA STATE UNIT, AGED 37, S/O. KURIAKOSE, ENANIKKAL VERDI, KULAPPURAM, PAINGOTTOOR P.O., ERNAKULAM-686 671. ``` ``` 8M.C. KAMARUDEEN UDF CHAIRMAN, KASARAGODE DIST. AND PRESIDENT, IUML KASARGOD DIST., S/O. O. MUHAMMED KUNHI, MOILAKKARILATH HOUSE, NEAR GRAMIN BANK, EDACHAKKAI P.O., VIA PADANNA, KASARGOD-671310. 9A. GOVINDAN NAIR UDF CONVENER, KASARAGODE DIST. AND DCC SECRETARY, THANNITHODU, PERIYA POST, KASARGOD -671316. 10POPULAR FRONT OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY STATE GENERAL SECRETARY-673032. SRI.N. MANOJ KUMAR, STATE ATTORNEY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.11.2023, ALONG WITH RP.1054/2023, THE COURT ON 05.12.2023 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 6 ## **DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR** ## **& MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., JJ** .........................................................………….. R.P.No.1054 of 2023 in W.P(C) No.222 of 2019 and R.P.No.880 of 2023 in W.P(C) No.244 of 2019 ...........................................................…………. Dated this the 5[th] day of December, 2023 ## **O R D E R** ## Mohammed Nias C.P., J This Court, by order dated 07.01.2019 in W.P(C) Nos.222 of 2019 and 244 of 2019, relating to the legality of the calls for hartals and general strikes by various persons, including political parties in the State of Kerala, passed, _inter alia_ , the following direction;- “…..We therefore direct that any person, including any political party or other Association of persons, that proposes to call a general strike or hartal, shall give 7 clear days’ public notice of its intention to do so. The said period of seven clear days will, in our view, enable citizens who are opposed to the call for hartal/strike to approach this Court with their apprehensions as regards such call, and this Court can then examine the legality of such call for hartal/strike. The said notice period would also, in our view, enable the State/District administration to take such measures as are necessary to safeguard the interests of RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 7 the people on this State, in the event of any hartal/strike being permitted to be conducted in a lawful manner. We make it clear that hartals/strikes called without adhering to the above procedure, would be deemed illegal/unconstitutional, and while the same would entail adverse consequences to the person/party calling for the hartal, the said person/party would also be liable, on the principles of strict liability, for any loss/damage caused to citizens and government pursuant to the call for hartal/general strike.” 2. By order dated 23.9.2022, the Popular Front of India, represented by its State General Secretary and Sri. A.Abdul Sathar, State General Secretary, Popular Front of India, Kerala State Committee, were _suo motu_ impleaded as additional respondents 12 and 13 in the above writ petitions, taking note of the illegal call for hartal, in stark violation of the order referred above, made by them on 22.9.2022, scheduling the hartal on 23.9.2022. We also found that the action of the aforementioned persons in calling for hartal without following the procedure contemplated in the earlier order dated 07.01.2019, _prima facie_ , amounts to contempt of the directions of this Court. Accordingly, separate action for contempt of this Court’s order dated 07.01.2019 has been initiated against the respondents through Cont. Case (C) No.1766 of 2022. In our order dated 23.9.2022, we had given three clear directions to the police establishment of the State to ensure that adequate measures are put in place to prevent any damage/destruction to public/private property of Government/citizens who do not support the call for hartal. 3. The writ petitions were thereafter posted to 29.9.2022 for the report of the State Government. On that day, the 1[st] respondent in the contempt case was not RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 8 present but was represented by a lawyer, who accepted notice on behalf of respondents 1 and 2. We were also informed that the 1[st] respondent was arrested the previous day and produced before the NIA Court. On the same day, a report was filed by the State indicating the steps taken by the State Government to prevent the untoward acts of violence and the extent of destruction caused to public/private property with supporting documents on behalf of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, and the loss suffered was estimated to be Rs.5,06,21,382/-. We passed an order on 29-9-2022 holding that the 12[th] and 13[th] respondents in the writ petitions were wholly and directly responsible for the injuries inflicted on the members of the citizenry by their supporters and also for the damage/destruction caused to public/private property by the said persons by their illegal call for the flash hartal. We also reiterated the earlier declarations and directions in the order dated 07.01.2019 referred to above, passed directions holding the 12[th] and 13[th ] respondents responsible for the illegal actions and directed them to deposit within two weeks an amount of Rs.5.20 crores with the Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, towards the damages estimated by the State Government as well as the KSRTC as arising from the destruction/damage caused to public/private property in the State. It was further directed that in the absence of deposit as mentioned above, the State Government shall take immediate steps, inter alia, by invoking the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act, to proceed against the assets/properties of the additional 12[th] respondent organisation, as well as the personal assets of its office bearers including the Secretary, the additional 13[th] respondent, for realisation of the aforesaid deposit amount. We had made clear that the amount so realised shall be purely provisional and duly accounted for and held by the State Government in a separate and dedicated RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 9 account for disbursal to those claimants identified by the Claims Commissioner as entitled to such amounts. The respondents were also found to be liable to such further amounts as are found to be payable to the claimants in the adjudication proceedings before the Claims Commissioner. 