High Court of KeralaSingle JudgeWrit petition dismissed; Contempt of Court Case...

Anampacha Suresh and others v. State of Kerala and others

Case / Petition Number:W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017

Case Details & Bench

Court
High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges
  • A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar
Judgment Date
2019-07-01
Court Decision / Holding
Writ petition dismissed; Contempt of Court Case closed.
Final Disposition
Writ petition dismissed; Contempt of Court Case closed.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

  • ANAMPACHA SURESH S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI
  • KALLARA BIJU
  • B.BABY PILLAI
  • GIRIJA S.R
  • PACHAYIL VIJAYAN
  • SHANIBA.A
  • VALSALAKUMARI
  • FASEELA BEEVI.M

Respondents

  • State of Kerala represented by its Principal Secretary to Government, Local Self Government Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Director of Panchayath, Directorate of Panchayath, Public Office Museum P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Deputy Director of Panchayath, Office of the Deputy Director of Panchayath, Civil Station, Kodappanakkunnu P.O., Thiruvananthapuram
  • The Kallara Grama Panchayath, represented by its Secretary
  • The President, Kallara Grama Panchayath

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

  • • Sri. D. Sajeev
  • • Smt. Ligey Antony

Counsels for Respondents

  • • Sri. Sivan Madathil

Case Synopsis & Summary

This is a Kerala High Court writ petition (W.P.(C).No.8004/2017) with Contempt Case (C).No.1084/2017 concerning eight elected members of the Kallara Grama Panchayath who challenge Ext.P3, a January 28, 2017 resolution to revise Projects 6 and 7 by infusing more Panchayath funds. The petition contends that the earlier September 25, 2016 resolution, which had financial and administrative sanctions and was endorsed by the District Planning Committee, could not be modified after three months, invoking Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995, and related decisions interpreting that Rule. Interim relief was granted in March 2017, with stay of Ext.P3’s implementation. The Contempt Case relates to alleged non-compliance with the stay. The respondents defend Ext.P3 on merits, arguing no procedural impropriety and that the Rule 11/13 framework is to safeguard against hasty modification, not to freeze action. Relying on Thrissur Municipal - Corporation v. E.G. Jecco, the court adopts a reading that upholds safeguard against arbitrary changes within a short period, and holds that the writ petition cannot be granted. The petition is dismissed and the contempt petition is closed, with no contumacious conduct found.

Provisions of Law Cited

Kerala Panchayath Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995 – Rule 11Municipality (Procedure For Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995 – Rule 13Article 243W, Constitution of IndiaKerala Municipality Act

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

  • Interpreting Rule 11/Rule 13 to safeguard against hasty or arbitrary modification or cancellation of resolutions passed within a short three-month window; alignment with object of the Kerala Municipality Act and Article 243W of the Constitution.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The petitioners contend Ext.P3 (28.01.2017) to revise Projects 6 and 7, by infusing more funds, is impermissible since the earlier 25.09.2016 resolution had already sanctioned the project and was approved by the District Planning Committee. Relying on Rule 11 of the 1995 Rules and prior decisions interpreting the rule to prohibit modification after three months, they challenge Ext.P3 as illegal and void. They rely on rulings of this Court interpreting Rule 11 as a barrier to post-passage alterations and seek relief setting aside Ext.P3 and halting its implementation. They also note interim relief granted on 17.03.2017 suspending Ext.P3 pending admission.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents defend Ext.P3 on merits, asserting there was no procedural irregularity and that the extension of funds was justified. They argue Rule 11/13 exist to prevent hasty or arbitrary modifications but do not preclude a lawful reconsideration within the statutory framework or when supported by relevant authorities. They rely on Thrissur Municipal - Corporation v. E.G. Jecco to argue that the rule is a safeguard, and that the interpretation adopted does not violate the object of the Kerala Municipality Act or Article 243W.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case NameCitationTreatmentExplanation
Thrissur Municipal - Corporation v. E.G. Jecco @ Jecco George and Others2018 (5) KHC 114PositiveDivision Bench interpreted Rule 13 similarly to Rule 11, holding it safeguards against hasty/arbitrary modification or cancellation of a resolution within three months; supports the interpretation adopted in the present case and the constitutional-objective of Article 243W.

Diagnostic Tool

Beta

Does this judgment govern your specific facts?

Don't risk relying on a distinguishable precedent. Enter your facts or proposition below. We will test it against Anampacha Suresh and others v. State of Kerala and others and instantly map out authorities that support, challenge, or govern your position.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2019/10TH ASHADHA, 1941 W.P(C).No.8004 OF 2017** ## **PETITIONERS:** - **1 ANAMPACHA SURESH S/O.CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 53 YEARS, MEMBER, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ANAMPACHA VEEDU, K.T. KUNNU P.O, KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **2 KALLARA BIJU AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, MEMBER, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, S.S HOUSE, KALLARA P.O, KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **3 B.BABY PILLAI AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNA PILLAI, MEMBER, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RENJITH BHAVAN, PALKULAM, KALLARA P.O., KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM** - **4 GIRIJA S.R AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.RAGHAVAN PILLAI, MEMBER, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KADAMPATTU VEEDU, MITHIRMALA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **5 PACHAYIL VIJAYAN AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.VELAYUDHA KURUP, MEMBER, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, SARASWATHY VILASOM, PACHAYIL MUKKU, KARUMBAYAM P.O., KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **6 SHANIBA.A AGED 37 YEARS, D/O.ABDUL SATHAR, MEMBER, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, FIRDOSE, PALKULAM, K.T.KUNNU P.O, KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **7 VALSALAKUMARI AGED 63 YEARS, D/O.KUTTAN PILLAI, MEMBER, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, KAMALA BHAVAN, THUMPODE, KALLARA.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **8 FASEELA BEEVI.M AGED 52 YEARS, D/O.MUHAMMED ALI, MEMBER, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, RAFI MANZIL, PAKISTAN MUKKU, MITHIRMALA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & : 2 : Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** ## **BY ADVS.SRI.D.SAJEEV SMT.LIGEY ANTONY** ## **RESPONDENTS:** |**1**|**STATE OF KERALA**| |---|---| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO**| ||**GOVERNMENT, LOCAL SELF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT,**| ||**GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM – 695001.**| |**2**|**THE DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH**| ||**DIRECTORATE OF PANCHAYATH,**| ||**PUBLIC OFFICE MUSEUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695608.**| |**3**|**THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH**| ||**OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PANCHAYATH,**| ||**CIVIL STATION, KODAPPANAKUNNU PO,**| ||**THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695608**| |**4**|**THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH**| ||**KALLARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695608,**| ||**REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.**| |**5**|**THE PRESIDENT**| ||**KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH,**| ||**KALLARA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695608.**| ||**BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2019 ALONG WITH CONT. CASE (C).NO.1084/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** **: 3 :** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 01ST DAY OF JULY 2019/10TH ASHADHA, 1941 Con.Case(C).No.1084 OF 2017 IN W.P(C).NO.8004/2017** **AGAINST THE ORDER IN WP(C).NO.8004/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 30-03-2017** ## **PETITIONER/PETITIONER NO.1 & 2:** - **1 ANAMPACHA SURESH S/O. CHELLAPPAN PILLAI, AGED 53 YEARS, MEMBER, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, ANAMPACHA VEEDU, K.T.KUNNU P.O, KALLARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** - **2 KALLARA BIJU AGED 46 YEARS, S/O.MUHAMMED HANEEFA, MEMBER, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, S.S HOUSE, KALLARA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY ADVS.SRI.D.SAJEEV SMT.LIGEY ANTONY** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT NOS.4 & 5:** - **1 M. ASHARAF AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. MEERA SAHIB, ASSISTANT SECRETARY,KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, IRAYIL HOUSE, KALLIYODU,PANAVOOR P.O, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 568.** - **2 K. SANTHAKUMAR AGED 69 YEARS, S/O. KRISHNA PILLAI, PRESIDENT, KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH, MANGALATH VEEDU, PARAPPIL, MUTHUVILA P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 610.** ## **BY ADV. SRI.SIVAN MADATHIL** **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** **: 4 :** **THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01.07.2019 ALONG WITH W.P.(C).NO.8004/2017, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & : 5 : Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** ## **J U D G M E N T** As both these cases involve a common issue, they are taken up for consideration together and disposed by this common judgment. 2. The petitioners in W.P.