4. Thereafter, on 8.11.2022, taking note of the memo filed on behalf of the Sub Inspector of Police, Panniyankara police station, to the effect that notices sent to additional respondent Nos.12 and 13 could not be served on them on account of the ban and subsequent dissolution of the additional 12[th] respondent organisation and the incarceration of the additional 13[th] respondent in the Viyyur High Security Prison, Thrissur, we directed the notices in the writ petitions to be served on the additional 13[th] respondent through the Superintendent of Central Prison, Viyyur, where the 13[th] respondent was stated to be incarcerated. 5. The above orders dated 23.9.2022, 29.9.2022 and 8.11.2022 passed in W.P(C) No.222/2019 and W.P(C) No.244/2019 were challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(C) No.10350/2023 and by order dated 17.4.2023, permission was granted to withdraw the Special Leave Petition with liberty to file a review petition and accordingly, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn with the above liberty. These review petitions are filed challenging the orders referred to above, along with applications to condone the delay of 234 and 250 days, respectively, in filing the review petitions, which were allowed and the delay condoned. RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 10 6. Before us, the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Raju Ramachandran, instructed by Adv. P.K. Ibrahim submitted that the impugned orders were passed without notice to the 13[th] respondent as he was served only on 14.11.2022 in the writ petition. He also argues that the quantification of the amount of Rs.5,06,21,382/- was made in his absence, depriving him of an opportunity to dispute the quantification/estimate made by the State Government as well as by the KSRTC and the same has seriously prejudiced him more so when the reason for his non-appearance on the earlier postings was not attributable to him. The lack of hearing in the instant case is fatal, as a post-decisional hearing would serve no purpose. He also pointed out that consequent to the orders passed by this Court, he was dispossessed from his property. The learned Senior Counsel also raised a contention that the case was posted before this Court in violation of the roster allocation and without getting orders from the Chief Justice. It was also argued that the Claims Commissioner has no authority to investigate any claims in the instant case as his appointment was solely for the hartals that occurred earlier, and therefore, his actions are illegal. The judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in **Indian Council for EnviroAction v. Union of India and others [(2011) 8 SCC 161]** as well as **Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Limited and others [2012 9 SCC 683]** were relied on to support his contentions on the aspect of violation of natural justice. 7. The learned State Attorney Sri. N. Manojkumar, opposing the review petitions, submits that this Court issued notice and it could not be served at his residential address because he was arrested by that time and therefore, notice was RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 11 served through the jail authorities. It is also pointed out that the Claims Commissioner was appointed on the directions of this Court to act as the Claims Commissioner for the damages caused in the hartal in question, and Ext.R2(a) order of the Government, dated 1.11.2022, was only a consequential order. 8. Having considered the rival contentions, we are not in a position to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the review petitioners for more reasons than one. The orders that were passed on 23.9.2022, 29.9.2022, and 8.11.2022 were all in continuation of the orders passed by this Court dated 07.01.2019, finding that the actions of the review petitioners were in gross violation of the same. The contention that the petitioner was not heard before quantification or directing to deposit is again wrong as this Court had only taken note of the estimate prepared by the State Government/KSRTC and directed deposit more like a provisional/conditional attachment, pending the final adjudication. The correctness of the estimate/quantum assessed by the State Government/KSRTC is yet to be decided, and the petitioner will be free to point out his contentions and resist the quantification. What was ordered initially was only a deposit subject to the quantification of actual liability. Quantification must follow the procedure stipulated in the decision, particularly the one reported in **In Re: Destruction of Public & Private Properties v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2009) 5 SCC 212].** On the argument that the petitioner was not heard, it is relevant to note that notice was issued in the writ petition and in the contempt case, and it could not be served only on account of the reason already stated. Even otherwise, we do not think that the lack of notice has prejudiced the petitioner in any manner, as we had made it clear that the deposit was RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 12 subject to the final adjudication, and the same was warranted on account of the undisputed fact that the petitioner gave the call for a hartal and that the damages/destruction was wholly and directly due to the call for hartal. 9. We note from _para_ -4 of the review petition that, following the nationwide raid of the office of the PFI and the arrest of its office bearers, distressed by the same, a press conference was held at 10 a.m. on 22.9.2022 and announced the decision to hold a hartal on 23.9.2022. In view of the admission by the petitioners themselves, there cannot be any doubt that the call was illegal and against the order passed by this Court on 7-1-2019 and therefore, the responsibility for the acts of damage/destruction on account of the said illegal call had to be fastened on the review petitioners. We do not find anything in the decisions the learned Senior Counsel relied on to support his contentions on the lack of notice, as in both cases considered by the Apex Court, final judgment was pronounced without the affected party concerned being served with a notice. For these reasons, we reject the contention as regards lack of notice. 10. The further contention of the learned Senior Counsel that the cases were posted contrary to the roster allocation also cannot be accepted as the Contempt of Court case was initiated after getting permission from the Chief Justice, and the premise on which this Contempt of Court case was initiated was the violation of the orders passed in the same writ petition mentioned above. The writ petitions were also transferred to this Bench with the consent of the Chief Justice. The contention in this regard made by the learned Senior Counsel is only to be rejected. RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 13 11. We also note that pursuant to the orders impugned in these review petitions, steps have been taken in furtherance of those orders, and quantification is nearly complete. At this distance of time, when the Claims Commissioner is almost nearing completion of the adjudication process, there is no scope for a review of the impugned orders so as to put the clock back or undo the actions taken to date. We, however, note the contention of the learned Senior Counsel, as stated in the review petitions, that respondent No.13 and his family were dispossessed from their house. We hold that there was no direction in any of the orders to dispossess any person. The learned State Attorney fairly concurs with this by stating that immediate steps will be taken to restore the possession of respondent No.13. We record this, and there will be a direction to do the same without any further delay if it has not been done so far. We find no error apparent on the face of the record or any analogous ground to entertain these review petitions. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in the review petitions, which are dismissed. Sd/- ## **DR.A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** Sd/- **MOHAMMED NIAS C.P. JUDGE** okb/ RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 14 ## **`APPENDIX OF RP 880/2023`** ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` - `Annexure A1 TRUE COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION/BYE-LAW OF THE PFI` - `Annexure A2 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER IN 222/2019 ON 14.11.2022 AT HIGH SECURITY, PRISON VIYYUR` - `Annexure A2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICES RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER IN 244/2019 ON 14.11.2022 AT HIGH SECURITY, PRISON VIYYUR` - `AnnexureA3 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED AT THE HOUSE OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER DATED 31.12.2022 UNDER SECTION 7 AND 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK` - `Annexure A3(a) TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED AT THE HOUSE OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER DATED 31.12.2022 UNDER SECTION 7 AND 34 OF THE REVENUE RECOVERY ACT BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK` - `Annexure A4 TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 07.01.2023 MADE AT THE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPILLY WHICH STANDS ACKNOWLEDGED AT THE OFFICE ON 10.01.2023` - `Annexure A5 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.01.2023 RECEIVED BY THE WIFE OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER` - `Annexure A6 TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2023 ASSUMING THE MANAGEMENT OF THE ATTACHED PROPERTY OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER` - `Annexure A7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED 17.04.2023 IN SLP 10350/2023` - `Annexure A8 TRUE COPY OF THE ROSTER OF 23.09.2022 PUBLISHED BY THE HIGH COURT INDICATING THE ALLOTMENT OF CASES ON SUBJECT-WISE` - `Impugned Order CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 IN WPC NO.244 OF 2019` RP.1054/2023 in W.P(C) 222/2019 & RP. 880/2023 in W.P(C) 244/2019 15 ## **`APPENDIX OF RP 1054/2023`** ## `PETITIONER ANNEXURES` |`Annexure -A1`|`TRUE COPY OF THE CONSTITUTION/BYE-LAW OF THE PFI`| |---|---| |`Annexure-A 2`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COURT OF JUDICATURE`| ||`OF THE STATE OF KERALA, RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER IN WPC`| ||`NO. 222/2019 ON 10.11.2022`| |`Annexure -A2(a)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE COURT OF JUDICATURE`| ||`OF THE STATE OF KERALA, RECEIVED BY THE PETITIONER IN IN`| ||`WP(C) 244/2019 ON 10.11.2022`| |`Annexure -A3`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED AT THE HOUSE OF THE REVIEW`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 31.12.2022 UNDER SECTION 7`| |`Annexure-A3(a)`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE SERVED AT THE HOUSE OF THE REVIEW`| ||`PETITIONER DATED 31.12.2022 UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE REVENUE`| ||`RECOVERY ACT BY THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPILLY TALUK`| |`Annexure -A4`|`TRUE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 07.01.2023 MADE AT THE`| ||`OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY TAHSILDAR, KARUNAGAPPILLY WHICH STANDS`| ||`ACKNOWLEDGED AT THE OFFICE ON 10.01.2023`| |`Annexure -A5`|`TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION DATED 20.01.2023 RECEIVED BY`| ||`THE WIFE OF THE REVIEW PETITIONER`| |`Annexure -A6`|`TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 21.01.2023 ASSUMING THE`| ||`MANAGEMENT OF THE ATTACHED PROPERTY OF THE REVIEW`| ||`PETITIONER`| |`Annexure -A7`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DATED`| ||`17.04.2023 IN SLP 10350/2023`| |`Annexure -A8`|`TRUE COPY OF THE ROSTER OF 23.09.2022 PUBLISHED BY THE HIGH`| ||`COURT INDICATING THE ALLOTMENT OF CASES ON SUBJECT-WISE`| |`Impugned Order`|`CERTIFIED COPY OF THE COMMON ORDER DATED 23.09.2022 IN WPC`| ||`NO.222 OF 2019`|