(C).N.8004/2017 are Grama Panchayath members representing various wards of Kallara Grama Panchayath. In the writ petition, they are aggrieved by the action of the respondent Panchayath in proceeding with the implementation of Ext.P3 Resolution that was taken in an extraordinary meeting held on 28.1.2017. By the said Resolution, the Panchayath Committee resolved to revise Project Nos.6 and 7, by infusing more of the Panchayath's funds into the Project. The grievance of the petitioners is essentially that the original Resolution passed by the Panchayath, for implementation of the Project, was in a meeting held on 25.9.2016, and financial and administrative sanctions had been accorded to the said Project pursuant to a Resolution of the Panchayath, and the same was finally approved by the District Planning committee. It is contended therefore that, by virtue of Rule 11 of the Kerala Panchayath Raj (Procedure for Panchayat Meeting) Rules, 1995 [hereinafter referred to as the “1995 Rules”], Ext.P3 Resolution, **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & : 6 : Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** which was taken in a meeting that was held more than three months after the date of the earlier Resolution, cannot be legally sustained. The petitioners place reliance on various decisions of this Court that had interpreted Rule 11 of the 1995 Rules, holding that a Resolution of the Council of the Panchayath could not be modified or cancelled after three months of its passing. 3. When the writ petition came up for admission on 9.3.2017, notice before admission was ordered to the respondents. Thereafter, on 17.3.2017, taking note of the fact that there was no appearance for the respondents even after service of notice, an interim stay of operation and implementation of Ext.P3 Resolution of the Grama Panchayath was ordered. 4. The Cont. Case No.1084/2017 is one that is filed alleging violation of the interim order of stay passed by this Court, in that the respondents have proceeded to implement the decision taken in Ext.P3 Resolution of the Panchayath, during the pendency of the writ petition. 5. Through a counter affidavit filed on behalf of the 4[th] respondent Panchayath, the decision of the Panchayath in Ext.P3 is justified, on merits, and it is contended that there is no procedural **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** **: 7 :** impropriety in passing the Resolution that is impugned in the writ petition. When the matter was taken up today for orders, it is noticed that by a judgment dated 16.10.2018 in **Thrissur Municipal - Corporation v. E.G. Jecco @ Jecco George and Others [2018 (5) KHC 114]** , a Division Bench of this Court noticed the difference in meaning in the Malayalam and English versions of Rule 13 of the Municipality (Procedure For Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995, as published. The Court held that Rule 13 of the Municipality (Procedure For Meeting of Council) Rules, 1995, which is similar to Rule 11 of the 1995 Rules, can only be seen as one intended to safeguard against any hasty or arbitrary modification or cancellation of a Resolution that is passed, within a short duration of three months from the date of its passing. The alternate interpretation of the Rule, which suggests that a Resolution of the Council cannot be modified or cancelled after three months of its passing, would run counter to the object of the Kerala Municipality Act as also Article 243W of the Constitution of India. Inasmuch as the interpretation of the Rule, as held in the aforesaid decision of the Division Bench, would squarely apply to the facts in the instant case, albeit, in its application with regard to Rule 11 of the 1995 Rules, I am of the view that the prayers sought for in the writ petition cannot be granted. Resultantly, the writ petition, in its challenge against Ext.P3 Resolution of the Panchayath, must necessarily fail. It would follow as a consequence that the **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & : 8 : Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** respondents in the Contempt Case cannot be said to be guilty of any contumacious conduct warranting the invocation of the contempt jurisdiction against them. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed, and the Contempt of Court Case is closed. **Sd/-** **A.K.JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE** **prp/2/7/19** **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** **: 9 :** ## **APPENDIX OF W.P.(C).NO.8004/2017** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MEETING NOTICE BOOK DATED 27.01.2017 EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF DPC EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 28.01.2017 EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES BOOK OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 28.01.2017 EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE DESCENDING NOTE GIVEN BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT DATED 09.02.2017 EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE DESCENDING NOTE DATED 21.02.2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. A4-1/2017 DATED 21.02.2017 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO THE 2ND PETITIONER EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE DESCENDING NOTE DATED 03.03.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE 4TH RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE GOVERNMENT ORDER NO. 20/2017/LSGD DATED 07.01.2017 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE PROJECT FORMATION FORUM - 3 WITH REGARD TO THE SO CERTIFICATION PROJECT OF KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH** **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & : 10 : Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** **EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DATED 21.02.2017 SUBMITTED BEFORE THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** **EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 24.01.2017 IN WP(C).NO.2317/2017.** **ADDL. EXHIBIT P13 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGE OF THE MINUTES OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 18.5.2018.** **ADDL. EXHIBIT P14 TRUE COPY OF THE DESCENDING NOTES SUBMITTED AGAINST THE DECISION NO.2 IN THE RESOLUTIONS DATED 18.5.2018 OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE. ADDL. EXHIBIT P15 TRUE COPY OF THE MEETING NOTICE OF THE MEETING DATED 30.6.2018 OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 22.6.2018. ADDL. EXHIBIT P16 TRUE COPY OF THE MEETING NOTICE DATED 7.5.2018 OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH.** **RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS: EXHIBIT R4(2) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE RESPONDENTS COUNCIL MEETING DATED 30.6.2018. EXHIBIT R4(3) TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE RESPONDENT'S PANCHAYATH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 9.4.2018. EXHIBIT R4(4) TRUE COPY OF THE LIST OF MEMBERS PRESENTED IN THE RESPONDENTS' PANCHAYATH COUNCIL PRESENT MEETING HELD ON 18.5.2018. EXHIBIT R4(5) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION OF THE RESPONDENT'S PANCHAYATH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 31.5.2018 ALONG WITH LIST OF MEMBERS PRESENT ON THAT COUNCIL MEETING. EXHIBIT R4(6) TRUE COPY OF THE DECISION NO.1/1 DATED 30.6.2018 OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH COUNCIL MEETING. EXHIBIT R4(7) TRUE COPY OF THE MEETING NOTICE DATED 7.5.2018 AND SUBJECTS INCLUDED FOR DISCUSSION IN THE 5TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH COUNCIL MEETING.** **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & : 11 : Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** **EXHIBIT R4(8)** **TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT PANCHAYATH COUNCIL MEETING HELD ON 18.5.2018 AND THE DETAILS OF THE MEMBERS PRESENT.** **//TRUE COPY//** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** **: 12 :** ## **APPENDIX OF CONT. CASE (C).NO.1084/2017** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **ANNEXURE I: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 17.3.2017 IN WP(C) NO.8004 OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **ANNEXURE II: TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER DATED 30.03.2017 IN WP(C).NO.8004 OF 2017 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT.** **ANNEXURE III: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DATED 26.9.2016.** **ANNEXURE IV: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE MEMBER SECRETARY OF DPC APPROVING PROJECTS DURING THE YEAR 2016-2017.** **ANNEXURE V: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO 1 (10 OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE DATED 9-2-2017 WITH RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES BOOK.** **ANNEXURE VI: TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 16.3.2017 INVITING TENDER FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE PANCHAYATH OFFICE.** **ANNEXURE VII: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.2 ACCEPTING THE TENDER PROCESS DATED 27.3.2017 AND 28.3.2017.** **ANNEXURE VIII: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES BOOK OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 10.4.2017.** **ANNEXURE IX: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES BOOK OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYATH DATED 25.4.2017.** **ANNEXURE X: TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT WHEREBY SANCTION WAS ACCORDED TO WITHDRAW RS.10 LAKHS TOWARDS THE PAYMENT OF ADVANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF ISO CERTIFICATION PROJECT ALONG WITH THE LETTER OF ALLOTMENT.** **ANNEXURE XI: TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE MINUTES BOOK OF THE GRAMA PANCHAYATH COMMITTEE MEETING DATED 25.4.2017.** **ANNEXURE XII: TRUE COPY OF THE TENDER NOTICE DATED 17.2.2017 ISSUED IN CONNECTION WITH THE URINE SHED PROJECT.** **ANNEXURE XIII: TRUE COPY OF THE RECEIPT DATED 30.3.2017 ISSUED BY THE RUBCO TO THE SECRETARY IN CONNECTION WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ISO CERTIFICATION PROJECT.** **ANNEXURE XIV: TRUE COPY OF THE AGENDA OF THE MEETING DATED 31.3.2017.** **W.P.(C).No.8004/2017 & Cont. Case (C).No.1084/2017** **: 13 :** **ANNEXURE XV: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE DATED 31.3.2017 OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT WRITTEN IN PAGE NOS.205 TO 215.** **ANNEXURE XVI: TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE COMMITTEE DATED 31.3.2017 OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT WRITTEN IN PAGE NOS.205 TO 248 WHICH CONTAINS RESOLUTION NO.VII (1).** **ANNEXURE XVII: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1(1) DATED 31.3.2017 OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT BILLS SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF AMOUNTS.** **ANNEXURE XVIII: TRUE COPY OF THE RESOLUTION NO.1(6) DATED 21.3.2017 OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT ALONG WITH THE RELEVANT BILLS BILLS SHOWING THE PAYMENT OF RS.2,00,375 AND RS.3,00,000/-.** **ANNEXURE R1: PROOF TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE MINUTES OF THE KALLARA GRAMA PANCHAYAT DATED 31.3.2017.** **ANNEXURE R2: AS PROOF TRUE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DATED 20.5.2017.** //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE